[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the teleconference today
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the teleconference today
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:05:59 -0500
here's the chat transcript from the call today.
Gisella Gruber-White: Jothan Frakes has joined the call
avri: i do not see thee is aproblem even with the poll on delay. would be a
interesting data point. i do not understand the reason for not wanting data
Milton Mueller: i agree -
Roberto: Shall we have a poll on whether to have the poll?
avri: way kewl!
Milton Mueller: :-)
Brian Cute: What do we do if the result is 50 - 50?
CLO: ALAC & At-Large have consistantly stated we do NOT wish to delay new
gTLD's As such any views our reps put forward on a delay poll would be
personal views only and NOT a preferred option from a consensus view or
Roberto: small delay?
avri: then we know we don't have a consensus on that point.
Milton Mueller: again, a poll would allow people to express those views
jeff neuman: No one wants a delay, which means we are stuck with DAG 4
Roberto: Seriously, I think that the risk is only that we take the result of
the poll not as data point, but a sort of call for consensus that could twist
the GNSO's arm
avri: i like DAGv4 better then the 2 leading proposals
Brian Cute: except there may be announced supporters for proposals who are not
on the call -- that could skew the poll results...
Roberto: if it is clear that it is only a poll, a data collection, informal,
maybe it's OK
avri: so it can be anoff call poll
Milton Mueller: i thought we were talking about a list poll, not a phone call
Kristina Rosette: and potential supports for proposals that won't be definite
Milton Mueller: agree, KR, many people need ot talk directly about proposals
Berry Cobb: The other element to the question about the delay of DAG poll, is
that it is one of our objectives of the WG....not to delay the rollout.
Jothan Frakes: are there folks hoping to spring 11th hour proposals?
Berry Cobb: If the poll were taken, I am confident, near 80% would say no
way....lets not delay rollout anylonger.
avri: if the poll has a yes, no, maybe clause then we start to get data points.
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): Michele +1
Kristina Rosette: @Jothan: What I meant was that the IPC won't know if it can
support one of the other proposals until we've had a chance to meet in Brussels.
Jothan Frakes: oh, thanks for claritfying
CLO: Be nice to know @Jothan
Roberto: @Kristina does this mean that in Brussels on Saturday you will be in
the same situation?
jeff neuman: Kristina, this WG is really for individuals to weigh in (perhaps
companies), but is not really a ''constituency statement''....not sure that
changes anything or not. For example, I do not know what the registries will
or will not support
Jothan Frakes: I didn't mean to single out Kristina or the IPC, that was a
Michele Neylon: I only speak for me / Blacknight
CLO: As long as the options include Support or Live with and Needs change
before we can live with
Michele Neylon: I cannot and will not speak for anyone else
Kristina Rosette: @Roberto: probably
Kristina Rosette: @Jeff: I know, but if the IPC has reached a position, I
would think that making that known would be helpful if only to have a
''definite'' data point
Jon Nevett: Virtually every constituency has folks on different sides of the
issue -- should be interesting trying to get consensus on constituency day
Jon Nevett: let alone before
avri: it is true while I am comfortable with the DAGv4 2% proposal, I do prefer
the Board's orginal 0% - this is the safest.
Roberto: I think that it is important to get to Saturday in Brussels being able
to make substantial progress. If we wait until later in the week, when we have
constituency statements, it might be too late to get some F2F consensus
avri: Whose goal is staying with the so-called status quo?
avri: Do tim mean that is the WG bgoal or the Affilias and Co. proposal's goal.
Jothan Frakes: Actually register.com birthed an entity called registrypro
jeff neuman: 100% owned by Register.com
Kathy Kleiman: +1 Tim
Kathy Kleiman: Milton, disagree. 15% is about cross-ownership, limited, but not
control. Discussed at length.
jeff neuman: Kathy - why are you drawing that distinction?
Milton Mueller: 15% could be controlling in many ways. Plus, why not 10%? 5%?
Alan: @milton: problem is lack of belief that competition authorities will
actually engage, and that we have not yet defined the scope for the definition
of market power.
CLO: +1 Alan
Kathy Kleiman: @Jeff N - Milton said we haven't talked about ''why 15%'' and I
can think of few things we have discussed more.
Michele Neylon: +1 Eckhaus
ken stubbs: +2 alan
Milton Mueller: @Alan: ''we'' should not be defining the scope of market power.
The antitrust authorities should
Jothan Frakes: Jeff(s) thanks for clarification of ownership on RegistryPro
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): if the competition authorities don't care, what does
that say about the issue?
Jothan Frakes: the registry services got shopped around so much I lost track
Milton Mueller: @Kathy: we have talked about it only because it is part of the
status quo. We have not justified it. And we have not explained why anyone
would object to a competition review
jeff neuman: @ gray - Not much....it means they are busy
CLO: Narrowing down to a few proposals/options with level of support would be
an excellent outcome IMO
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): CLO +!
Michele Neylon: +1 CLO
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): CLO+1
Brian Cute: no problem
Milton Mueller: @ gray, @jeff N: are you predicting what competition
authorities will do? how do you know? They take on many issues and have lots of
staff to do these things. Ask Google and Intel
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): @milton, agreed, my point is that if they don't take
issue with anything, then at least they think this whole issue is a bit of a
tempest in a teapot
ken stubbs: cam is not practical because you will have significant time
engaging competition authorities and getting the to act. negotiations will take
an interminable time and processing applications will take even longer
Michele Neylon: +1 Ken
Statton Hammock: Agree with CLO and with JNevett re: submitting proposals with
levels of support
CLO: @Roberto some of us can't be in the meeting room F2F on Sat!
Milton Mueller: @gray - yes, I know we agree.
Milton Mueller: @ken: only if there is a problem. First it goes through a fast
CESP review, only if it is flagged does it go to a CA. And of course, that will
only involve major players with market power
Jothan Frakes: to circle around on registrypro, I think that the registry
service provider was outsourced, despite ownership
Jeffrey Eckhaus: @Jothan - it was done by Register.com as well
Tim Ruiz: There are elements of the other proposals that at some point we (Go
Daddy) might be able to support. But this WG needs rechartering so it can draw
in and draw from appropriate experts, research, etc., in a cohesive manner.
Everything up to this point, including the current charter of this WG, has been
more or less adhoc.
Jothan Frakes: I suspect this, at least
Milton Mueller: Brian, ICANN is doing that without the CAM proposal!!!!
Jon Nevett: Thanks for the clarification, Roberto
Kathy Kleiman: @Milton - concern about CAM re: monitoring and compliance as
well as competition authorities. What other groups run each and every business
model through a competition authority? They're not structured for that.
Milton Mueller: CAM would not refer ''every single application'' - CESP would
filter out most of them
Statton Hammock: I agree with Brian on the concerns regardi competition
authorities concern and also I think the application process for new applicants
is onerous enought without adding a disclosure to CA
avri: CAM does not recommend that is ICANN that does it, it is an exper group
Phil Buckingham: Roberto - what is our definition of consensus - highest number
of votes on a proposal , majority votes ie more 50%
jeff neuman: 50% is too small
jeff neuman: and this group is not balanced to vote like that
Roberto: @CLO this is a fact of life, that will happen all the time
Jeffrey Eckhaus: 15% was the ownership percentage when VRSN sold NSI. It was
not devised by ICANN to foster competition
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): why is the ownership % important, if control is the
jeff neuman: Jeff E - Correct. 11.2% was what Afilias had in their first
Jothan Frakes: I agree with Gray
jeff neuman: meaning a registrar could only own up to 11.2% of Afilias
Tim Ruiz: Gray, what control?
Milton Mueller: @eckhaus: exactly right, 15% is totqally irrelevant to our
Jothan Frakes: well, tim, controlling interest
Statton Hammock: Milton +1 and Jeff E +1
CLO: And what Brian is saying now IS one of MY greatest concerns Risk for
future gaming and compliance
jeff neuman: What does ''enhanced abuse'' even mean
Tim Ruiz: Jothan, but how is that defined and then monitored and enforced by
Brian Cute: understood avri. I think an original version proposed something
closer to ICANN engaging in compeititon ''analisys''
jeff neuman: If we are worried about ''enhanced abuse'', we may as well pack up
and not introduce new TLDs...which is NOT what I am advocating
Phil Buckingham: Please please ownership is ireelevant , it is about control .
You can have control at 1% . We have discuused this so so many times
jeff neuman: Isnt that what IP owners were arging....enhanced cybersquatting
would occur and therefore we should have no new TLDs?
Kathy Kleiman: 0%/2% - 15% - 100%; the convergence of the proposals is clearly
at 15%; that's what the Table shows.
Milton Mueller: enhanced abuse was part of the FCC Computer Inquiries. If you
add value via abuse you are an enhanced abuser
jeff neuman: Kathy - would not draw that conclusion.
Milton Mueller: ha ha
Jeffrey Eckhaus: It is not clearly at 15% , can we please stop trying to push
Brian Cute: even with an outside panel doing the analysis, ICANN would have to
be careful about ''ratifying'' the anaysis etc.
Tim Ruiz: Phil, how do define control and then monitor and enforce it?
jeff neuman: I would favor 0-2% over the Afilias proposal
Roberto: @phil I meant consensus in an abstract sense, like getting some sort
of agreement, I was not actually thinking of formal consensus calls (unless
there's evidence of rough consensus in the formal sense)
Jothan Frakes: @jeff Neumann is that 'hatfield/mccoy' resistance or what's your
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): I think Jeff N. makes a great point on the VRSN/NSI
deal. To me, I think we need evidence that this is not an artifact if the % is
to be taken as meaningful
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): Sorry, Jeff Eckhaus
Phil Buckingham: Roberto - thanks for clarification
jeff neuman: Jothan - it means that if you are going to prevent registrars from
competing in this new round, you may as well do it completely..... AGAIN THIS
IS NOT WHAT I SUPPORT
CLO: @Roberto I was assuming you were refering to a form of consensus call /
outcome from the F2F on Sat = Sorry if I missunderstood still think we should
try for pre Brussels support metrics thpugh
Milton Mueller: we can hear you ken
Brian Cute: The 15% came out of the agreement to spin off .org, to put .net up
for bid and to reduce VSign's ownership of NetSol to 15% to address concerns
about potential discrimination
Michele Neylon: this is fun
CLO: I have silence yet my line shows as connected
CLO: have I been disconnected :?
Brian Cute: CLO - where is that setting? I'd like to hit that button. :)
Jothan Frakes: MIKEY can you ask the operator to dial out to CLO again
Brian Cute: CLO - we still see you.
Alan: There is still talking going on
CLO: manty people would but it doesn't exist @Brian audio is now back for me
lot of info missed I guess
Tim Ruiz: 15% is in every existing registry agreement. It is far less arbitrary
than any other untested percentage you pull out of a hat.
Jon Nevett: right -- control should be the standard. The question is whether
there is a % of cross-ownership that is a sufficient indicator of control.
Based on historical thresholds, I agreed to support the 15%.
Jothan Frakes: ok cool CLO
avri: This misses the point that most if not all are handled by the independent
review team of experts
Roberto: @CLO (and clarification for all) I believe that Saturday we can have
progress towards consensus, and that we have to put ourselves in the best
conditions for doing so. Maybe we will not get a formal consensus (however
defined) but we will have a clearer picture on what is feasible and what not.
And that will be useful for the Council. And for our post-BRU work
Kathy Kleiman: Enhanced abuse is not an unfair issue to raise - isn't it the
key issue? If a key issue for the WG is preserving Registry Data for fair
distribution among all Registrars (Equal Access), then isn't monitoring,
compliance and enforcement key to our work here?
Tim Ruiz: Agree with Jon. More work is needed on defining control, but even
more importantly, identifying/defining monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
Kathy Kleiman: Milton, aren't you passing to panel the type of questions this
WG is being asked to answer?
Milton Mueller: its a competition/market power test, not a ''roll off the
avri: @kathy: they can only be answered on a case by case basis
Milton Mueller: @Kathy: no, market power has to be assessed on a case by case
CLO: +1 Alan much 'harm can happen before it gets to illegal
Tim Ruiz: +1 Alan
avri: and we wee not talking about illegal, but harm .
avri: please do no micharacterize what we are proposing.
Milton Mueller: Alan, do you think you have proposed rules that promote the
public interest in ALL cases for all applications?
Kathy Kleiman: @Milton, Avri, if the purpose of our work now is to bring
something clear to the Council and Board, I don't see this as definite enough
to move foward.
Milton Mueller: it's definite enough, Kathy, quite definite. It is also quite
close to what every economic expert has proposed.
CLO: @Avri I'm heartened to hear CAM consider change to allow end uder
alerting in a way that must be responded to matters of Harm when can we see
these (and other) proposed modifications to the main 'proposals'???
Milton Mueller: CLO: soon
CLO: end under = end User/ REgitrant
avri: @kathy: that is a good suggestion. what point n the CAM proposal need
Milton Mueller: @avri, correct me if I am wrong, Kathy, but what I think Kathy
is saying is that review by CESP and CAs is ''indefinite'' because we don't
know the outcome in advance
Alan: @milton I believe our first requirement is to be as flexible as we can
for the first round, following a ''do no harm'' credo and make sure that the
decisions we make do not preclude the longer term effort that will follow.
jeff neuman: I dont think we will have consensus on 1 solution
Kathy Kleiman: @avri, Ken raised a number of questions. In the STI, we spent
weeks on the URS Panelists, selection, training, etc.
avri: @CLO: i tink we are already discussing harm and not illegality in terms
of the conditions under which distribution occurs in affiliated registries - we
do not refer to illegality but to harmful behavior.
Jon Nevett: Jeff N -- not a chance
Phil Buckingham: Mikey, can you email out the PDP cycle and timelines /dates
Michele Neylon: there are a couple of proposals with support, aren't there?
Jothan Frakes: ok so we have a compressed timeframe
Michele Neylon: JN2 has a load of supporters now ..
Alan: @avri, but competition authorities make value judgements based on their
reading of the in-force competition laws.
Jothan Frakes: is it possible to float two proposals and say that those were
the main positions in the group and raise that to the board?
ken stubbs: tim is correst here !
Jon Nevett: Agree with Tim -- we should issue an initial report ASAP
Milton Mueller: but competition laws are intended to promote consumer welfare
and in that sense are guided by a public interest standard
ken stubbs: correct
jeff neuman: Jothan - The GNSO Council could do that, but the board has asked
for a consensus solution otherwise they would go with their default
Milton Mueller: read some recent court cases on antitrust
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Jeff N is correct
Jeffrey Eckhaus: they have a default position
ken stubbs: dont believe your correct here jeff
Jon Nevett: she forgot bra burning
avri: @kathy are you requiring the same criteria for all of the DAG review
teams? do you require it for RSTEP. Yes, we think there is a step where we
consult a wide range of experts for the criteria under which the review panel
operates. this can be achieved in the months before the application process
begins, asuming the idea was acepted.
jeff neuman: The resolution sates: Resolved (2010.03.12.18), if a policy
becomes available from the GNSO, and approved by the Board prior to the launch
of the new gTLD program, that policy will be considered by the Board for
adoption as part of the New gTLD Program.
Jothan Frakes: thx CLO
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): agreed with Tim and Jon - something needs to be out
there so that people can tear it apart
jeff neuman: So that means ''a'' proposal...meaning 1 proposal
Michele Neylon: there's no reason why we can't have a couple of proposals . ..
options - choice
Kristina Rosette: Have to drop off for Council call. Safe travels everyone
CLO: I'd like toi see 1=> 3 proposal/options
ken stubbs: also says ''the Board does not want to create an environment in
which it would be difficult to later harmonize the new gTLD marketplace with
the GNSO policy result; andWhereas, it is important to establish a baseline
approach to registry-registrar separation for the new gTLD process to move
Kathy Kleiman: Safe travels, Kristina and All!
jeff neuman: thats a whereas clause and not a resolution...which is legally
Jeffrey Eckhaus: I am reading Note 1 in Module 1
Michele Neylon: CLO - a lot of us are willing to switch to another proposal as
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Section 1.2.1
avri: those with question, please read, or reread the latest CAM proposal, we
have anticipated many of the issues you are raising.
CLO: We need a hard stop to force that @ Michele IMO
Tim Ruiz: So perhaps we present a *draft* initial report in Brussels, then
finalize it as soon after as possible for posting for public comment.
ken stubbs: why not mikey
ken stubbs: +1 margie
Kathy Kleiman: @avri, per the questions, I was sharing the types of detail we
might want in a proposal going up to the Council and Board
Jon Nevett: Tim +1
gray chynoweth (Dyn Inc.): that makes sense to me Tim
Brian Cute: Tim +1
Jothan Frakes: +1 Tim
ken stubbs: +1 tim
avri: as long as it does pretend that there is consensus i do not care what we
Paul Diaz: @ Avri, does NOT pretend, correct?
avri: and anyone who wants to help us work on CAM to answer more of the
questions in more detail is more then welcome to do so.
avri: thank you.
avri: @paul thank you. yes. NOT NOT NOt
CLO: phew @ Avrio ;-)
Alan: @tim, I could propose solutions, but first we need to agree there is a
problem. Or we may end up with a final result that is challenged.
Tim Ruiz: Alan, good point.
Kathy Kleiman: What is it being published?
Sivasubramanian M: any name with a descritpion fo the kind of report it is
ken stubbs: ''happy trails to you '' .....
CLO: I'm travelling from Sunday we have the Asia Pacific regional IGF from
Monday in HK may not get much to list from me but will be on the Mon Call
Tim Ruiz: Leaving for the Council call. Everyone travel safe. See you in
Jothan Frakes: travel safe and see you all in brussels
CLO: in Brussels from Thursday for ATRT Fri & SAT
CLO: see some of you there
Brian Cute: Safe travels. See you in Brussels.
Michele Neylon: see you all in a bar
Michele Neylon: in Brussels
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)