[gnso-vi-feb10] Notes and chat transcript

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the notes and chat transcript of today’s VI PDP WG meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

=============

Notes:

3 - would deleting objective 5 mean that the charter would be rejected or 
council would just need to approve this change? Over half of respondents 
preferred to delete objective 5. Consider working on longer term objective 
covering items in objective 5.
How can WG make recommendation for changes without undertaking the necessary 
research?
Consider recommending changes in steps - prove / demonstrate effects per 
scenario. Complete study will take too much time to complete in time for DAG4.
Determine first whether there is agreement on certain parts before deciding on 
the 'grand plan'.
GNSO Council has last word on objective 5 - request Council to come back with 
suggested wording for objective 5 in due time. In meantime, WG will ignore 
objective 5 until GNSO Council reaches consensus on language for objective 5. 
Discuss further at the end of the meeting.

4a. Review of Mikey's draft work plan
- Don't exclude ideas / options in first phase - allow WG members to put 
forward models for consideration in phase I
- Are DAG timelines written in stone? May 15 deadline for DAG 4. DAG approval 
in Brussels?
- What is drop dead date for board to consider WG position?
- Consider working through different scenarios and applying objective 1-4 and 
determine where there is consensus / agreement. That might be feasible before 
Brussels.

4d. If no major objections are raised, the public comment forum will be opened 
later today.

Chat Transcript VI WG Meeting 29 March 2010

avri:I think the council needs to approve any change in the charter, including 
any rewording we did to the charter.  not sure why this would be a 'special' 
issue. or are we worried they would reject the dropping of 5.  I do not see why 
this would entail losing the entire charter.
  avri:a majority, but not a consensus
  Tim Ruiz:I agree with Avri. However 5 is amended (changed or deleted), 
Council needs to review and approve. That does not call the entire charter into 
question.
  avri:who is to determine a big versus a little change.
  avri:so any change xxx disagrees with is a big change?
  Berry Cobb:I still believe we can conduct an analysis within the time frame 
alloted.  Avri, Milton & Michaels survey with the "Hypotheticals" is a good 
start.  I would really call them use cases.  With each use case, we review the 
benefits & harm for Ry, Rr, Registrants, and Consumers.
  Berry Cobb:I also agree with Milton suggestion of removing the last part of 
obj 5....no need to determine if there is a material deviation....as after the 
board resolution there is none.
  avri:BTW, removing 5 is not majority (50+%), but only plurality (48)
  avri:never mind - wrong about that.
  Jeff Neuman:Berry - depends what we are analyzing
  Jeff Neuman:and how long it takes
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:oops, got cut off...
  Jothan Frakes:Trouble with further survey and/or studies, though, is going to 
introduce further delay and those who disagree with the outcomes will say 'we 
didn't get it right'
  ken stubbs:amadeu is back on with his question
  Berry Cobb:the use case study can be completed by us....we have 
representation by all stakeholder groups....I think we can make educated 
attempts as to who benefits and who is harmed by each use case.  Keep it simple 
with ratings for each group
  Jeff Neuman:If Mikey calls on me first befor Amadeu, I will yield to him
  Richard Tindal:i agree with Tim
  Jothan Frakes:that's fair Berry.  But let's get this done in our available 
timeline.  We're saying that June is ambitious but looking at a process that 
started 12 or more years ago, I think we've covered a lot of ground
  avri:had to hear amadeu
  avri:hard
  Phil Buckingham:i feel me must do analysis of the current situation . the 
most important thing is to a thorough job , but do it in time before 
applications start . that will be jan 2011 ? we need a timeframe . i cannot 
apply for a .dot royal untill i have understanding of vi solution / decision 
made.
  ken stubbs 2:is the sound as bad for many of you as it is for me ?
  Michele Neylon:avri - so it's not just me
  Michele Neylon:Mikey - could you please ask him to speak up
  Michele Neylon:I can hear everyone else fine
  avri:me  too
  Roberto:I think it's the bad line, not volume
  avri:better now
  ken stubbs 2:very good now
  avri:maybe the mouthpeice moved
  Jothan Frakes:It is possible also to call into these calls using the USA toll 
free # via skype
  Michele Neylon:now he's perfectly audible
  avri:you get lots of noise when you skype in sometimes.
  Michele Neylon:Jothan - didn't know that was possible
  Alan Greenberg:Jothan, it is possible, but calling in via skype often causes 
all sorts of problems (echos, noise...)
  palage:+1 Jeff
  Jothan Frakes:not too bad if one is courteous about using the *6 mute alan
  palage:We do it right - or use the default
  Phil Buckingham:i agree board are not going to wait for us , will default to 
status quo
  Jothan Frakes:I agree with that statement mike
  Richard Tindal:Me too
  avri:not really, anytime i unmuted to get in the queue i blasted everyone on 
the call with noise.  this was from Brasil.
  Jothan Frakes:with the refinement being that we do it without delay
  Jeff Neuman:How can you say we get there is we get there?  If we propose any 
real changes, then doesnt that need the appropriate analysis?
  avri:not a complete study, but an anaylsis using avaialble information.
  avri:majority not consensus, and we don't vote in WGs.
  palage:roberto - if we do not complete our work on time - then the default is 
the Board resolution
  avri:i would think we need a consensus in order to request the council to 
change the charter
  Scott Austin:why are we opting out so early? what level of research/analysis 
is required beyond the economist documents we have access to from GU and Georg 
Mason
  Jothan Frakes:avri, with the benefit of your experience, what would allow us 
to illustrate consensus?
  JOn Nevett:hasn't ICANN beem studying and analyzong this issue for well over 
a year?  Why do we think that we have to start from scratch?
  Jeff Neuman:Scott - The analysis by those economists were insufficient and 
rudimentary and are not based on assumptions that many of us agree with
  avri:we don't
  Jothan Frakes:I see
  Berry Cobb:Agreed Jeff!
  Phil Buckingham:when is the latest date of completion so that vi solution is 
put in final dag 5 ???????
  Jeff Neuman:For example, the economic reports assume that all TLDs are market 
substitutes and assumes a complete elasticity of demand...which we all know is 
not true at all
  Tim Ruiz:Jeff, I'm not we will ever agree on assumptions to start with that 
would result in anything different.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):The fact that an issue isn't studied perfectly, 
does not mean that it has not been studied effectively
  Jothan Frakes:don't say dag 5 phil
  Jothan Frakes:please, plenty of D's
  Jeff Neuman:Actually Gray, if the assumptions are faulty, then the 
conclusions are by definition faulty
  Jothan Frakes:Time for final AG
  Jothan Frakes:as opposed to DAG 5
  palage:Totally agree Jeff N - GIGO - Garbage in Garbage out
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Jeff, I said 'perfectly'
  Alan Greenberg:Assuming that the Board resolution is taken literally, NO 
co-ownership is allowed, which is stricter that the situation for the current 
gTLDs. So even the status quo means we need to make SOME recomendations.
  Jeff Neuman:I am not looking for perfect...just reasonable
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):see Tim's comment re: assumptions
  Scott Austin:Has there been any analysis by a third party that was acceptable 
to this group? If there is too little time for a meaningful analysis why form 
the group other than to rubber stamp the default, status quo
  Jothan Frakes:+1 to David, Ken  let's come up with something ignoring #5
  avri:but several flawed studies may be equiv to one decent study.  since they 
were flawed in diferent directions.
  Richard Tindal:Doesnt 5 say 'using all information collected to date"?  I 
dont think its asking us to collect more data
  Kathy Kleiman:+1
  Roberto:Maybe we can suspend #5 until the Council does not come up with a 
formulation? After all, it all started because different constituencies have 
different formulations
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Just noting time spent on this issue has exceeded 
15 min. I believe
  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Brian
  Jeff Neuman:Richard - The data collected already (if that refers to their 
economists) was garbage
  Jeff Neuman:So yes we do need more datat
  Jothan Frakes:avri, while I agree with you, the perception of flaw in studies 
often is subjective as to how interpreted and what those who identify flaw have 
as a stake is in outcome
  Jothan Frakes:+1 Tim, Ken, David
  avri:yes, Jothan and any study will be flawed in that way.
  Jeff Neuman:Jothan -you could say the same thing about the Board's 
resolution....
  JOn Nevett:i agree with tim
  Statton Hammock:Agree with Tim. No consensus on 5 and it is a roadblock. That 
is why I voted to delete. focus on Obj 1-4
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I agree with Tim
  Krista Papac:I agree with Tim
  Jeff Neuman:I am fine with recommending deletion ONLY if it means that we are 
not dropping the notion of doing the requisite analysis
  Jothan Frakes:Jeff the board resolution, however, is something that carries 
weight and can be actioned upon
  J.C. Vignes 2:I agree with Tim
  avri:and we give them the feedback from the survey to chew on.?
  JOn Nevett:it means that we meet objectives 1-4
  Jothan Frakes:are we saying that by removing objective 5 might open the door 
to ALLOWING further study?
  Scott Austin:why delete 5 why not just say we neither support or refute it, 
i.e. we abstain.
  Kathy Kleiman:good ques Jeff
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Nevett +1
  Jeff Neuman:JOn - Please explain what it means in your mind to meet 
objectives 1-4
  Roberto:Scott, that's close enough to what I am trying to say
  Richard Tindal:Given that we dont know what TLDs will be proposed,  what 
business models they intend to employ, or how the market will react to them I 
dont know how we can do 'research'
  Berry Cobb:We can SWG.  Smart Wild Ass Guess.
  Jothan Frakes:Richard, true, EoI bypass did cripple
  Berry Cobb:SWAG
  Jeff Neuman:Richard - That's a cop out especially when you know the models 
you will propose, but haven't revealed them :)  Regardless, one can do the 
appropriate research on the market, regulatory conditions, etc.
  Richard Tindal:swag doesnt sound like 'research'
  Tim Ruiz:EWAG - Educated Wild Ass Guess :)
  Jothan Frakes:isn't swag the junk people hand out at tradeshows?
  Berry Cobb:I have a visual of what this simple Use Case analysis could look 
like.  I will take the action of putting a template together that leverages 
what M,M&A started.  I will post to the list by tomorrow.  If no one likes its, 
then I will step dwon from soap box.
  Berry Cobb:M,M&A = Michael, Milton, & Avri.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):"EWAG" isn't that every prediction about the future 
:)
  Jothan Frakes:those fenceposts are ICANN meetings on these
  Richard Tindal:i can think of 100 more use cases
  Berry Cobb:Richard, then can I count on you to help identify the big ones?
  Richard Tindal:no   i dont know what will be 'big'   no-one does
  Berry Cobb:Thanks
  JOn Nevett:i have a hard time counting on "lucky breaks"
  palage:ok
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I am in favor of getting things done.
  avri:Barry:  i like the idea;  Richard, i can think of lots of other cases as 
well, but other cases that bing out a specific problem not already visibile in 
one of te curent casees?  if so, please sugest more.  we cut out a few becasue 
we were trying to get a minimal set that included the improtant questions.  but 
there is no pretending that ALL the improtnat elements have been caught.
  palage:Thanks Mikey
  avri:if that is the hard deadline, then why are we not backscheduling orm 
that.
  avri:and how does that fit with the 16 week deadline given in the charter.
  Jeff Neuman:hmmm-  What about giving the staff a deadline of April 15th to 
give us the details on how they would implement the Board's resolution so that 
we have enough time to discuss it for the deadline they gave us for May 
15th.....
  avri:hy spend time figuring out we cannot meet the schdule instead of working 
to meet the schedule.
  Scott Austin:good points palage I agree with not throwing out 5 or taking 
registries being their own registrar off the table at this stage in the 
process, especially if there is work product in prior gTLD contract 
negotiations that have considered these issues in depth -  with reputable 
authors and extensive, detailed, well supported analyses.
  palage:My how time files when you are having fun
  palage:oh so true Tim
  Statton Hammock:Agree with Tim. Let's take some of the more solid proposals 
and do some analysis and try to get a consensus.
  Richard Tindal:Me too
  avri:right settle on a base by next week and discuss for another week or so 
to find an agreeable consensus point.
  JOn Nevett:sounds good -- let's get it on.
  Krista Papac:i agree with Tim
  avri:and week oneof the two weeks is gone.
  Jeff Neuman:Thanks Jeff E.
  Jeff Neuman:That was my point and I lowered my hand.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I like it, let's start talking about substance
  Statton Hammock:Yep. Let's chew on a proposal.
  J.C. Vignes 2:@gray +1 !!
  avri:substance, yes,  yeah for substance!
  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Jeff E., no objection.
  Volker Greimann:time is short enough as it is and there is more than enough 
to discuss
  avri:once we have the proposals we can use a wikito focus the info
  Jeff Neuman:I wish there were something easier to use than that wiki....Or 
maybe it is just me.
  avri:wiki is easy, i htink.
  Jeff Neuman:ok...its just me :)
  Michele Neylon:I don't like wikis either :)
  avri:yeah, i mena i am old and a grandmother so as we know if a grandmother 
can do it, anyone can.
  Statton Hammock:You're doing a great job Mikey keeping a good pace.
  avri:i heard that truth in ICANN.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I know some hard core grannies that I can't keep up 
with...
  Scott Austin:Mikey, what should be the format of proposals? redline of 
existing policy documents, should we footnote economics texts from academics, 
case law, or can we rely on items raised in prior gTLD negotiations on these 
items? Any guidance on this?
  Jeff Neuman:Section 7(d)(1) of the PDP
  avri:isn't the learning curve their problem.  read the list, read the 
minutes, listen to the calls and you are caught up.
  avri:also notice how few people actually speak up, no matter what the size.
  palage:Thanks Mikey and Roberto for the clarification
  Richard Tindal:Format of proposals = simple
  Jeff Neuman:I do not think we need to prescribe formats of proposals
  avri:agreeing of the format of a proposal can take as long as agreeing on the 
proposal iself.
  J.C. Vignes:thanks!
  Jothan Frakes:thank you mikey and roberto
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):thank you chairs for keeping us on track.
  Volker Greimann:thank you