[gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Notes & Chat Transcript from Today's Vertical Integration Call

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find attached the notes and chat transcript from today's call.

Best Regards,

Margie

______________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
______________

VI Agenda 5 April 2010
- Review and approve agenda - 5 minutes
- Roll call - 1 minute
- Discuss proposals - 30 minutes
- Discuss use-cases - 15 minutes
- Discuss analysis options and approach - 10 minutes
- Discuss process and tools - 15 minutes
- Solicit more proposals and use-cases
- Form sub-groups for proposals?
- Form a sub-group for use-cases and use-case analysis?
- Tools to support sub-groups?
- AOB (any other business) - 14 minutes
_____________
Notes:
Next week:  Eric B-W and Mike Palage/Avri/Milton to present proposal
Jeff N. presents NeuStar Proposal, and explains how differs from Registry SG 
position.  Answers questions related to limits of domains that can be 
registered by the registry- 30,000 maximum  proposal came from existing 
agreements and is open for discussion.
Jeff E. presents Demand Media Proposal-
Clarification needed for what is a "single owner/registrant"; may need to 
consider use.
Jon Nevett presents Proposal-
Clarifies that some of his proposal, such as the 15% ownership threshold, was 
proposed to reflect the status quo in current contracts.
________________
Is there interest in forming a sub-group on "use cases"?
Roberto suggests that we develop an evaluation process  from which to analyze 
the various proposals.
Kathy Kleiman willing to volunteer to attempt to develop definitions.
Mikey to reevalute and refine proposal to identify an evaluation mechanism for 
discussion at next meeting.
_________________
Suggestions for administrative tools to facilitate group-  such as continuous 
polling on the various proposals to see what is gaining traction.  Chairs are 
evaluating these and other ideas to help advance the group's work.
Ken Stubb's proposal-   face to face might be useful to work out the details of 
a proposal to help get to closure quickly.
Jeff E.-  Suggests setting a deadline for submitting proposals.
JJJ Subgroup to form to see if they can work out the differences between each 
of their proposals.  Glen to set up an email list for the Triple J Subteam.


________________________________________
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:28 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  J.C. Vignes:Jeff E +1
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:are we assuming that single-registrant TLD's will have 
a whois?
  Jeff Neuman:No surpose that the registrar members of this WG and new TLD 
applicants are agreeing with Jeff E :)
  Alan Greenberg:Tom: Think of it asa conceptual whois at this time.
  Jeff Neuman:surprise
  avri:tha is not an adequate defniton of single registrant to my mind.  then 
again, it may be a way for someone to avoid whois  in their TLD just by not 
listing anyone but themselves for any name.
  Antony VC 2:As Tom B says, single-registrant is a huge loophole.  I'll just 
be a single-registrant and "license" SLDs. That way I can avoid ICANN fee as 
well.
  Jothan Frakes:Jeff N has good elements, I just think that Jeff E's has 
plussed them up and made them more market compatible in real world
  Antony VC 2:Jeff N - tell you what - I won't question your motives if you 
would do me to favor of not questioning mine.  Actually many of us would just 
like to get something simple and workable.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:suppose we make "whois" go away (after all, we've been 
trying to do just that since circa 2000, and suppose the law enforcement and 
marks interests bought the better query tool, then what is "SR" if it is 
whois-defined?
  Jeff Neuman:Actually no need to question motives when they are out in the 
open. Wasnt questioning your motive at all....we all know it :)
  Antony VC 2:It would be great to get a rationale for a certain percentage of 
ownership - as opposed to all or nothing at all.  Why is this preferable, and 
why will it work better?
  avri:adding whois to this issues, even as a criteria, is a sure way to kill 
any progress in VI.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:yup
  Jothan Frakes:+1000 Avri
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:then we should avoid use of the term "registrant", as 
it only exists in the context of whois
  Alan Greenberg:From my point of view, SR should not be whois based, but that 
seemed a simple shorthand for saying that all second level names were under 
control of the TLD operator.
  Jeff Neuman:+1 Alan
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:re: ownership:  the only rationale is to allow 
demininis ownership for public companies and past employees?
  Jeff Neuman:Control is a key term that will need to be incorporated at a lot 
of different levels
  avri:i cannto acept a notion that SR is restricted onl to pcommerical 
applicants.  htee must be a notion of SR that applies to the non-commercial.
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:as a registrar:  we have customers/users...which may or 
may not be reflected in the whois
  Jothan Frakes:Alan, I agree, yet it seems to me like "ALL" sld names is 
likely to have some exceptions or at least may need some room to accomodate 
real-world scenrios
  Antony VC 2:Single registrant, in at least one sense, is just a way for a 
"brand" to allocate domain names without having to play by the rules. If they 
are going to simply anyone who has a contract with the registry/registrant (is 
there a difference in this example), then each registry is just a "single 
registrant."
  Eric Brunner-Williams:what was the name of the person who just presented, 
after jeff neuman and before michael palage?
  Jothan Frakes:Eric that was Jeff Eckhaus
  Antony VC 2:EBW - that was Jeff Eckhaus
  Eric Brunner-Williams:thx!
  Alan Greenberg:Avri - agree that if we have a concept of SR, it should not in 
any way be restricted to commercial.
  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Amadeu
  avri:well why would anyone change a a masterpiece? (-:
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:in terms of SR metaphors...would gmail.com, twitter.com 
or facebook.com be SR is they became their own TLDs?
  Eric Brunner-Williams:SR != VI
  Antony VC 2:Tom Barrett -- exactly!
  avri:but true VI (i.e no equivalent acess) may only ocur in SR.
  Berry Cobb:Single Entity, Single Registrant, Single Owner, dot_brand, 
etc......bottom line we all need to define and agree on what we are going to 
call it and move one from there
  Antony VC 2:Jon - would love to hear your idea of why a certain percentage 
makes sense
  Antony VC 2:Alternatively, explain why .mobi language makes sense - thx
  Alan Greenberg:Tom, if they were willing to take reponsibility for everything 
that was done under the second level domains, and didn't charge for them, and 
were willing to pay the ICANN fees, perhaps they would be. But in reality, I 
suspect that they would likely have a small number of SLD and do all of the 
user-assignment at the third level.
  Jeff Neuman:I still believe that Jeff E. Jon N., and I should have 1 subgroup 
to work on proposals since there is a lot of overlap.  We may not agree on 
everything and may produce a list of options, but it does not make sense to 
work separately on these proposals.
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:well today,  Goggle does not take responsibility for 
cybersquatting in gmail.  are we saying they would need to with a gmail TLD?
  Roberto:@Berry my guess is that we still need to define what we mean before 
we can use the correct name, all those "Single *" mean slightly different things
  Statton Hammock:I was thinking the same thing Jeff N.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I am OK with that but think we need a separate group on 
Single Registrant TLD
  Alan Greenberg:If they give me "alangreenberg.gomail" I would think they 
would have to. currently, any cybersquatting in gmail is not at the domain name 
level, but at the user name which is not regulated at all.
  Jothan Frakes:'currently'
  Alan Greenberg:alangreenberg.gmail that is...
  Roberto:Jeff E, would a subgroup be needed to define what we mean by Single 
Registrant (or Single Owner, or Single Brand)?
  Antony VC 2:At ICANN, everything temporary is permanent
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):@Jeff N., that seems like a good move
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:SIngle User
  Tim Ruiz:And everything permanent is temporary...
  Antony VC 2::-)
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Roberto - yes, that is the idea
  Tim Ruiz:Single Registrant Single User gTLD
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:SRSU works for me
  Jothan Frakes:is there room for a fast-track of a registrar application in 
the event that a registry which is getting low/no registrations has to set up 
one?
  avri:tim and the corollary - there is nothing so permanent as a temporary 
solution
  Tim Ruiz:Just pointing out that things tend to become slippery slopes at 
times.
  Jothan Frakes:Amen tim
  avri:15% is the basic status quo.  which is a place to start
  Berry Cobb:I love the use of "picket fence"...seems more like an ill-defined 
moat filled with muddy water.
  Jothan Frakes:Jon, Jeff N&E, good job to all of you on putting these 
proposals together
  Phil Buckingham:Yes agrree
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Frakes +1, thanks for putting your shoulders to the 
wheel
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:jeff:  what percentage is required for control?  
certainly more than 15%?
  Tim Ruiz:15% does not constitute control in any situation I am familiar with.
  Jeff Neuman:You can own 1 % and still have control
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:I s not just hisotry: control is an issue. Below 15 (or 
1' or 20) tehre is less risk of indirect cntrol.
  Berry Cobb:the econ studies refer to 40% to 60%
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Over 30 or over 50... you need two policmen sitting at 
the board, and an army of lawyers ;-)
  Tim Ruiz:Jeff, I don't believe that. It is a protectionist position.
  avri:the control equation really depends on how diverse the rest of the 
ownership is.  15% is a publicly owned is quite a bit, whereas it is nothing in 
a famil owned.
  Antony VC 2:@jeff n - that's a reall issue you address.   And that's going to 
hurt the community TLD that suddenly surpasses 30k names, for instance
  Jeff Neuman:YOu can own 1% but by contract maintain control over certain 
decisions of the entity
  Jeff Neuman:COnversely you can own 70% and have no control
  ken stubbs:mikey please acknowledge my previous request to wit: mikey..  
would like to have 30-sec or 1 min close to the end of this call to make a 
proposal for a ''closure meeting'' towards end of your proposed wg timeline
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:fair enough
  Tim Ruiz:In most exchanges flags don't fly until 19% or higher.
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:that is, below 20 %, unless it is a publicly held 
company, or the rest of shares are really spread among a large number of 
holders, most lqayers, economists and antitrust enforcers would agree that 
control is difficult
  Jeff Neuman:Amadeu, that is not true
  Jeff Neuman:You can control by contract, board seats, etc.
  Statton Hammock:Jon, your proposal does not include a reference to back-end 
registry service providers. Does that mean limits in your proposal do no apply 
to RSPs?
  Tim Ruiz:Jeff, that's true. Ownership is not the key, it is a combination of 
those things.
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Jeff, I agree. I was talking about ownership as it is, 
as that sole concept.
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:But additional safegurads have to be added, not nusut 
limiting ownership
  Antony VC 2:@jeff E - current thinking will ensure .com clones
  Eric Brunner-Williams:ken, are you speaking to a pre-bruxelles meeting, in 
wdc, a day of face-to-face?
  Antony VC 2:Hence - failures
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:registries will made decisions based on business 
needs--they wouild hand control over by contract if it was in their business 
interest.  ownership would be irrelevant.
  Phil Buckingham:Yes in UK business "group" structure ie VI it about control - 
not percentage although 25% is lower level for partial control . 50 % above is 
deemed total control . Different in US I guess . . Royal will be UK reg company 
.
  Jon Nevett:It is very clear that VeriSign's 15% ownership didn't equal 
control of Network Solutions.  It's not a secret that Netsol was very outspoken 
against the Verisgin .com contract.
  Alan Greenberg:Jeff E: not all registrar innovation is viewed as a good thing 
from a public interest and general registrant point of view.
  Antony VC 2:@scott - excellent point
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:of course. not all innovation is a good thing. look at Google 
Buzz
  Tim Ruiz:Alan, that's true of any competitive industry, but the market 
usually takes care of it.
  Antony VC 2:Would love to hear how each of these proposals will benefit the 
end user
  Antony VC 2:As opposed to the registry or registrar
  Eric Brunner-Williams:yes, those are "virtual registries" not "facilities 
based registrars"
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:current registries have found ways around the 
restriction on having their own registrars..
  scott austin:thanks to Jeff for the comments that helped
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I will write up some additional points on benefits to 
consumers and distribute to the list
  CLO:I think that is a good method =>Jeff N's a single 'proposals' WT would be 
best...   Sub set work on S(x= R;O;B;U or ?) needs to be done after we have 
some agreement on definitions in the WG in my view at least.
  avri:48 hours for deadline (and i am one of those working on another proposal)
  CLO:@Avri a deadline (tight) would help I suspect ;-)
  Antony VC 2:I think a week is more like it as a deadline
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:we need to identify the core characterisitics that are 
effected by VI...for example:  transfers, whois, rights protections, etc.  the 
use cases would then be derived from characterisitics
  avri:shot his what?
  Tim Ruiz:ROTFL!!!
  Antony VC 2:Mikey - two thoughts on how to review these: (1) does it benefit 
consumers? and (2) will it kill new registries, because the goal (surely) is 
not to hinder them.  Their survival is good for everyone.
  avri:the best we will ever get is working defintions, but it is worth the 
exercise.
  Alan Greenberg:Antony: and converse of 2. will it significantly help new 
registries who might otherwise fail.
  Jothan Frakes:Avri - "Shot his wad" is a gambling term ... someone rolling 
the dice in craps is a 'shooter'... when they blow through all their money, 
it's known as 'shot their wad'
  ken stubbs:concerned that we spend the next 2 meetings debating "definitions" 
 ...
  CLO:@KEn S =>  a WT for deffinitions to prep then BACK to the WG as a whole?
  vanda scartezini:Roberto, it is true, a mechanism must help the consensus to 
come
  Jothan Frakes:like many potential applicants due to the infiinite delays in 
this 10+ year process of adding new TLDs blow through their money
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:we should agree to use words in proposals that only a 
non-internet savvy person would understand
  Antony VC 2:Mikey, I think people are still a little confused
  Roberto:Maybe the group needs still some time to thinl about how to evaluate 
the proposals
  Antony VC 2:(I am)
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I would love feedback from the group on my proposal. PLease 
let me what you like and what you are concerned with.
  Roberto:However I believe that we need to have to agree on the evaluation 
criteria before starting discussing the merits and drawbacks of the individual 
proposals
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Jeff N. +1
  CLO:@Roberto =>  Yes of course!
  Antony VC 2:I proposed two criteria for evaluation
  Roberto:AVC, yes, maybe there are also others
  Kathy Kleiman:But we need to know if we are comparing apples and apples
  Antony VC 2:Sure
  Jon Nevett:Agree with Brian
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:What does CLO stand for?
  Antony VC 2:Brian +1
  ken stubbs:+1
  Alan Greenberg:Brian: +1
  Jeff Neuman:Cheryl L. Orr
  katrin ohlmer:Brian: +1
  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Brian, that makes sense. Also, similar to what AVC proposed, 
correct?
  Brian Cute:yes
  avri:a gaggle - he wants a bunch of sily geese to talk defintions - i am game.
  Jeff Neuman:Cheryl - It is late for you ..... Thanks for joining
  CLO:NP  (actually I'd call it early ;-) when it's a 0300 start ;-)
  Antony VC 2:One of the failings of this round is that registries are really 
not allowed to fail - it's not an outcome that is really envisioned as a 
natural outcome.  Therefore we shouldn't create rules/proposals that make it 
hard for them to survive.
  Keith Drazek:perhaps registrars should be required to offer every new TLD?
  scott austin:would be happy to help with definitions/drafting if needed.
  Antony VC 2:@keith - that would solve a lot of registries' problems
  Jeff Neuman:Keith +1 - All registrars must offer all TLDs equally ;)
  avri:wiki papge work?
  Statton Hammock:Don't we have a wikki page?
  Tim Ruiz:Keith, makes sense. Let's adopt that and we're done :)
  avri:all can edit and email can be sent to it.  all can see as well.
  Keith Drazek:lol
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):I like the idea of allowing for more polling
  Antony VC 2:Mieky - I think that people are now in the questioning rather 
than voting stage
  Keith Drazek:if registrars were required to offer every TLD equally, it would 
result in greater consumer choice
  Ron:@ Keith +1
  Jeff Neuman:and at equal pricing to consumers, there would be nothing better 
for consmers
  Antony VC 2:@keith - at present, certain registrars can really make or break 
a TLD.  For whatever reason they want.
  Alan Greenberg:wiki which all can edit becomes devillishly difficult to track 
(technically possible, but not really practical).
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):AVC I think that it would be for smaller questions, 
not 'voting' on larger issue, really allow drafters to solicit feedback about 
aspects of a proposal
  Antony VC 2:@gray - that works for me
  Jeff Neuman:Jeff E +1
  Roberto:@Keith, how do you force them?
  Jon Nevett:me too
  Keith Drazek:it would require a contractual amendment with ICANN, i'd think
  Antony VC 2:@Roberto - how do you force registrars to do anything?
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Ken: only Barcelona makes sense ;)
  Antony VC 2:@Ken - NYC makes perfect sense!
  Antony VC 2:@Ken - how about your house?!
  Eric Brunner-Williams:compromise -- bermuda
  Eric Brunner-Williams:in the triangle
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:+1 for Eric
  Tim Ruiz:Spring in Cedar Rapids is kind of nice.
  Antony VC 2:Antartica - neutral territory!
  Alan Greenberg:BAsed on discussions after PDP workteam proposed a 
Face-to-face, it seems that it is FIRST tha GNSO COuncil deciision whether to 
allocate resources for such a meeting.
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Pitcairn!!!!
  Jon Nevett:IRT had successful face to face meetings -- STI didn't need any
  Kathy Kleiman:Ultimately the STI did not need a final F2F meeting, but it 
might be useful here
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:there is only one boat per month, so plenty of tiem to 
work ;-)
  CLO:Closer for me Amadeu :-)
  avri:this group is too large and it would favro those with lots of money and 
compnay supported time.
  Roberto:The problem I see is that it will take some money to bring 60+ people 
in one place, whatever it is
  avri:if aything we should telechat more often then every week.
  Antony VC 2:avri +1
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Avri
  Antony VC 2:F2F should have one person from each group max
  Jothan Frakes:+
  Statton Hammock:Going great Mikey and Roberto.
  ken stubbs:define a "group" antony
  Antony VC 2:Another dynamic that isn't helpful is multiple voices from same 
group
  Ron:+
  Antony VC 2:Mikey you're doing well
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):+
  Jeff Neuman:You guys have a real tough job and running it well
  Paul Diaz:+
  Jeff Neuman:THanks Mikey!
  David Maher:+1
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:a group are those agreeing with me.
  ken stubbs:+1 on mikey
  Elaine Pruis:lol
  Faisal Shah:+
  Tim Ruiz:AVC, what groups? Some of us registrars aren't even in complete 
agreement on everything.
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:+
  Tim Ruiz:+
  Antony VC 2:@tim - what?  I thought you were all in complete lock-step 
IPC-style!
  Kathy Kleiman:tx for a good meeting-- to Mikey, Roberto and all the presenters
  CLO:I thought the odd selection of venue  indicated many of us thought that a 
"full" F2F would be a "challenge"
  Statton Hammock:Agree with Jeff E for a deadline.
  Tim Ruiz:CLO, perhaps a challenge but not necessarily unuseful.
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):Jcubed
  Statton Hammock:Triple J Team
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):J3
  Jothan Frakes:jjj?  add me for 4j
  vanda scartezini:from my view better to send the proposers our direct 
comments avoind too much information circulating
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):3J?
  CLO:Yes Tim e.g. A hybrid  linked NODE model  is an option
  Antony VC 2:The J Team
  avri:rest of the gang = staf + co-chair
  Roberto:reminds me of Jay Jay Johnson, the trombonist
  Jeff Neuman:I like the J team
  Eric Brunner-Williams:do jeff N a favor and at a "VC" after the "J"
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):J Team +1
  avri:can't it be done on the wiki?
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Is Jamadeu Jabril ji Jabril included?
  Antony VC 2:Thanks Mikey
  Statton Hammock:"The J Team" Mondays at 8 on CBS...
  CLO:Thanks Mikey  good call!
  vanda scartezini:thanks
  J.C. Vignes:Thanks all
  Brian Cute:Thanks all
  avri:so we e all need to be on all lists?