[gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat & Notes Transcript from Vertical Integration

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the notes & chat from today's VI-WG call.

Best Regards,

Margie

________________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
________________

NOTES:

Agenda for 19 Apr 2010 VI Call

Review agenda -- 5 minutes

- Roll call -- 1 minute

- Proposal discussion -- 60 minutes

- Evaluation criteria -- 15 minutes

- Any other business (AOB) -- 10 minutes ____________________________

Notes-

1.  Phil Buckingham presents his model & answers questions from the VI WG.
2. Kathy Kleiman discusses the PIR Model & answers questions from the VI WG.
3.  Avri presents modified MMA proposal and answers questions from the VI WG.
4.  Discussion on Evaluation Criteria:
Mikey clarified that the Evaluation Team is not evaluating proposals but 
creating the framework for the WG to evaluate proposals.
5.  WG asked to provide input on what criteria should be used to evaluate 
proposals.  Will brainstorm on this call, and this could be used as a starting 
point for the evaluation team to consider:

-Public Interest, and does the proposal endanger any new gTLDs that might come 
up.
-IRT Type benchmarking questions- checklist of things to compare to.  Such as 
what is the harm, is it subject to gaming, etc.  Some might not be relevant, 
but would be worthwile looking at.
-Chart lining up issues for each proposal -Audits used in the past (such as the 
.com audit criteria)

CHAT:

-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 12:56 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  Gisella Gruber-White:Please use *6 to mute and *6 to unmute your lines again. 
This will avoid background noise
  Kristina Rosette:Am I the only one hearing an echo?
  J.C. Vignes:There is indeed a massive echo...
  Alan Greenberg:No
  Ruslan Sattarov:i'm having too...
  Nacho Amadoz:same here
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:No, it sounds like the Lou Gherig speech at Yankee Stadium
  Ron A:I'm getting an echo too... I wonder if it's MIkey's phone?
  J.C. Vignes:It sounds like someone is on speakerphone
  Alan Greenberg:Echo gone now..
  richard tindal:could someone tell me the USA toll free dial in number
  Sébastien:866-692-5726
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:866-692-5726
  richard tindal:ta
  avri:not staff work
  avri:but the other side of the WG's work
  gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.):hello I am here
  Kathy Kleiman:I am happy to go after Phil
  vanda scartezini: soory I am late. I am calling now
  Sébastien:AND USERS!!!
  Tim Ruiz:FWIW, Go Daddy does NOT have 70% market share.
  Michele Neylon:lo
  Michele Neylon:sorry i'm late
  Alan Greenberg:Tim, I calculate it at about 31% for .com
  richard tindal:71%?
  richard tindal:hehe
  Tim Ruiz:Alan, sounds closer for .com.
  Kathy Kleiman:avri ..
  Tim Ruiz:Richard :)
  Tim Ruiz:I will see what I can share regarding our market share, from our 
perspective.
  Alan Greenberg:Tim, from last available reports (if I parsed the columes 
correctly - new format makes it hard)
  Tim Ruiz:It would be better than wild speculation.
  Katrin Ohlmer:alltogether it should be about 25% incl. gTLDs and ccTLDs
  Michele Neylon:Tim - registrarstats.com gives you about 30%
  Tim Ruiz:Michele, thanks.
  Michele Neylon:Tim - actually - closer to 40% on gTLDs
  Michele Neylon:but you definitely don't have 70%  :)
  Tim Ruiz:I also question Phil's conclusion that .com.org.net "controls" 
70-80% of gTLD+ccTLD registrations.
  Berry Cobb:Perhaps it is my own intreptation, but seems Phil's proposal, is 
not a proposal at all, but a path in which the WG is already working....
  Tim Ruiz:My point is, we should try to be more accurate when quoting these 
kinds of stats.
  Michele Neylon:Tim - Nominet has done plenty of studies on this - and com 
doesn't have as strong a position in the UK market as co.uk tbh
  vanda scartezini:hard to hear
  avri:and a lot of his issues could be absorbed into the evaluaiton team 
considerations
  Tim Ruiz:Kathy, regarding your proposal on single-registrant gTLD, would 
consider referal to competition authorities? Perhaps based on certain criteria?
  Kathy Kleiman:Tim: yes
  richard tindal:I dont believe competition authorities will respond to 
hypothetical scenarios
  Volker Greimann:they  have enough on their plates regarding real competition 
scenarios
  Keith Drazek:agree with Richard, that's certainly the case in the USA
  avri:agree with this reasoning.  not sure about a fixed number being a 
ciriteria and tend to prefer a number/unit time sort of criteria.  but this is 
a nit.
  avri:this reasoning refered to KK on why a diferent method for new small 
registry
  Michele Neylon:50k domains is bigger than several existing tlds ..
  Michele Neylon:I also don't see how registrants are better served by this ..
  Keith Drazek:FTR neustar is fine with a registry owning a registrar and 
vice-versa provided it's not in the same TLD
  richard tindal:yeah   the only proposals that currntly prevent that are PIR 
and CORE
  Kristina Rosette:W/r/t the referral to competition authorities, do we have 
any reason to believe that (a) the relevant competition authorities will take 
action and (b) do so within the timeframe that we're considering?  Unless we've 
got a solid basis for believing that (a) and (b) are true, aren't there real 
risks that wproposals built on this concerpt
  Kristina Rosette:oops. that should have been:  "aren't there real risks that 
proposals built on this concept will fail?"
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:agreed on competition authorities. it is a big risk
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:to assume they will be involved
  Tim Ruiz:Not talking about hypothetical, talking about actual SR applicants 
during the open round being referred to competition authorities.
  avri:Kristina: i agree that we will have to check that out.  informal work 
has already begun on checking it out.  the WG itself should check that out in a 
more formal sense if we begin to accept this as a component of the soluton
  Tim Ruiz:...referred based on certain criteria.
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:What makes ICANN think that a 15% limit on cross 
ownership solves or limits the problem?  In India, one of the largest and most 
renowned industrial groups, the Tatas, are known to control several companies 
with their own stakes sometimes as low as 3%. A registrar can own less than 15% 
and can exercise control over the Registry and vice versa. Second, control does 
not only come from financial stake in Equity. It can more easily come from an 
entity's ability to make or break a business. A powerful registrar, even 
without 1% of ownership in a new gTLD registry, may be able to exercise control 
over that new gTLD registry if it controls the domain market so powerfully that 
the success of that new gTLD depends on the business support of the Registrar. 
This working group may have to look at the ability of a Registry or Registrar 
to exercise control by financial and non-financial means, rather than be 
obsessed with a 15% limit.
  richard tindal:if its a brand new business (brand new TLD) i dont think 
competition authorities will respond
  Kristina Rosette:@Tim: I realize that, but just because ICANN's procedure 
requires that the relevant applicants (and I didn't realize we'd limited it to 
just SRs) be referred to competition authorities doesn't mean that the 
cmopeittion authorities will necessarily take the type of action we envision or 
do it within the timeframe.
  Tim Ruiz:Richard, newness of the applicant is more important than newness of 
the TLD.
  richard tindal:MMA proposal doesnt limit referral to SRs
  Kristina Rosette:thanks, richard.  was wondering if I'd missed something.
  Tim Ruiz:Kristina, understood. The SR idea was mine based on the PIR 
proposal. Perhaps we ask the DoJ, EU authority, etc. to join us for questions?
  richard tindal:i agree
  Kristina Rosette:something has got to be done.  don't know if they'll agree, 
but there's no harm in asking
  Michele Neylon:There aren't really 900+ registrars
  Michele Neylon:1 - the number is shrinking
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:But the lists show 900+ registries
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:is it significantly shrinking?
  Michele Neylon:2 - the new applicants for accreidation are coming from 
developing countries + Europe
  Kristina Rosette:Don't mean to suggest that it's harm, but asking competition 
authorities to focus on an issue that they may not currently be focusing on 
could have unintended conseuqences
  Volker Greimann:many are just postbox-regirstrars for dropcatching
  Michele Neylon:Siva - see Eric's posts on this - there are a lot of 
registrars that are owned by the same companies for historical reasons
  Keith Drazek:it really doesn't matter where a registrar is based as long as 
they have multi-lingual C/S, right? not like there are shipping fees or anything
  Michele Neylon:EPP limits
  avri:since we include competition authority in the proosal we are. checking  
but i did not feel right about making a request to GAC as a whole as someone 
who was merely proposing the idea.  so i have been talking to gac members and 
others i know in natonal governements.
  Michele Neylon:Keith - there are legal issues with the location of a registrar
  Michele Neylon:Keith - there are also fiscal issues
  Tim Ruiz:Apologies, but I need to drop off.
  Jothan Frakes:I'd have to check
  Jothan Frakes:on .zulu, and Mike, its JOTHAN :)
  Michele Neylon:If there was a demand for .zulu we'd offer them ..
  Michele Neylon:of course if the rules and processes were insane I wouldn't 
bother :)
  Tim Ruiz:Whether we'd offer .zulu at GD or not, we'd help them set up a 
registrar that would.
  Michele Neylon:We currently don't offer all current gTLDs .. and probably 
won't any time soon
  Kathy Kleiman:Why would US competition authority want to review every 
question about every new gTLD --
  Kathy Kleiman:that's a weight on ICANN's tiome and US and all competition 
authorities.
  Jothan Frakes:+1 kk especially in South Africa?
  Kathy Kleiman:Why not have crisp and clean rules - and clear exceptions.
  Michele Neylon:Kathy - what has US competition authority got to do with 
anything happening in Europe / Africa? :)
  Tim Ruiz:Kathy, I think we need to get them to review some these ideas and 
respond, other jurisdiction authorities as well.
  Kathy Kleiman:Corrected to US and all ocompetition authories, Michele (was 
thinking of Mike P talking about US)
  Kathy Kleiman:Tim, agreed!
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:The problem with the idea of leaving issues to 
competition authorities is that most countries do not have evolved competigtion 
legislation, nor have well defined competivion authorities with a clear mandate.
  Tim Ruiz:Kathy, if you make exceptions it raises potential competition 
issues. I have to go now, but would love to discuss this with you further.
  Kathy Kleiman:Great, Tim, and All!
  Nacho Amadoz:just one quick follow up the recent discussion concerning .cat: 
What Mike has just said is completely accurate. We've been working perfectly 
fine with ICANN registrar's system, but I wouldn't dare to say that 3 
registrars having 80 % of the market - which is our case - goes in favour of 
the choice of registrants in the marketplace
  Phil B:Michele - exactly- competition rules are totally different in Europe  
to US  as is control  in a busiiness group / VI scenario .
  Michele Neylon:Who is panting on the phone?
  Kathy Kleiman:But .CAT has not asked for any exceptions -- they work within 
the current system.
  richard tindal:totally agree with Kristine comments
  Keith Drazek:i agree with Kristina and I doubt the competition authorities 
will play ball
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:Also, if ICANN attends to issues related to domain 
industry, it would pay the specialized attention to the issue with the required 
expertise and full understanding, as opposed to a generic competition 
authrority, expert at none, paying attention to domain competition issues 
without an indepth undertstanding
  Volker Greimann:are registrants interests preserved by creating rules that 
prevent some net gTLDs they wight want to register in from being formed at all?
  Michele Neylon:Phil - gTLDs are international, so I can't see how this 
competition authority thing can even come into play - period
  Keith Drazek:mike palage, what competition authorities have been contacted?
  Michele Neylon:Volker - ah now, don't be asking questions like that :)
  Kristina Rosette:interesting point, Mike.  ICANN staff, what's the answer to 
that?
  Jothan Frakes:competition authorities = delay du jour
  Michele Neylon:Jothan - it's like overarching issues ..
  Kristina Rosette:just totally lost richard
  Kathy Kleiman:And normally competition authorities review much larger, 
existing corporate structures, e.g., large-scale mergers. Why would they review 
start-ups?
  Kathy Kleiman:and isn't their answer much less certain (as others have 
mentioned, I think)
  Michele Neylon:Kathy - exactly
  Michele Neylon:eek - I find myself agreeing with Kathy
  Kristina Rosette:interesting idea.  use a process similar to the Whois 
exception process.
  Kathy Kleiman::-) I had the same reaction, Michele
  Michele Neylon:KK :)
  Keith Drazek:couldn't different competition authorities have conflicting 
views?
  Michele Neylon:Keith - they probably would tbh
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:In INdia the neareset equivallent to a compettion 
authroity is an inactive Monopolies and REstrictive Trade Practices Commission, 
in the US, may the the authority that deals with anti-trust provisions, as 
Kathy points out, these authorities may not look at start ups
  Kathy Kleiman:I also agree with Jothan above - delay du jour
  Volker Greimann:they do already
  Alan Greenberg:approval prior to application, if answer not received 
promptly, would result in no application.
  Michele Neylon:In Ireland our communications regulator won't even regulate 
the companies it's meant to regulate .. :)
  Berry Cobb:At this point, is anything VI related a delay to new gTLDs?  If 
nothing transpires here, we have the board decision to move gTLDs along.
  Kristina Rosette:@Alan:  or applicant proceeds knowing that there's a risk 
that the boom will fall, so to speak
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Can it be up to the applicant to try to receive the 
competition authority clearance ?
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Not having it an institutional program
  Keith Drazek:per mike palage's earlier point about the funnel request 
process, referral to competition authrorities is an existing problem, though 
not yet tested
  Kathy Kleiman:Note to Avri: no privacy on this session.
  Alan Greenberg:Kristina, yes, but that defeats purpose of pre-application 
request and defaults to ICANN again needing to coordinate this.
  avri:are you asking for another ICANN process for this advanced approval.
  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy:And in many countries, the business cartels have a 
hold over the competition authroities, just as the Telecoms in India have a 
control over the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. With ICANN there are 
some checks and balances in place, by way of mutlti-stakkeholder participation
  Kristina Rosette:Can we call it the analysis team?  Evaluation is such a 
value-laden word.
  Ron A:+1
  Michele Neylon:+1
  Jothan Frakes:+1
  richard tindal:Alan - that makes sense
  Jothan Frakes:I agree with Jeff Eckhaus about the ambiguity aspect
  Alan Greenberg:Isn't that the reason that we SHOULD look at it???
  Jothan Frakes:fiar point Alan
  Jothan Frakes:still, there's a lot of drift room despite that effort
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:We will not come to agreement on what the Board decision means
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I like KK idea
  richard tindal:Kathy -- agree   thats Step 1
  Kristina Rosette:love that idea
  Alan Greenberg:Agree with KK - chart of attributes
  Ron A:+1
  Jothan Frakes:@Kathy, @Krisrina - great suggestion to draft a chart/checklist
  Volker Greimann:if something can be abused does not mean it will be... or 
that controlling factors cannot be introduced that limit such possibility 
without neutering some new TLD proposals
  Kathy Kleiman:Not intended to be a private comment :-)
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:There are Registrars being de-accredited all the time due to 
findings from audits
  Michele Neylon:number of registrars is shrinking all the time
  richard tindal:Mickey -- who is on the analysis team?
  Michele Neylon:we're a dying breed :)
  Jothan Frakes:great job mikey
  vanda scartezini 2:very good ideas, thanks all
  avri:good meeting bye
  J.C. Vignes:Thanks everyone !
  Jothan Frakes:take care all
  Kristina Rosette:Until next week . . .
  Volker Greimann:thanks all
  Roberto:Bye all.
  Michele Neylon:bye
  Katrin Ohlmer:thx
  Mikey:richard -- i send the list to the list.  :-)
  Mikey:oops... i WILL send the list to the list...
  richard tindal:great
  richard tindal:how many people on the A team?
  Mikey:sorry...  walked away from the computer too early...  i have to go look 
at the email, but i think it's in the 6-10 people range.
  avri:A for analysis?
  richard tindal:A for Analysis
  richard tindal:.......i want to be Mr. T
  avri:be careful what you ask for Mr. T.
  avri:Michele: good question - since ICANN is in the US, and not an 
International organization, will US authorities alwasy be one of the 
authorities consulted, even e.g.  if EU and Ireland were also to consulted.