[gnso-vi-feb10] chat history from the call last Thursday

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

ken stubbs: on music hold mikey plays a mean piano...
Sébastien: I am calling back after cut
Jeffrey Eckhaus: I believe $400K for Palo Alto 
Berry Cobb: Is this a VI meeting?
Jothan Frakes: Yes Berry
ken stubbs: pardon my rant. !!.
Jothan Frakes: actually really appreciated it ken
Jothan Frakes: important clarification
ken stubbs: are we having a call on monday ?
helen laverty: agree plus makes it more interesting!
Jothan Frakes: ha, helen brought a bowl of popcorn to share
Ron: Yes, Ken, a call is planned
ken stubbs: thx
Ron: @ Alan +1
ken stubbs: eckhaus +1
Jeffrey Eckhaus: The issue is as an exception to what? 
Jeffrey Eckhaus: we do not know the standard yet to decide on an exception
jon Nevett: An exception to what??  
Scott Austin: exception to prohibitions against cross ownership
jon Nevett: How can we talk about the exceptions prior to the rule?  
ken stubbs: nevitt +1`
Berry Cobb: The rule is 0 CO, per board resolution.  Yes?
Berry Cobb: Single Registrant required to bound to RAA and only distribute 2nd 
level domains internallly
Scott Austin: cobb +1 correct on the rule - status quo
Jothan Frakes: mihgt be good for the sake of the recording to call out the 
result number as a percentage
jon Nevett:  Berry, if we go with the Board resolutions, there will be NO 
exceptions.  ''Resolved (2010.03.12.17), within the context of the new gTLD 
process, there will be strict separation of entities offering registry services 
and those acting as registrars. No co-ownership will be allowed.''
Berry Cobb: @ JN, correct, but is it not possible that outcomes from this WG 
could influence the language of that rule?
Jothan Frakes: mikey can you state the percentages for the recording?
Scott Austin: the question was not if there's a rule there can be no 
exceptions, the question was what is the rule that exception is taken from..
jon Nevett: Berry, Of course, that is what we are doing -- but let's not point 
to the Board resolution when it works for us and not when it doesn't
avri: so it is not that we couldn't it is just that we shouldn't.  i can accept 
that.
Alan Greenberg: But if we refuse to discuss it, we ARE deciding on zero.
Ron: What are we voting on specifically?
Ron: Thanks!
Jothan Frakes: mikey can you state the percentage for the call please
Berry Cobb: of what looks like 19 possible votes
Jothan Frakes: that answers avri's question :)
Jothan Frakes: +1 avri , alan
Jothan Frakes: +1 to ken , folks get challenged on their vote or the direction 
they voted
Jothan Frakes: or might hesitate
Jothan Frakes: or not vote
avri: of course, like in the the US decsion on DADT, the decsion can be 
contitngent on a possible future action.  for example i could accept a certain 
percentage as long as i knew that this was not the end of the story - being 
more dedidcated to one size doesn't fit all then i would be to any number
jeff neuman: WHy are we talking about JUST ownership
jeff neuman: The Issue is control
Roberto: agree, nothing should be taken out of the pile, but this discussion is 
important to have a hint on what effort must be put in to reach consensus on 
what
Sivasubramanian M: Jeff, neither ownership nor control is the issue, but the 
issues are about the good or harm that can result out of a restrained / 
unrestained cross ownership 
Sivasubramanian M: Not only 'harms' but also ennumerate the possible 'good 
things' about VI
jeff neuman: The harms have been described so many times
jeff neuman: People need to go back to the record
jeff neuman: which has been established for many months now
jeff neuman: I have sent 4 times the same e-mail that documents the comments 
received on the harms!
jeff neuman: People may not agree, but until there are studies done, agreement 
or disagreement does not matter
avri: harm is massively relative. how can we reach consensus as relative as any 
issue we can come up with?
Sivasubramanian M: Jeff, it has been discussed , but  is there a concise 
summary of the possible harm ?
richard tindal: Jeff N - have you taken job as train driver?
jeff neuman: right
avri: defer until post brussels or way way beyoond.
Alan Greenberg: @avri +1
Jothan Frakes: avri that way way beyond is in colflict with ensuring no delay 
be introduced
Jothan Frakes: can these be done in tandem as opposed to serially?
avri: we can agree that there is a list, but we might not agree that everything 
on the list belongs on the list or that everything that might belong on the 
list is on the list.  but we can agree that there is a list.
Jothan Frakes: I agree with that statement
avri: +1 on inviting David
Alan Greenberg: @Jothan. NO!  We need to make recomendation for thias first 
round. That may be doable without harm.
jeff neuman: Richard - coincidence - Was on train from Boston to Phili on 
Monday during first call; Now back to Boston
helen laverty: does  anyone think that there may be more harms we haven't 
thought of?
Alan Greenberg: @helen. Yes...
Ron: @ helen: That is my point.  More thought needs to be devoted to harms and 
VI
helen laverty: so perhaps we need a brainstorming session on just this issue?
avri: @helen - there are alwasy more harms then we can think of.  thee are harm 
generators out in the world who can take anything and find a way to make it 
harmful.  hence the need to flexible and versitle enforcement forks.
avri: folks not forks
Jothan Frakes: I agree alan, we can't proclaim all harms are solved
Scott Austin: helen +1
Alan Greenberg: Forks might work also!   ;-)
Jothan Frakes: but I think we have to be practical about time. 
helen laverty: @ Alan to prod people into action?
Ron: @ Jothan: and that is not the point -- we will never clear all harm, but 
need to be very mindlful of removing it wherever we can
Jothan Frakes: harms will evolve into the system, just like weeds grow in the 
cracks
avri: i like that harm is like weeds.
Jothan Frakes: not suggesting we plow forward with belligerence
Alan Greenberg: We would not have predicted domain tasting well before it 
started. People are VERY innovative!
Alan Greenberg: Or if we would have predicted it, we would not have convinced 
eveyone of the harm
Jothan Frakes: never underestimate 'entrepreneurial' spirit
Alan Greenberg: Indeed!
helen laverty: So if we list all possible harms now, that does not prevent an 
update when someone gets clever
helen laverty: Otherwise it will never end
Ron:  Roberto +1 - identify and limit where we can.  But first give thought to 
identification
Jeffrey Eckhaus: +1 to Roberto
Jothan Frakes: I think we essentially agree, my point is not to introduce any 
more delay than necessary  through this harms identification process.
Scott Austin: that is my point we have to identfy what they are before we can 
agree the harms can be limited through a particular policy
Ron: @ Jothan: Agreed
Alan Greenberg: To limit potential harms, limit changes which may have unknown 
results - first order or second order, until well studied and understood.
helen laverty: so  why not have a list now and allow updates
Phil Buckingham: Roberto +1  try and limit all known harms pre application . I 
am sure there will be more harms post gTLD delegation- need to deal with these 
as they arise 
Scott Austin: helen +1
Jothan Frakes: good point on list that might allow updates, but alan's point 
wrt contractual elements.  once a contract is penned it is difficult to claw 
back favorable elements from a registry
Roberto: maybe a step could be to list all potential harms and design for each 
conditions under which they are limited or eliminated?
helen laverty: having a list should generate discussions now rather than later 
when it may be too late
Jothan Frakes: tough part is, as alan identified, tasting evolved over time and 
was unforseen
Alan Greenberg: I think that Ron's point about the size and effectiveness of 
the ICANN compliance team needs to be recognized.
Ron: Robeto +1; but more work will still be needed per Jothan's comment
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Sorry need to drop off the call 
avri: i think this is what is fundamental to the various modesl proposed - they 
way in which the possible harms are mitigated.
Jothan Frakes: well, the best would be a crystal ball, but we have a lot of 
fairly bright people in this group
jeff neuman: +! Jon
Jothan Frakes: jon makes a good point about the interdependencies
Phil Buckingham: Jon Nevett - I so so so agree with your comment just made  
Jothan Frakes: ALAN +100
jeff neuman: Alan - I am willing to call the Board's bluff
Paul Diaz: @ Jeff, +1
avri: i do not beleive it is a bluff.
Paul Diaz: Mikey, another poll question should be ''Do you think the Board will 
go ahead with its Nairobi declaration, or declare that more time is needed and 
granted to the WG?''
avri: i know people who think it is a good thing.
Roberto: @avri +1
Phil Buckingham: Jeff - yes on 31 May 
jeff neuman: Those that I have talked to do not even know what zero means
jeff neuman: sounds like an easy concept, right :)
avri: well the ones i have talked to do know.  
helen laverty: LOL
avri: at least as well as half of the people in this group
jeff neuman: Right, but how many of them know what ''an entity providing 
registry services'' means
avri: i expect most - they are mosly bright bunnies
Jothan Frakes: oy
avri: willing yes, want to, no.
helen laverty: @ avri +100
Jothan Frakes: I want to see DAG4 before answering this
jeff neuman: Jothan - +1
jeff neuman: ''helpful''.....that is a matter of opinion
Jothan Frakes: so I am the 'need more info'
Phil Buckingham: Jothan +1
Jothan Frakes: so ''I Need more information'' = ask again after DAG4 release
Roberto: Mikey, no apologies, the discussion was useful
helen laverty: Jothan +1
Jothan Frakes: mikey can some time be spent on this harms list
Jothan Frakes: so that it may be used as a parallel process
Ron: Are Avri and i the only ones who would like to hear from compliance? 
Jothan Frakes: but agree memorial day (in US) is a challenging timing, many of 
us are at events honoring some important people
helen laverty: last monday was victoria day  .ditto if dead