[gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Connect Notes and Chat from Today's Meeting

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The Adobe Connect notes and chat from today's VI-WG meeting is provided below 
for your review and information.

Best Regards,

Margie

_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________

Agenda for 12 April VI WG Call



-- Review agenda -- 5 min

-- Roll call -- 1 min

-- Discuss "evaluation team"    approach --10 min

-- Review tasks & milestones 10 min

-- Anti-trust overview -- 10 min

-- Hear from proposal-advocates -- 40 min- MMA & Kathy

-- SR sub-group question -- 5 min

-- Face to face meeting  -- 5 min

-- AOB -- 5 minutes

________________________

Notes:

1. Latest Version of Proposals should be posted on Wiki Page for easy access 
and comparison.

2. Discussion of an Evaluation Team, and role in assisting proponents of 
proposals in clarifying role, collecting definitions, developing criteria, etc.

3. Staff to identify URL for posting Google Calendar for scheduling milestones 
4. Staff to follow up on questions that are requested by the WG.  Chairs to 
keep track of questions and work with Staff to manage answers.

5.  M. Palage discussed the MMA Proposal.  Discussion on referring to 
competition authorities and whether that is possible.  M. Palage to finish 
reviewing proposal on next call.

6. K. Kleiman discussed PIR Proposal.

________________________

Chat:



  Ruslan Sattarov:Hello everyone)

  Michele Neylon:evening - still waiting on the phone lot to answer me

  Katrin Ohlmer:hi all

  Alan Greenberg:Waiting here too

  Roberto:Hi. Waiting to be connected by operator...

  Kristian Ørmen:me to

  Kristina Rosette:same for me

  Alan Greenberg:On now...

  Kristina Rosette:on now - but mute

  Kristina Rosette:I understood his point to mean that we should recognize that 
the GAC will likely want to weigh in at some point.

  Alan Greenberg:Yup.

  Milton:right, a matrix comparing the proposals

  Kristina Rosette:agree with milton. would be super helpful keeping track of 
everything.

  Milton:such a matrix would also allow us to more sharply define the key 
issues around which agreement is needed

  avri:agree but defining the columns of this matrix is a task in itself.

  avri:i would think part of the proposal review task.

  avri:and as much as i would lke to particpte in defining the review matrix, i 
tend to thik that those who propose should not be on the matrix  creatin team 
as we tend to difne the matrix in terms of out proposal

  Jon N.:Agree with Avri

  Milton:seems like a perfect job for staff to me

  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Milton, this should be completed by Staff

  avri:i am personally uncomfortable leaving the defniton of the matrix 
completely up to the staff.

  J.C. Vignes:Milton +1 !

  avri:and we do have members, like Barry who have already shown interst in the 
task.

  Milton:well, they would have to run it by us, but I don't see why staff would 
be biased for or against specific proposals, or specific issues, correct me if 
wrong

  Kristina Rosette:I am confused. If we need to be at consensus, ultimately, 
why would we have only some people on evaluation teams?  Or multiple people on 
different evaluation teams?

  avri:no biased, but the staf has a singlular POV based on their invovlement 
in the implementation and deployment.  the WG have mutliple POVs.

  avri:apolgies Berry not Barry

  Jon N.:How about Staff prepares  a draft and them members who have different 
POVs could suggest changes?

  avri:makes us work against the flow.  existing text often has the advantage.

  Tim Ruiz:I think Jon's suggestion makes sense.

  Milton:Jon: of course. that's the way it would work

  Milton:People could suggest columns, too

  avri:i guess i ahve a strange idea of what it means to be a 'work' group.  i 
tend to not see it as a n 'tell staff to work' group.  and i prefer to see the 
volunters do the work.  but if we are unable, we are unable.

  Liz Gasster:Please recognize that there are MANY judgment calls to be made, 
not sure I see the initial draft as reasonable for staff given WG charter and 
expectations

  Milton:When does the meeting begin?

  avri:(-

  avri:we are having it in the chat function of acrobat.

  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agreed. Can we push on with the call

  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Sorry, but this can be accomplished via email

  Kristina Rosette:As we move into use cases, I highly recommend that the use 
cases not use trademarks unless the relevant trademark owner has given its 
permission.  I realize that we'll end up with lots of ABC and Jones Inc. 
companies making widgets and the context that's associated with a mark can be 
helpful.  However, even with disclaimers, there's too big a risk that someone 
won't read it (or understand it) and the trademark owner starts getting 
besieged with requests for comment from reporters, analysts, etc. This has 
already happened to some trdemark owners whose marks have been used as examples 
in panels or the public forum.

  richard tindal:reporters are following this list?

  Kristina Rosette:you'd be surprised by how many people are following this list

  avri:i am fine with making up names as long as everyone prmises not to mark 
them.

  Milton:aaarrrgh. i will be an unreconstructed, unapologetic name dropper.

  Kristina Rosette:fine with me, avri.

  Jon N.:Thanks for the helpful reminder Amy

  Milton:hmmm....what if Apple Computer decided to launch a terrorist attack on 
the DNS root...hmmmm?

  Ron:+1 Allen!

  Katrin Ohlmer:else, we could use .canon for modelling different scenarios 
like 'internal use', 'selling to customers', ...

  Palage:+1

  Milton:Yes, legal opinion on ICANN contracts/documents

  Kristina Rosette:I think it was a specific ICANN document, Alan

  Milton:we don't need an antitrust lawyer as WG - any businesses in the group 
that might be liable for antitrust stuff needs to consult their own layers

  Michele Neylon:Milton - agreed

  Paul Diaz:request for ICANN Legal response(s) to prior questions 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg00986.html

  Statton Hammock:Ok. Can we move on to the proposals Mikey and Roberto?

  J.C. Vignes:Any chance we can discuss the proposals before next month??

  avri:i realize this is just legal trying to avoid liability

  richard tindal:time for next agenda item

  Milton:Palage

  avri:Mike is MMA's

  Milton:I have to leave at 2:00 pm so i wont be contributing much

  Sébastien (ALAC):Very US way of life :( Mike

  Milton:very important to give NEW entrants ownership flexibility - more 
important, imho than existing registries

  Kristina Rosette:Has MMA given any thought to sending this over to GAC?  
Given the role that national competition agencies will have, wouldn't it be 
helpful to get GAC input sooner rather than later?  (I realize that GAC is not 
a perfect surrogate for getting the competition agency input, but I think it 
would be helpful.)

  Roberto:In case we run short of time, would there be a big outcry if we 
discuss the SR subgroup and the f2f meeting on the mailing list? Who would 
oppose it?

  avri:Kristina, good suggestion.  I know there is at least one GAC member on 
this list, but seems like a reasonble sugestion to me.

  Michele Neylon:Tindal doesn't work for DemandMedia anymore AFAIK :)

  avri:i tough market share was the entire market, or at leat only the market 
in a particlar country.  not the maket in a specific new string.

  avri:of coure a registry has a market share in its string. but is that 
relevant.

  Scott Austin:Market share for domain names generally, substitues, how will 
elasticities of demand be calculated; is it .com v .[brand]

  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I did employ safeguards in my proposal as they are deemed 
necessary

  avri:yes, we need to include a wider notion of control beyond the 15%

  Phil Buckingham:avri - absolutely - what market  are we talking about. New 
gTLd market share . Afilias / Neustar / Enom  - current market share ??? this 
is a minefield !

  richard tindal:Mike P - what happens when a Competition Authority declines to 
respond?

  Tim Ruiz:So VeriSign could apply for a new gTLD and be considered as having 
zero market share?

  avri:it times out and they get permision as it currently stands.

  avri:i do not see it that way in relation to Verisign.  i think the issue may 
be more complex then a simple 40% bright line, but there is a line.

  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Included in my proposal was that the Integrated entity would 
need to pay for the audit and make sure they certify an audit has been 
completed to ICANN or there are penalties

  richard tindal:Tim - under current MMA proposal a VRSN application to run a 
registrar in its own TLD would be rejected outright by ICANN (if ICANN believes 
VRSN has >40% market share)

  Milton:yes

  avri:what i am curious about is whether the 40% is of a glbal market of a 
regional/national market.  since we are talking about national competetion 
authorities, they may have different points of view on tis.  but that is a 
strength in leaving it up to them.  as i said on the list, if not national 
competition authorites, ten we start talking about an international review 
board.

  Tim Ruiz:So then Go Daddy could apply for new gTLD and be considered as 
having zero markethsare as well, correct?

  Milton:no, GoDaddy has 40% of registrat market no?

  Tim Ruiz:Milton, not of the new gTLD it would be applying for.

  avri:again, just as i did not see Verisign as succeeding, i am not sure I 
would see Go Daddy as suceeding.

  avri:of the market.  the global/regonal/national market.

  avri:not the potential market in a new name.

  Tim Ruiz:Avri, I'm getting conflicting answers on VeriSign/Go Daddy question. 
I think in respect to MMA the 40% is not needed since anything over 15% goes to 
competition authorities.

  richard tindal:GoDaddy could appliy to be a new TLD registry Godaddy but 
could not also apply to be a registrar in that TLD - unless ICANN decided 
GoDaddy has <40% market share

  Tim Ruiz:The 40% appears to me intended to target one or two specific players.

  Milton:No, it's derived from market power analysis

  Scott Austin:not only that but what all of these names will have 
muti-juriscictional issues, so who resolves conflicts when competition 
authoruty in juris A approves and Juris B denies (and probably not at the same 
time)?

  richard tindal:perhaps     DENIC has >40% share in its market.   AusRegistry 
has >40% in its market,  etc

  Milton:indeed. ccTLDs applying for a gTLD would have issues

  Palage:Tim we originally used 40% because it was in the Salop/Wright report - 
however, after looking at the implmentaion - we saw the 40% bar as more of a 
problem - please read footnote #3 any my email to the list on this topic

  Tim Ruiz:Milton, if all CO of 15% or more goes to competition authorities why 
is the 40% needed?

  Palage:I agree Tim

  richard tindal:yes   jurisdiction is problem     Many would choose a liberal 
jurisdiction

  avri:true.  but without the 40% the Gorillas in the room are automatically  
blocked as opposed to leaving that to the governament authority.  and we did go 
back and forh, as MP said, on the issue of 40%.

  Tim Ruiz:Mike, Ok. Still getting caught up. Guess no time off until this WG 
is concluded ;)

  Kristina Rosette:@richard: I think we're going to see some very interesting 
place of organization choices.

  avri:i mean with the 40% the Gorillas (honoring the non use of proper names 
request) are blocked.

  richard tindal:MMA - what happens if Comp Authority declines to respond?

  Tim Ruiz:Avri, exactly. It targets the one or two Gorillas.

  Palage:ICANN approves

  Palage:If there is no enfrocement action - not ICANN's problem

  avri:but on Gorillas have market pwoer and they are special.

  J.C. Vignes:Really good question Richard: a lot of thi proosal seems to lie 
on third-party authorities be willing (and able??) to respond... What about 
non-US Registrar/Registry?

  richard tindal:Im not seeing the whole referral to Comp Authority thing as 
very useful.   99.999% will be positive responses   Why even ask?

  Milton:opening up VI and CO opportunities is intended to diversify the 
market, not strengthen the dominance of existing dominant players

  avri:@richard: i thnk 5 nines is a rather high estimate. a s i saidn an 
internatinal board n compettion to evaluate the waver requests is anoher 
possiblity working with agreed international laws may also be a vaible step.

  Palage:Richard - notwithstanding that 99.9% may be approved - our concern is 
the 0.1% that could blow up in ICANN's face

  avri:and then if the boad gives a diferent answer then the national 
cometetion board would, then the national comepetion board gets to sue.

  richard tindal:ther's more likely to be a blow up from one of the 99.99% that 
are approved

  Tim Ruiz:Milton, and not hinder competition - ICANN core values. Again, based 
on the rest of the MMA proposal, the 40% is unnecessary.

  Milton:dont agree. 40% limit is essential if we are allowing Ry-Rs to VI or 
sell their own TLD

  Michele Neylon:um - registries can make it very difficult to get accredited 
with them - even if they say otherwise

  Palage:Tim - we are not is disagreement - read footnote #3

  Michele Neylon:speaking from personal experience

  J.C. Vignes:@Michele: indeed. Experience in ccTLD world can be quite useful 
when dealing with these concepts

  Michele Neylon:"efficient marketing" - don't some of the registries already 
have this? Or are they just labelling it differently?

  Michele Neylon:JC - I was thinking of a couple of the current gTLDs tbh :)

  Tim Ruiz:The wiki is going nuts!

  Tim Ruiz:Adobe connect I mean.

  avri:yes, with 100's of TLDs using many different models, ccTLDs are a very 
rich research resource.

  avri:tday's structural speration has shown that there are lots of 
workarounds.  e.g. RSP - Regstra affialtion with a shell of a RO.

  Palage:exactly today's marketplace is gamable

  avri:btw does strict VS == Zero cross ownership?

  avri:is the PIR suggestion 0CO +SR + CCL + orpan support?

  Michele Neylon:avri - according to the board's statement - yes ..

  Michele Neylon:just my take on it

  Michele Neylon:bye everyone

  Michele Neylon:back to flogging domains :)

  Michele Neylon:and begging for votes :)

  J.C. Vignes:bye all

  richard tindal:PIR proposal is 15% cross ownership with strong checks on 
neutrality of registry owned registrar

  avri:bye

  richard tindal:plus exceptions for SR an Community

  richard tindal:vote for Michele

  avri:for what? should we be voting for him?

  richard tindal:most improved registrar

  Michele Neylon:avri - check my facebook :)

  Michele Neylon:it's not registrar / icann related at all by the way