Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

So far I have been new of the few cheering this on, and I must tell you I am 
not a new gTLD hater and  not even a new gTLD delayer.  

I am for shouting: 
"What do we want: We want a thousand flowers to bloom.  
 When do we want it: NOW!"

I also want to bring up what I thought was a given of this group. We are not a 
gating factor in the new gTLD process.

If we finish our work in time (and I hope we do) - then we have an effect on 
this round.  
And if we don't then the Board decisions holds.  
There is nothing we can do to delay them - the only effect we can have is on 
the rules for CO ad VI.

a.


On 28 Apr 2010, at 14:03, Jothan Frakes wrote:

> 
> I am inclined to agree with Tim on this, but I don't want to see the
> issue being re-re-re-re-hashed as an opportunity for new TLD haters to
> glom onto to perpetuate delay.
> 
> -Jothan
> 
> Jothan Frakes
> +1.206-355-0230 tel
> +1.206-201-6881 fax
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, I wasn't referring just to this WG, but to the whole VI/CO
>> issue from day one. But, I guess that's water under bridge.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the
>> Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC
>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>> Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 11:53 am
>> To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Well we are just about to start the analysis (contrast and compare and
>> reach consensus) phase after each us with some bias toward a particular
>> solution has given his or her preferred end state.
>> 
>> To me this kind of seems like a starting place.
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 28 Apr 2010, at 12:46, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> If we are starting the discussion anew, I would agree. In fact, that's
>>> what I would really prefer to have happen. To date, I think the whole
>>> VI/CO issue has been approached haphazardly, and we are just continuing
>>> down the same path.
>>> 
>>> Tim
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the
>>> Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 11:18 am
>>> To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think the more calls with economists or regulators or competition
>>> authority experts ... that have some clue to offer all the better. And
>>> since these will be recorded, it offers a resource we can go back to.
>>> Perhaps we can even ask for them to be transcribed.
>>> 
>>> I would suggest that if any of us can't make it, perhaps we can send in
>>> a question that the Chair's can ask on our behalf.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 28 Apr 2010, at 11:50, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Their report is out there for reveiw by anyone. I have not heard any
>>>> reason why it will benefit the WG to have a special call with them. And
>>>> I would expect that if we do, others will be allowed to arrange similar
>>>> calls with other economists they may like the WG to consult.
>>>> 
>>>> Tim
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] Notice: VI Call Thursday with the
>>>> Economists Salop/Wright at 20:UTC
>>>> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date: Wed, April 28, 2010 10:14 am
>>>> To: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Cc: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Margie,
>>>> 
>>>> First, I appreciate the scheduling of Salop and Wright at some other
>>>> time than Monday.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm cc'ing the Working Group list as it is possible that some have
>>>> heard Mssrs. Salop and Wright fewer times than I have, and may have
>>>> the impression that the economists retained by ICANN have conducted an
>>>> independent study of the actual market for name to address mapping
>>>> services.
>>>> 
>>>> Second, would you be so kind as to pass on two questions to each?
>>>> 
>>>> Q1. What specific facts about public resource identifiers (aka "domain
>>>> names") and the public routing infrastructure (aka "addresses") and
>>>> their technical coordination and management are relevant to each of
>>>> their recommendations?
>>>> 
>>>> Q2. Assuming one or more specific facts are relevant to their
>>>> recommendations, what change to that fact or facts would be necessary
>>>> to cause a change in each of their recommendations?
>>>> 
>>>> I prefer a written response, as it is easier to cite than an offset in
>>>> an audio log, and it allows the response, if any, to be studied,
>>>> rather than a spontaneous utterance.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>> Eric
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>