<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notes & Chat Transcript from today's VI PDP WG meeting
- To: "Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notes & Chat Transcript from today's VI PDP WG meeting
- From: "Hammock, Statton" <shammock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:59:02 -0400
Terrific. Thanks Marika. To confirm, a chat transcript will be made for each
meeting, correct?
Thanks again.
Statton Hammock
Sr. Director, Law, Policy & Business Affairs
P 703-668-5515 M 703-624-5031 <http://www.networksolutions.com>
www.networksolutions.com
________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 2:52 PM
To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notes & Chat Transcript from today's VI PDP WG meeting
Dear All,
Please find below the chat transcript and notes of today's VI PDP WG meeting.
With best regards,
Marika
===================================
Notes
Vertical Integration PDP Call 23 Mar 2010
Selection of Chair: Two Candidates- Mikey O'Connor
- Roberto Gaetano
Discussion of having them be Co-Chairs. Approval of Mikey and Roberto serving
as Co-chairs
Should we limit size of WG?
No- not now.
Frequency of Meeting: Weekly, 1 1/2 hours; Doodle to set up standard time per
week
Discussion of Objective 5:
Milton suggestion to delete it. Continue discussion on the list;
No resolution of Objective 5 today. Straw Poll to follow immediately after
call? Yes-- three questions to be raised: (i) shorter version of 5, (ii)
delete Obj 5 altogether, and (iii) none of the above
======================
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
Statton Hammock:I like this time
Antony Van Couvering:Objective 5 got redacted
Kathy Kleiman:I thought it was expanded -- again, it would be great to see
the original.
Michele Neylon:I can't make sense of that paragraph
Michele Neylon:either it's badly written or I'm really tired
Antony Van Couvering:Michele - both
Eric Brunner-Williams:it is a reasonable time in europe (where i am) and a
reasonable time in north america, it is unreasonable in asia.
Margie Milam:Kathy- Not sure how to do a side by side
Antony Van Couvering:Margie - how about one on top of the other?
Kathy Kleiman:+1
Kristina Rosette:ignore the Board resolution? goodness.
George Sadowsky:Agree with Mike
Milton:should we also ignore the DAG?
mike silber:@Kristina :-)
Roberto:Eric, I think we can discuss this in the mailing list, in case we can
use two times and flip-flop between them.
avri:how do any options have standing?
Nacho Amadoz:joining the call
George Sadowsky:Well, a major intent of the Board resoultion was to give the
policy process back to the community -- as Bruce mentioned at the Board
meeting.
Milton:agree with Jeff here
Milton:i have a very simple alternate language for Obj 5
Michele Neylon:Nacho - que tal?
Antony Van Couvering:@milton - put it out there
avri:especially given the Board's decsion, i would agree at this point as
well.
Milton:might be useful to have the entire WG charter up now
Eric Brunner-Williams:please update the "Note 5" workspace area
Antony Van Couvering:Do "wholesale markets" mean secondary markets as well?
avri:every decsin should be reviewed at the next meeting as well
Statton Hammock:I can agree with deleting the phrase beginning with
"constitute a material deviation....
avri:you can put the motion in, but allow it to be withdrawn if the consensus
goes awry
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I agree with Stratton's suggestion
Kristina Rosette:Agree with Stephane's characterization of Council thinking
on timing.
Milton:yes
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):sorry, statton
Eric Brunner-Williams:i'm going to be off the A/V in a minute or so as my
train and i part, a written summary would be helpful. thanks everyone.
Richard Tindal:i agree with Milton
Jeff Neuman:Nor do we have the expertise in this group
Antony Van Couvering:I like Milton's idea
mike silber:Using all information that has been collected by ICANN to date AS
WELL AS OTHER INFORMATION THAT CAN BE COLLECTED WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES OF THE
WG, determine THE MOST APPROPRIATE restrictions (IF ANY) and/or practices
concerning registry-registrar separation and equivalent, non-discriminatory
access (INCLUDING current and past restrictions and practices regarding
registry-registrar separation) FOR BOTH NEW GTLDs AS WELL AS EXISTING GTLDs IN
THE BEST INTERESTS OF (a) INTERNET USERS IN GENERAL AND (b) REGISTRANTS OF
DOMAIN NAMES, AND (c) THE RETAIL AND WHOLESALE MARKETS FOR DOMAIN NAMES.
Jeff Neuman:However, that research does need to be done
Kristina Rosette:hate to rain on the parade, but we can't modify the Charter.
Council has to.
Stéphane Van Gelder:Agree with the idea of deleting Obj 5
Milton:So, two simple alternatives: delete it altogether or chop off after
"...nondiscriminatory acccess."
Kathy Kleiman:Tx Mike!
Jeffrey Eckhaus:Obj 3 & 4 also have references to previous DAG
Jothan Frakes:Mike S I like your wording but it leaves room for scope creep
Eric Brunner-Williams:agree kristina, we had this problem on FF, charter
needed (then) to go back to council
Milton:Now that all objectives are up, it seems to be that most of what we
want to do is covered in Obj 1.
Margie Milam:The Final Approved Charter is Up now
Statton Hammock:I like deleting Obj 5. I don't think it helps drive us to
consensus.
ken stubbs:kristina is correct here.. we can make recommendation to council..
Jeff Neuman:I agree with Brian
Jeff Neuman:We cannot change directions without the research
Jothan Frakes:Brian, Jeff, the research / analysis inject delay
Statton Hammock:We can build consensus without research.
Jeff Neuman:Then stick with the Baseline proposal
mike silber:COULD WE LOOK AT oNJECTVE 5 AS A PHASE 2 OF WORK?
avri:i am comfortable with cutting 5 after access, but do not beleive we
should remove 5.
mike silber:/sorry about the caps/
avri:i think there is merit in phasing the work
Roberto:I don't think that objective 5 is essential, so we can chop it off
without a big detriment
Eric Brunner-Williams:research is good. persuasion without facts is .... iffy
Jothan Frakes:+1 on striking from access to end of Obj 5
Gisella Gruber-White:Steve Pinkos has joined
Phil Buckingham:We have to have analysis to back up the work .
Milton:if we do phase it, the research has to come first
Antony Van Couvering:What is the diff btwn economic analyses that are subject
to second-guessing, and fortune telling?
Roberto:... and avoid the risk of losing a lot of time discussing on
something that is controversial, but not essential
Kristina Rosette:Disagree with Stephane about the Council issue. The vote on
the charter was dependent on having A version of objective 5. There is
definitely a chance that deleting it altogether could result in a different
Council vote.
Antony Van Couvering:Economic analyses to date have not solved any problems
or been any basis for agreement
avri:but perhaps we do have consensus on M's first suggestion.
Kristina Rosette:@avri. I think you're right.
Jothan Frakes:Can we come to consensus on Milton's suggestion
Milton:but the first suggestion does imply that we are purporting to know the
"effects"
Jeff Neuman:Avri - I need to give some thought to Milton's proposal and see
it in writing before declaring consensus
Alan:My comment that I can't make: Although I agree that we have neither the
time nor resources to do a substantive and thorough analysis of impact, but we
also cannot just ignore the issue.
Milton:I don't thinkwe should admit defeat
Richard Tindal:Mickey - i am very oppoed to extending timelines
Jeff Neuman:I know people want to move fast, and I am not advocating delay,
but we need to think about what we are proposing
J.C. Vignes:Doesn't phasing means more delays?? We don't need more delays!
Antony Van Couvering:Please see Objective 6 - should not delay introduction
of new gTLDs
J.C. Vignes:Phasing is a terrible idea and saying that Brussels is "just a
step" is a terrible signal to send
Jeff Neuman:Antony, how is objective 6 not being met?
Palage:In the High Security Zone Working Group - our timeline is to get in
done in a timely manner - we have decided to do month snapshot to inform the
community that we are moving forward and making progress - artificial timelines
help no one
Alan:We may not need delays, but we also don't need bad policy either.
Jeff Neuman:The Board has established a baseline
avri:isn't the Dag' suggestion already gone based on the Board's decsion?
Antony Van Couvering:See comments by JC, Tindal
Jothan Frakes:absense of deadlines actually cause harm, though, mike p
Ben Anderson:Even though the process has taken some considerable time
already, consultation with all interested parties is necessary and is time
consuming.
Kristina Rosette:Liz - When do the WG guidelines go into effect?
Statton Hammock:I am opposed to phasing. Let's see if we can't tackle
Objectives 1-4 which don't require research, in my opinion.
avri:the idea was not to do new studies but to talk our way through the work
already done. wasn't it?
J.C. Vignes:I second Statton's comment
Milton:yes
mike silber:yes avri
Jothan Frakes:+1 Statton
Jeff Neuman:But the work done by staff was incomplete and insufficient at best
Antony Van Couvering:+1 Statton
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):agree with statton
Antony Van Couvering:I have a hard stop
Statton Hammock:@Jeff. Indeed, but we are, where we are.
avri:no hard stop for me.
Frederick Felman:hard stop
mike silber:HOWEVER - the Board resolution did NOT throw out the DAG
suggestion. It threw it back to the GNSO to support / amend / impove
ken stubbs:am free to continue for extra 1/2 hr if needed
Richard Tindal:I think staff research to date was performed by well qualified
parties
J.C. Vignes:hard stop
George Sadowsky:no hard stop
Jeffrey Eckhaus:can keep going
Stéphane Van Gelder:hard stop
Jarkko Ruuska:no hard stop
Milton:quick question: why can't we have a quick straw poll on deleting Obj 5
vs cutting it in half?
Liz Gasster:e are operating under the ''guidelines'' now but there is a
process for finalizing after comment period, Working Group team finalizes,
sends to PPSC
mike silber:can carry on for another few minutes
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):can carry on
Jeff Neuman:Richard - a 7 page double page report on the market analysis of
vertical integration can hardly be deemed sufficient work;
Tom Barrett - EnCirca:keep going. let's get through the agenda
Statton Hammock:Are chats recorded or not?
Kristina Rosette:@Liz: so what's the status of the WG guidelines that deal
with requests for expert advice?
Michele Neylon:Statton - usually not ..
Jeffrey Eckhaus:Is length of report the judge of the quality of the report?
Marika Konings:Yes, chats can be recorded and circulated to the WG if the
group would like to receive these
avri:the phasing could have been decsions pertinent to the current round
versus decsisisns related to incumbents and future rounds
Margie Milam:The questions are up now
Kristina Rosette:@Marika: Given how many people we have and how limited time
is, it would be very helpful, I think, to have access to the chats
Statton Hammock:Given the size of the group, I think it would be good to
capture chats. A lot of substantive comments may be made here.
Antony Van Couvering:Agree with Jeffrey Eckhaus - what does the size of the
report have to do with anything? As usual, the "quality" of any study seems to
have to do with its conclusions and not the validity of its methodology
Marika Konings:I will mail them to the WG after each call
Liz Gasster:@ KR: that is really being dealt with in PDP review by PDP WT --
encouraging use of experts when/as needed
Brian Cute:can we get #2 corrected to add "acting" to "those [acting] as
registrars"
Jothan Frakes:Antony, Agree, but like when support data is included
Richard Tindal:given that we dont know what tlds will be applied for, or
their intended business models, or how the market will react to them I dont
know how we would perform empirical research
Antony Van Couvering:Richard, you risk making sense
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I would focus on our work and not on asking
questions to the board. As mike said, they are looking for us to drive policy
Milton:ok but htere are 49 people here
Jothan Frakes:+1 Richard. What kind of Empirical research happened prior
to adding COM/NET/ORG?
Antony Van Couvering:Must go. Cheerio see you next week....
Jeff Neuman:Agree with Roberto
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):or doodle, as I hope not to get huge amount of email
Milton:ok
Statton Hammock:48 attendees. How many more volunteers are not on the call?
Jothan Frakes:[Great to hear Roberto's voice btw]
Jeffrey Eckhaus:24 hour deadline on list. Sounds good
Kristina Rosette:it shoudl ask both, in my view
Milton:both
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):agreed, both
ken stubbs:like to hear george's comments
Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:we can try redefining obj 5
Jothan Frakes:good job Mikey
Jeff Neuman:So milton's comment that the Board doesnt know what its
resolution means is accurate?
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):thanks all
Alan:Regarding question to Board, knowing exactly what the Board meant may
increase chances that we find a solution and don't let that baseline come into
being.
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):good job chairs
avri:nice talking to y'all
Kathy Kleiman:bye all
Phil Buckingham:great start everyone
mike silber:no alan it will not!
Jeff Neuman:Mike - What did the Board intend?
Jeff Neuman:What is the baseline?
Jothan Frakes:Alan, seems like a non-starter
Jothan Frakes:I thought that the effort of this group was to carve holes in
0% with reasonable justifications
George Sadowsky:Jothan - I can't comment on what the goal of the group is,
but I think the intent of the Board was to return the policy issues to the
community and trust that the result would be ...
George Sadowsky:a policy that was accenptable to the community and recognized
ICANN's obligation to the public interest.
Jothan Frakes:different words, but I got that too
avri:and i thank the board for that. it seems like we have a fainrly, as
goerge said, Draconian baseline. if we want to move off of theat, we come to
consensus.
George Sadowsky:exactly
Jothan Frakes:agree
Jeff Neuman:Everyone says we have a draconian baseline, but no one can define
what that baseline is
Jothan Frakes:and then, with justifications from the community, holes can get
poked in 0
Jeff Neuman:I am a littlle speachless on this
Richard Tindal:i think the Board resolution is pretty clear
Jothan Frakes:Jeff, baseline seems pretty clear to me
Richard Tindal:zero cross ownership in new TLDs
Jothan Frakes:=0% cross ownership
Milton:duh
Jeff Neuman:Jothan - I have talked to 16 different people on this and not one
of them comes back with the same explanation
Milton::-)
Richard Tindal:only ambiguity is whether or not a DNS provider is a registry
services provider
Richard Tindal:i would say 'not'
Jothan Frakes:depends on if one has a TLD or not now, and if they have any
registrar/registry cross ownership
George Sadowsky:Jothan - agree that 0=0%. But is't there a larger framework
in which to consider these issues - other dimensions?
Michele Neylon:Jothan - what if I provide colo services to them?
Michele Neylon:Seriously like - it's not that bloody simple
Richard Tindal:I'm interpreting 'registry services' per the tech definition
in DAG
Milton:all those picky but important detail questions should be considered in
our policy making. to expect the board to have anticpated them is unrealistic.
Jeff Neuman:Agree with Michele; there is a definition of registry services in
teh contracts
Richard Tindal:so colo services would not be registry services
Jeff Neuman:and lots of entities fall within there
Jeff Neuman:Iron Mountain performs registry services as an escrow provider
Jothan Frakes:@George... yes, certainly that's how we as a WG carve holes in
0%
Michele Neylon:Jeff - exactly
Michele Neylon:We provide registry services - depending on who you ask
Michele Neylon:and some of them I only found out about by accident
Jeff Neuman:and "acting as a registrar" - does that mean with the TLD which
you are the registry...or being a registrar for any TLD?
Mikey O'Connor:Jeff and all -- how about if we the WG were to answer your
questions for the Board, rather than the other way around?
Jothan Frakes:@jeff, @Michele you're saying that there need be more clarity
in what constitutes cross ownership... ok so that's in q4.A above
Richard Tindal:if they had meant the TLD in question I think they would have
said so
George Sadowsky:If the most favorable interpretation of the baseline is not
acceptable, then the details don't matter (a la Milton). If the most favorable
interpretation appears really good, then I guess there's no pressure to work
toward a diferent outcome within the PDP
Jothan Frakes:+1 george
Richard Tindal:+2
Jeff Neuman:Some of us may favor the baseline though with some minor
clarifications -- I am not aying I do, but some may favor no cross ownership
Michele Neylon:Jothan - the resolution is broader than that tbh
Jeff Neuman:George - ICANN Staff needs guidance on the Board's directives.
Jothan Frakes:trust me, I felt the board resolution, its still echoing
Jeff Neuman:If the Board is unable to answer these questions, then staff will
make it up
Michele Neylon:Jeff - which probably isn't a good idea
Richard Tindal:Jeff -then you will simply propose what you want and argue
its merits Board language shouldnt be important to that
George Sadowsky:Jeff (;-)
Jothan Frakes:lol jeff
Jothan Frakes:was that intentional humor?
Jothan Frakes:or accidental :)
Jeff Neuman:ironic humor
Jeff Neuman:It would be funny if it werent so sad
Jeff Neuman::)
Jeff Neuman:(sorry to staff on this chat), but certain staff members have a
model they prefer and have been pushing it from day 1
Michele Neylon:well it's an unfair burden on staff
Michele Neylon:either the board issues edicts that are clear
Michele Neylon:or they take the time to explain them
Jothan Frakes:@Jeff, Michele sounds like it needs a little more granular
breakdown
Michele Neylon:and by clear I mean - clear enought that people of reasonable
intelligence can understand what they are referring to
Jothan Frakes:amen to that
Jeff Neuman:Agreed. We should all know what discussions took place at the
Board workshop behind closed doors and why they chose the words they did. I do
not believe that resolutions are drafted on the fly. Every word must mean
something
Michele Neylon:As a contracted party I cannot allow us, as a company, to end
up in a situation where we could be in breach of a policy
Alan:Agree Michele, don't think there is any benefit in different people
having very diferent views of what the baseline is (ie whether it helps of
hurts them to have this wg fail)
Jeff Neuman:I draft resolutions for my company. And every word is carefully
drawn up
Jothan Frakes:I also historically have seen that the board looks to the GNSO
and the community to define these whitespaces. I saw Mikey suggest that we as
the WG perhaps make some definitions
Phil Buckingham:Mikey - I agree with you - we give definitions to the Board
on all the scenarios of ownership / control / contractual relationships
Margie Milam:Sorry- I think it is better that the whole group discuss this
on the list so I will shut it down now
Michele Neylon:ROFL
Michele Neylon:Margie hath spoken :)
Jothan Frakes:It might be helpful for us as a group to provide definitions
for the board to callibrate and return vs. having them define them
Alan:I have no problem if this wg were to make binding definitions on what
the Board baseline means, but that could take us our whole time...
Margie Milam:sorry folks!
Jothan Frakes:Nice chatting everyone, will move this to list
Mikey O'Connor:thanks all. very helpful...
Jothan Frakes:Margie let George finish his thought
Jothan Frakes:pretty please
Michele Neylon:Let her shut it down
George Sadowsky:This has been a good discussion, and I'm sure that Mike has
made as mamny mental notes as I have regarding the points of view and specific
points made. I llook forward to more interaction. But I would encourage you
to focus as much opr more on the kind of policy that youas members of the
community would like to see in place in the short to medium run.
George Sadowsky:that's it - i'm out of here ,,,,bye
Richard Tindal:amen
Jothan Frakes:thx everyone
Jothan Frakes:and thanks margie for the extra seconds
J.C. Vignes:indeed, thanks Margie!
------ End of Forwarded Message
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|