[gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Connect Notes and Chat Transcript from today's Vertical Integration WG Call
- To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Connect Notes and Chat Transcript from today's Vertical Integration WG Call
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 11:43:40 -0700
Please find below the notes/chat from today's call.
Senior Policy Counselor
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
-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
-Margie to check on AGB v -4 to see if there will be a placeholder regarding
the Board resolution approach.
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
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
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
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
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.
Milton Mueller:No, Jeff N, we do not necessarily agree with equal access
Alan Greenberg:Call it "tentative consensus"
Volker Greimann:in general, we can all say that: "we agree to equal acces,
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
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.
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?
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
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?
Volker Greimann:if we come back without anything, we will get what we have
Volker Greimann:i.e. the board decision
Kathy Kleiman:Stephane, the presentation of the WG to the GNSO Council is on
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...
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