[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from Monday call

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

hm.  i'm preparing the Adobe room for the meeting this afternoon.  i think i 
forgot to send the chat transcript.  so here it is.

mikey

- - - - - -

Michele Neylon: evening girls and boys
Michele Neylon: Mikey - AFAIK the lace isn't Belgian - they sell imported stuff 
.. 
ken stubbs: are belgian waffles similiar to belgian wallons
Michele Neylon: Ken - ROFL
Michele Neylon: icann.belgium.ie
Michele Neylon: not brussels.ie
Alan Greenberg: Got dropped 
Alan Greenberg: back now
Michele Neylon: Mikey added a nice map to the site earlier  with all the 
restaurants 
Michele Neylon: kinda handy
Volker Greimann: joined now
Katrin Ohlmer: @Michele nite site!
avri: i do not agree
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Do not agree 
CLO: Lots of X's
Volker Greimann: using apple?
avri: is it called the incumbent proposal?
Jothan Frakes: Mikey uses mac
Statton Hammock: I think you're on track Mikey; let's merge some of these and 
whittle the number of proposals down if we can.
Jeff Neuman: Avri - This incumbent is strongly against the Afilias proposal
avri: Jeff - sorry.
Jeff Neuman: I saw Kathy's doc, but my discussion with Ron Andruff who is not 
on this call did not match the Afilias proposal
Volker Greimann: I see myself gravitating towards JN2 as well. Not because I 
believe it is better than our original proposal, but because I see it as the 
most viable compromise solution. It still needs some tweaking still, but hey, 
nothing is perfect
Jeffrey Eckhaus: I tend to agree with Volker on this issue as well 
Volker Greimann: I would like to see 15%+x in columns C and D personally
avri: the Cute proposal?
CLO: LOL
CLO: YES  please note what ALAN is SAYING
CLO: INDEED best at THIS time
CLO: that we (well I) was ''most comfortable with' was what I said  and as I 
said to others in email we are NOT at End Game Yet!
Volker Greimann: I believe the afilias proposal will damage the process and 
needlessly excludes many prospective registry operators
Volker Greimann: missing on the ''continued seperation'' section: - Excluding 
potential applicants 
Alan Greenberg: In my mind, the JN2 exception for trading in other TLDs is one 
that *might* be possible to add to Afilias. IF we could identify the right set 
of exceptions, controls and contractual terms. I am not optimistic on this, but 
consider it possible.
Jeff Neuman: Alan - What are you trying to protect against cross TLDs
Volker Greimann: the ''No'' in comumn E is still a big stubling block 
Volker Greimann: (in Afilias proposal)#
Phil Buckingham: Would back JN2 proposal as the base - with the following 
compromise 15% or control  registry to registrar , but 100% or control 
registrar to registry . More later on list. Volker+1 re Afilias
CLO: Yes as Alan states above and we both made a catagorical point os in our 
messages to the list  we were looking at the UNcombined or blended proposals 
and showing preference AT that time ... We are (I assume) still looking towards 
more blending of concepts are we not:?:
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Thank You Mikey 
Eric Brunner-Williams: @clo -- the largest possible intersection of policy 
principles or elements, or weakest possible necessary constraints 
Jon Nevett 2: The back-end distinction in Columns O and P is a big difference 
to me between the JN2 and the Cute proposals.
Eric Brunner-Williams: at the point when the envelope can't be stretched 
further, that is were a set of principles and their advocates stop, or their 
proposal breaks up.
Volker Greimann: Equal access: I consider this issue as one of the fundamental 
issues. I believe equal access is necessary and must be safeguarded. Limiting 
ownership to 15% however does nothing to that effect.
CLO: Perhaps more of a Matrix than a List  and that integrates what Kathy 
raised earlier as well
Jeff Neuman: Volker - Here is where we diverge; I believe that if the rationale 
is for greater innovation with no limits on cross ownership, that would also 
mean that there should be no equal access.
Volker Greimann: I know. This issue originally turned me away from your proposal
Volker Greimann: It may be possible to compromise here, by restricting equal 
access exceptions very strictly
Jeff Neuman: The JN2 proposal does have equal access requirements
Jeff Neuman: because it also has limits to CO/VI
Jeffrey Eckhaus: My analogy pro bably could use some help 
Roberto: Actually, the main cause for the delay was my fault.
CLO: The deffinitions are VERY helpful THANKS  and yes discussion should be ON 
the list 
Kathy Kleiman: +1 CLO
ken stubbs: +1 mikey
Volker Greimann: +1: By using the same definitions as ICANN staff, we can avoid 
misunderstandings and confusion
avri: does it really matter if the Board thinks it is an official document?
avri:  probably should do one of those 3 way doodle polls (yes, may, no) to see 
what support there is for the various proposals - especially from the mostly 
silent particpants.
avri: it is also a rule if you expect the GAC to read it.
Jeffrey Eckhaus: @avri - do we have to choose one? I like the JN2 , CAM, Open 
Registrar and my initial one
Kathy Kleiman:  I would like to see email froms our silent partners - what they 
support, why. I think CLO put out a call for this in our last call. 
CLO: @Avri although is we ''discuss'' blending options and seek clarifications 
that might aid our ability to get more deffinative results  from my POV were 
still needing to do some negotiations before narrowing choices to just 1
Jeffrey Eckhaus: But I would hesitate to make someone choose one now 
Jeff Neuman: I also believed everyone should make sure their statements of 
interest are current as well
avri: exactly.  would be intersting see the viewpoint on any and all.  that is 
the things about the doodle poll, we can collect the yes, maybes and no on all 
proposals and someone could have several opinions.
Jeffrey Eckhaus: maybe which way they are leaning
CLO: but a non binding Poll on the snapshot that is current would be usefull to 
*encourage* these negotiations for any blending
Jeff Neuman: I have not seen too much evidence of negotiations, but rather back 
door calls for support
Katrin Ohlmer: @avri +1
Eric Brunner-Williams: @alan agree. brussels is a distraction from the real 
issue of policy 
Jeff Neuman: I would be interested in ''negotiations'' if others are
CLO: and I WANT to see some concsensus building negotiations
avri: like i curently at least yes on CAM and a  maybe on DAGv4 and ...
Tim Ruiz: Negotiations are fine, but there are thresholds some of us have for 
whatever reasons (self interest or otherwise) and we need to recognize that.
Jeff Neuman: Tim - As long as those are disclosed.
avri: yes, for example i am pretty insistent on oversight model
CLO: Of course @tim  but until proponents have a 'measure of interest' from the 
WG members where is the 'pressure to negotiate (or not)
avri: but don't realy care how it is done, though i do have suggestions.
Jeff Neuman: If we are to have true ''negotiations'' everyone should know 
exactly why someone is making an arguement for or against a proposal.
CLO: I Agree Jeff
Kristina Rosette: @Ken:  AOB still exists, but it can be challenging to utilize 
it.  Personally, I'd rather not have the headache of having to rely on it.
ken stubbs: understand  kristina.. can you put in an agenda placeholder ?
avri: for example i also think there sould be a way for there to be greater 
than threshold CO, but there has to be some way to review for non market power 
- but don't really care how that review is done, though i have a suggestion.
CLO: Lets here from Avri on these suggestions 
Tim Ruiz: Jeff, you know full well there is no way to know that. All we know is 
what we are told as the reason. Several people have done that at various points 
only to have someone else basically call them liars. That gets us no where.
Kristina Rosette: @Ken:  That's the plan.  I'll touch base with Alan, Tim, and 
Stephane offline. 
CLO: @ tim I assume most of us can ''play nice''
Mike O'Connor: OK i'm back...
Volker Greimann: one thing I still not understand is why models that are 
clearly working for ccTLDs (some of which larger than any other gTLD but .com) 
suddenly are a cause of concerns for new TLDs (most of which will remain 
smaller than some of the newer gTLDs available already
avri: @volker, i don't actually thnk they are a problem except in the rare 
cases of market pwoer.  so the CAM models is trying to say that some of the 
models (as long as euivalent access is included for the most part) are ok as 
long as there is no market pwoer and a perodic audit to be sure that no thing 
untoward is going on.  ie. trust but verify.
Kathy Kleiman: The Board proposal has no exception for cross-TLD.
Volker Greimann: especially as many proposed new gTLDs will be more like ccTLDs 
than like gTLDs (city-TLDs, regional TLDs)
Michele Neylon: the board proposal is intentionally narrow
avri: @Volker indeed
Jeff Neuman: The Board Proposal Kathy is 0%...staff is 2% which I can live with
Jeff Neuman: provided notice is required
Brian Cute: staff is 2%?
Kathy Kleiman: +1 Mikey
Jeff Neuman: yes Brian, staff has proposed 2%
avri: from what i undestand, board first suggested 0, then decided that some 
wiggle room for de-minimus alloed forstaf to go for 2.
Brian Cute: Board hasn't approved 2%.  Did staff issue something contrary to 
Board?
Volker Greimann: Staff did some creative interpretation of what the board may 
have been intended
avri: last time they alked about the board having given a sense of not trying 
to be hard edged about it. 
Michele Neylon: the percentage is purely aribitrary - 15% is used as it's in a 
lot of existing contracts
Jeffrey Eckhaus: But 100% is also used in some contracts like .PRO 
Volker Greimann: Mike-1: 15% was not the general rule. 15% was in place in 
registry contracts, prohibiting them from aquiring over 15% in registrars, but 
no such limitation was in place for registrars for the other way.
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Agree with Volker . Good point
Volker Greimann: not even the updated RAA from last year, in full view of the 
overarching issues for the gTLD process introduced such a limitation.
jc Vignes: volker +&
Jeff Neuman: Volker - not to take the other position, but registrars would not 
have agreed to the new RAA with such a limitation, so I find that to be 
irrelevant
Volker Greimann: If ICANN staff&board would have thought at that time 
registrars should not own more than 15% of a registry, would they not have 
included that in the last RAA update?
Michele Neylon: Volker - exactly
Volker Greimann: it was however not even discussed at that stage
Jeff Neuman: No they would not have included it, because the RAA amendments 
were to address IP concerns and concerns echoed as a result of RegistryFly
Michele Neylon: why not make it 49% and be done with it?
Volker Greimann: so it was not seen necessary
Jeffrey Eckhaus: How does it allow it to allow innovation in 15% and not in 2% 
Jeffrey Eckhaus: ?
Michele Neylon: or just simply make it ''not a controlling interest'' ?
Jeff Neuman: Why not keep it at 2%
avri: CAM's aceptace of 15 is contngent on the rest of the proposal
Tim Ruiz: Michele, Volker - It may be arbitrary but it is maintains a level 
playing field. And in fact, .pro does not contain the 15% with only .pro TLD 
itself as an exception. 100% creates a level playing field for applicants, but 
introduces a plathora of potential harms we need to work through, and that will 
take a long time to do.
Tim Ruiz: I meant .pro does NOW contain the 15%.
Phil Buckingham: Ken +1- definately need clarification . Why 2% not 3% or 4% . 
Yes call Kurt and get a straight answer !!
Volker Greimann: Jeffrey, Michele, Jeff: Exactly. Any number proposed is 
arbitrary, and will do nothing to actually prevent any of the harms. Let us be 
honest about that. This is why we proposed 100% as it will force us to make 
stronger and better rules to prevent or control abuse. Because the limit of 15% 
will not do it
helen laverty: What harms has 15% actually ever done?
Volker Greimann: @tim in use registry->registrar, never for registrar->registry
Volker Greimann: btw: no answerr to my question about the harms in ccTLDs with 
CO/VI models in place is an answer too
Volker Greimann: Houston: the eagle has landed!
Kathy Kleiman: 15% seems to have worked for its purpose - cross-ownership, 
cross-investment, but not control. 
Volker Greimann: but does it mean that? I can think of dozens of legal 
scenarios where 15% ownership can still equal 100% control.
helen laverty: @ Kathy agree
Statton Hammock: @Tim I think you just said all percentages are arbitrary and I 
agree. Also, no percentage will mitigate or prevent harms. So why we are having 
these ownership restrictions is still beyond me. 
Volker Greimann: so lets rather limit control instead of focussing on the red 
herring of ownership
Sivasubramanian M: +1 on what Voker said 
Michele Neylon: I think I'll just let Volker talk for me - let's hope he 
doesn't say anything silly (or I'll have to kill him:) )
avri: i do not think 15 leads to innovation, i think it allows incumbents to 
parciapte, as long as up to 100% is allowed in cases where thee is not danger 
of market pwoer.
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Agree with @avri
Volker Greimann: must watch out then, I like living...
Kathy Kleiman: @Volker, then additional structural separations should be put in.
Volker Greimann: @kathy but once we have these structures in place, 15% makes 
no sense anymore
Tim Ruiz: Statton - I don't disagree, but we would like to see new gTLDs so we 
have to land somewhere.
avri: and selling an affialiated tld is ok as long as the fair play of 
equivalent access is guaranteed and verfied.
Michele Neylon: @Tim moving forward with TLDs is fine, but at what price?
Tim Ruiz: Volker - our proposal does both.
Volker Greimann: Once we have structures, 100% is just as viable as 15%, so I 
just cannot agree to the position that any restriction of ownership makes 
senseunless convinced otherwise
Kathy Kleiman: @Volker, but we don't have them in place now, and so if we want 
to move forward with new gTLDs, at least in this round, we should move forward 
with our points of convergence.
Phil Buckingham: All new gTLD applicants, future registry need finance and 
therefore investment . Should be the ability to have 100 % investment from a 
registrar. The key issue is control to do harms .15 % is totally arbitrary
Tim Ruiz: Michele - $185,000 a pop :)
Michele Neylon: Tim - ah sure price of a couple of beers so :)
jc Vignes: volker speaks for ne too
Statton Hammock: Agree with Jeff Neuman. 
Volker Greimann: Like I said again, 100% has been shown as working and being 
effective without customer harms
Michele Neylon: Volker - +10000000
Michele Neylon: when +1 won't do it :)
Tim Ruiz: Jeff E - Are you in favor then of putting off the initial roll out 
until we can get all these issues worked out? Seriously, we would be.
Scott Austin: alan +1
Sivasubramanian M: Whoever poposes limits on cross ownership, are they worried 
even about relatively small registrars / registries cross owning shares? 
Smaller Registries and Registrars have to grow, and if they do it is good for 
the domain indistry, it would create a balance in a world dominated by the 
Verisings and Godaddy's.  Is there a possibility of selectively applying the 
rule of cross ownership - to entities like Godaddy, Affilisas and Verisign and 
leave the rest of the domain industry alone? 
Statton Hammock: And I'll jump on the Volker bandwagon too. Agree.
CLO: Compliance is a huge concern from an At-Large POV
Kathy Kleiman: But Volker, the ccTLDs have not equal access obligations. But 
Equal Access is something we have virtually all agreed we wanted in new gTLDs. 
It's that principle that is behind the structure of numerous proposals.
avri: so hold the contract until the conditions are ready.  does not need to 
slow down the process.  and ICANN can monotor and take action.  this is what 
they should be doing - and instead osaying the can't we should be making sure 
they do.
Volker Greimann: If ICANN can't do it, they should outsource such control 
functions.
Kathy Kleiman: +1 CLO, the complexity of compliance is a big issue
ken stubbs: massive is a better descriptor
Michele Neylon: CLO - they've made huge improvements in the last 18 months
Kathy Kleiman: What's the priority - perfect answers, or roll-out? 
Volker Greimann: kathy: I agree that equal access is the one change that would 
really improve on the models seen in the cctld world
avri: for those who want >15% and want oversight and enforcement, what is wrong 
with the CAM proposal and what would you need to see to accept it?
CLO: Yes  indeed @Michele  but that is now what about When :?
Jeff Neuman: Avri - The CAM proposal in my view is unrealistic
avri: Jeff why?
Jeff Neuman: Competition authorities do not just take these types of things
avri: what about it is counter reality?
Jeff Neuman: They are too busy
Alan Greenberg: @Jeff N +1
Jeff Neuman: Competition authorities take what they have to by statute
Jeff Neuman: and regulation
Volker Greimann: Jeff > 9000
Jeff Neuman: But not private contracts
Tim Ruiz: @Avri - Have competition authorities replied to your proposal? How 
responsive are they likely to be? Will they really look at the referrals, and 
in a timely manner?
Jeff Neuman: I have talked to several of my DOJ friends who have enough of a 
time reviewing required filings
avri: first we have put a prior step in of competition experts.  and second we 
are being told they will in the more rare case that someone thinks there is a 
problem.
Phil Buckingham: ICANN cant hold up new GTLD anymore - they are committed to a 
four month communication strategy - arent they ??
Jeff Neuman: HSR filings
Kathy Kleiman: Tx All for the discussion today1
Michele Neylon: bye 
Volker Greimann: If it means overcoming the 15% barrier, I am willing to extend 
as well
Volker Greimann: I much rather have a solution that actually works than a 
''solution'' that proposes restrictions without any effect
avri: anyway wht is why the CAM proposal put in a expert panel of comeptetion 
authorites to review and only forwarded specific hard issues on to the 
competition authroties.

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)