[gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Connect Notes and Chat Transcript from today's Vertical Integration WG Call

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the notes/chat from today's call.

Best Regards,
Margie

___________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
___________
AGENDA VI Call 10 May 2010
_________________
-review agenda -- 5 min
- roll call -- 1 min
- approach to tables -- 15 min
- contents of tables -- 45 min
- intro to Eric's proposal -- 15 min
- other business -- 10 min
__________________
Notes:
-Kathy Kleiman reviewed the simplified Matrix she distributed.
-Jeff N indicated that the proposers should review for accuracy if the KK 
Matrix is used.
-Jon Nevett suggests breaking out equal access principles as follows:
1- use of registrars
2- equal access for all registrars
3- discrimination among registrars
-Tim R. concern that the Matrix may not be flexible enough as a tool to assess 
consensus.  Consensus positions may change as the proposal changes.
-Milton suggests that Matrix should reflect where positions are reciprocal 
-Analysis Sub-Team should review/revise Matrix as appropriate and update it.
-Proposers should review their row for accuracy.
-Jeff N points out that consensus for certain principles are dependent upon 
certain assumptions.   If the assumptions change, then the proposer's views on 
other principles change.
-Mikey suggests we should identify what the primary dependencies are so that 
subsequent decisions would fall in place.
 -Mikey questions rule restricting participants of analysis team to those that 
did not submit a proposal;  would like Kathy K's assistance on that team.
-Milton questions why we need an analysis team anymore.
 -Mikey announced that analysis team may no longer be restricted, and will 
consider whether there is even a need for an analysis team.
-Ry Statement is still in effect, although the RySG may update it.
-Rr Statement may need to be updated;  Question on whether additional time can 
be allowed for the SG/C to conclude their work.
-Mikey suggests that the constituency statement/SG statements be included in 
the Matrix if members of the SG/C would like it to be included. 
-Jeff E-  suggestion only to include proposals, not general statements in the 
matrix;  Mikey agrees.
-Analysis Team meeting cancelled after this call.
-Brussels discussion-  Mikey questions whether we need a face to face meeting 
in Brussels; discusses an informational meeting on the status of the working 
group.
 -Margie to check on AGB v -4 to see if there will be a placeholder regarding 
the Board resolution approach.

-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 12:37 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  Volker Greimann:good evening
  Margie Milam:Hello
  Roberto:Hi.
  Mikey O'Connor:hi Roberto
  Roberto:the music of the operator is better than usual... 
  Roberto:but the wait is longer. I wonder if the things are connected :>)
  Jeff Neuman:it took a while to get in, but we did
  Statton Hammock:Still waiting to get in.....
  jon Nevett:stuck in Q
  Tim Ruiz:Stuck in the Q as well.
  Statton Hammock:I'm in now...
  Mikey O'Connor:lotsa folks seem to be stuck -- we'll wait a bit...
  Ron:in the Q
  Katrin Ohlmer:I'm in, took a while...
  Alan Greenberg:4+ minutes and waiting...
  Nacho Amadoz:it's taking already more than 10 min fo rme... 
  Alan Greenberg:In now.
  Kristina Rosette:Apologies for being late.  am in the queue.
  Jeff Neuman:We are waiting a few minutes
  Roberto:Yeeeaahhh I'm in
  Nacho Amadoz:in
  Tim Ruiz:I'm in now.
  ken stubbs:cant get on call 
  Kristina Rosette:in now
  ken stubbs:mikey... can hear brian & ken
  Sébastien:But Eric is NOT participating to the conf call today
  Volker Greimann:will anyone else intro his proposal? I was not quite sure how 
it applies to our issue.
  Volker Greimann:it seems to expand our focus rather widely
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Jeff Neuman
  Berry Cobb:To Jeff's comment, thats the exact exercise with the proposal form 
submitted last Friday,
  Jeff Neuman:Berry - That form was a little complicated to fill out and seemed 
quite daunting.  
  Jeff Neuman:I agree with Tim; If things change, our positions can change.  I 
know this is broken record, but for example, if registrars are allowed to 
control a registry or vice versa, then our view on Equal access changes
  Berry Cobb:Yes the form is a little daunting to fill out.  The idea was that 
it provides the opprotunity for the proposal team to expand on their proposal 
in a template form, where by afterwards all the proposals could be aligned next 
to each other for comparison. 
  Berry Cobb:The form is complicated, because this is a complicated topic that 
has many complicated concepts.
  Jeff Neuman:Berry - Understood, but it asks for what is preferred...the 
second choice may not be an option for some of us.
  Jeff Neuman:Ok....what is going on with the layout of this?????
  Milton Mueller:i cant see the speaker queue any more
  Volker Greimann:same
  Volker Greimann:better#
  Brian Cute:Agree with Jeff Neuman.  First step is for authors of proposals 
need to provide Kathy with review and clarification to ensure their proposals 
are accurately reflected in the chart.
  Alan Greenberg:Brian, I agree
  Volker Greimann:i think the chart is a very good tool and a step forward, but 
some of the issues were detailed more closely in the "homework assignment" form
  Volker Greimann:this is a good basis though
  Milton Mueller:Brian: yes. even though i like the format of the chart the 
actual info for MMA in many cells is wrong
  Brian Cute:Kathy, nice job in flippling the axes and filling out the cells.  
This presentation makes a huge difference in clarity.
  Volker Greimann:+1
  Milton Mueller:No, Jeff N, we do not necessarily agree with equal access
  Brian Cute:+!
  Brian Cute:+1
  Alan Greenberg:Call it "tentative consensus"
  Volker Greimann:in general, we can all say that: "we agree to equal acces, 
if..." 
  Kathy Kleiman:That's a good idea, Volker, that would provide the clarity... 
  Volker Greimann:not really
  Kathy Kleiman:Tx Brian, for above
  Volker Greimann:the if's are too varied
  Stéphane Van Gelder:I think Volker was making the point that "ifs" could be 
added everywhere and effectively render the table useless.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:I don't think he was suggesting that as a good idea to go 
with.
  Kathy Kleiman:OK, but I saw the "ifs" as tied to some of the granularity & 
distinctions that Jon N recommended... 
  j.C. Vignes:Sorry all, I had Internet issues 
  Berry Cobb:Again....lets let the proposal teams fill out their own column 
first.....then we can compare the differences.  These matricies will always be 
dynamic to reflect current state.  The point here is that we have a template in 
which the proposal teams fill in the blanks.
  Berry Cobb:sorry.....proposal teams fill out their row.
  Alan Greenberg:The answer may be different if it is a first phase answer and 
not the definitive outcome of the PDP.
  Roberto:@Berry: +1
  Brian Cute:Berry +1 Have the proposers not just confirm accuracy but clarify 
positions (Jeff's questions re:  ownership % and control; Jon's question re: 1. 
use of registrars; 2. equivalent access; 3. non-discrimination.)
  Roberto:Another interesting thing to define is whether the answers on a 
column are dependent on what is the consensus on other columns
  Milton Mueller:+1 Roberto
  Berry Cobb:+1 mikey.  we have little participation on analysis team
  Jeff Neuman:Forget the rule
  Michele Neylon:He can forget the rules as far as I'm concerned
  Michele Neylon:rules/ rule
  Alan Greenberg:If a proposer tries to strong-arm things, they will be shot 
down!  Participation should be open.
  Tim Ruiz:It would help to define the role of the analysis team again. It 
still isn't clear to me.
  Keith Drazek:IMO, the short-term pre-Brussels focus should be on the 
exceptions needed to the Board resolution to maximize participation and success 
for new TLD applicants. We simply cannot recommend fundamental changes to the 
entire market structure without the truly independent economic analysis. So 
let's focus on reasonable exceptions and the correstponding rules of engagement.
  Alan Greenberg:Tim, nor to us on the team!
  Alan Greenberg:@milton: aren't more teleconferences better than less?
  Milton Mueller::-)
  Alan Greenberg:Does that mean our next call is cancelled???????
  Alan Greenberg:Perhaps the analysis team should analyse that?
  Brian Cute:Jeff +1
  Statton Hammock:My recollection is that it was an official stakeholder 
position which was voted on by the group members.
  jon Nevett:Was there a statement from the NCSG?
  Kristina Rosette:It would be helpful to  know if more time is available.  I 
suspect the IPC statement would be further refined. We ran out of time. 
  Tim Ruiz:Statton, I recall it as more of a straw poll. I may be wrong. Just 
want to be sure it charactized correctly.
  Kathy Kleiman:Do we need to put our work (VI WG) out for public comment?  If 
so, I guess we need to reserve some time at the end as well.... 
  Margie Milam:Clarke Walton said this in the public comment submission:  "The 
Registrar Stakeholder Group reaffirms its position on Registry-Registrar 
separation."
  Roberto:@Kristina: I am not sure that the goal is to have a fully refined 
statement, if the current one captures the essentials of the IPC position, it 
might be good enough
  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Margie. I still want to confirm exactly what took place.
  Margie Milam:Answer to Kathy-  we would normally do a public comment once the 
initial report is published
  Kathy Kleiman:Tx Margie
  Berry Cobb:+1 to speaker
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Brian +1.
  J.C. Vignes:wholefully agree with Brian +1
  Berry Cobb:+1 again to Brian
  Ron:no reason to add them in
  Kristina Rosette:Thanks, Brian.  Appreciate it. 
  Berry Cobb:proposals only in matrix
  Berry Cobb:+1 Jeffery
  Statton Hammock:I agree with Jeff E and Brian on this, as well.
  Berry Cobb:Analysis team meeting cancelled?
  Alan Greenberg:YEAH!
  Volker Greimann:if we come back without anything, we will get what we have 
now. 
  Volker Greimann:i.e. the board decision
  Kathy Kleiman:Stephane, the presentation of the WG to the GNSO Council is on 
Sun AM? 
  Kathy Kleiman:... in Brussels?
  Stéphane Van Gelder:At the moment, it's planned for Sunday yes.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Not sure yet whether it will be morning or pm...
  Kathy Kleiman:tx
  scott austin:Thanks good bye everyone
  Volker Greimann:good night
  pHIL:Excellent call . Kathy , many thanks for your hard work . Know need to 
drill down on each cell in the matrix
  pHIL:sorry - should read , now