[gnso-vi-feb10] chat session from the meeting today

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

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from the meeting today -- including the little rump 
session between Scott Austin, Kathy Kleiman, Jeff Neuman, Brian Cute and me 
where we were working out language for the poll.

mikey

- - - - - -

avri: lovely hold music
Sebastien Bachollet (privately): I am in ALAC conf call. I will join you in a 
second
Sebastien Bachollet (privately): with Alan and Cheryl
Alan Greenberg: Better if it wasn't interrupted every 30 seconds...
avri: Alan: i was thinking the same thing.
richard tindal: Hi all -- apologize for missing last few calls
richard tindal: ive been in rural italy - dodgy phone service
CLO: I'm waiting for them to call my hotel room in HK  
Alan Greenberg: Probably good food though!
Gisella Gruber-White: CLO - dialling -out now - thanks
CLO: :-)
Gisella Gruber-White: Brian Cute and Phil Buckingham have joined the call
CLO: As have I
Gisella Gruber-White: Thomas Barrett has joined the call as well as Scott Austin
Kathy Kleiman: hand still up...
Gisella Gruber-White: Kristina Rosette has joined the call
Michele Neylon: hasn't the document deadline long past anyway?
Michele Neylon: Kathy - just interrupt him
avri: i am not comfortable with the notion of 'finalist' in Margie's timeline.
avri: but if the WG loves that notion - then we need to also have reports from 
the minority opinions.
Jeff Neuman: We should always have monirotiy opinions, but Avri, how else do we 
narrow down the choices
Kristina Rosette: Agree with Avri about ''finalist''. Several WGs have recently 
published reports where proposals only had a few supporters
Michele Neylon: Jeff - is using an Uzi an option? :)
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca: Aren't they all minority opinions?
Jeff Neuman: I think all proposals should be reflected in a report...dont get 
me wrong, but to get to consensus, at some point we need to give up on the 
proposals that do not hav at least some bar of support
avri: Michele: how many of you are skilled in using an Uzi, including field 
stipping them in the dark - i am
avri: i think to get to consensus we need to discuss the issues specifically.
Michele Neylon: avri - we have armalites :)
Kathy Kleiman: @ Michele, appreciate the advice. I hate to interrupt Mikey :-)
Michele Neylon: Kathy - he'll ignore you otherwise
richard tindal: Jeff +1
Brian Cute: Michele - i thought all you republicans had given up the stash...
Alan Greenberg: Jeff +1
avri: i certainly agree that we should be clear to show that Free Trade has the 
most support etc...
Michele Neylon: Brian - :) I could tell you things .. .. ..
Jeff Neuman: Support...and ''live with'' are not the same thing, but yes, the 
report should reflect the poll
Kathy Kleiman: 3 meetings - that's our Sat meeting, the Sun GNSO and the Tues 
ALAC meeting?
Brian Cute: Michele - but then you't have to ....   ;)
avri: ok ok, yes JN+
avri: has the mostest of the GREENs
Jeff Neuman: Not to mention that there are commonalities between the RACK and 
JN2 proposals such that if you took a poll that said (JN2 OR RACK) and asked 
for how many supported thatas opposed to free trade, I think the results may in 
fact be more support restrictions than ''free trade''
avri: if we talk commonalities, FT and CAM have a lot of simalirities as well
Michele Neylon: 4?
Jeff Neuman: So the poll would be (JN2 or RACK+) or (FT or CAM)
avri: no
Michele Neylon: Tuesday - ALAC people only I assume, as we're all in meetings 
.. 
avri: does ALAC only allow ALAC and specific gusts to speak in their meetings?
Alan Greenberg: @avri - time permitting we are very flexible. TIme constrained, 
we become more rigid.
Michele Neylon: avri  - doubt it, but I can't be in two places at once :)
Kathy Kleiman: +1 Jeff N re: support for a structured environment -- 
''restrictions''
Alan Greenberg: @michele, we welcome you, but not expect you??
Kathy Kleiman: CLO, Alan, who would like to attend?
Michele Neylon: @Alan - I can't be in two places at once :) the registrars have 
a very busy schedule
Kathy Kleiman: Sorry, let me add Sebastien to the question as well.
Alan Greenberg: @KK Only people that agree with me!
Kathy Kleiman: Of course!
Alan Greenberg: ALAN normally has recordings, but not transcripts.
Alan Greenberg: That was ALAC...
Jeff Neuman: But ALAN records things too, right :)
richard tindal: re the grouping of RACK+ and JN2 -       I'm very curious how 
many JN2 supporters would also support RACK+ if its RSP restrictions were 
loosened
Jeff Neuman: I am not sure how many RACK supporters would support RACk if those 
were loosened
Jeffrey Eckhaus: I think that is the goal of the RACK proposal. To makes sure 
there are restrictions
Jeff Neuman: The question is ho many RACK supporters would support JN2 if we 
could clarify and amplify enforcement actions/penalties/audits
Antony Van Couvering: Yes, it's visible
richard tindal: JEff N.  Understood ---  however the RSP piece of RACK+ is, to 
me,   the least logical component
Alan Greenberg: No title for last column - FT??
Antony Van Couvering: Last column is free-trade, according to the spreadsheet 
sent around
Michele Neylon: yeah - it's free trade
avri: somehow FT seems to fall off of people's lists a lot.
Jeff Neuman: Avri - Because it rarely works :)
Antony Van Couvering: I have big problems with the ''atom'' poll - presumes a 
restrictive regime with exceptions
Antony Van Couvering: rather than a free regime with exceptions
Antony Van Couvering: And that presumption is not supported by the poll above
Jeff Neuman: Antony - We are not starting this industry from scratch and live 
in a regulatory environment
Antony Van Couvering: We are starting from the BOD / DAG4 proposals
richard tindal: Antony + 1
scott austin: Thank you Mikey
Jeff Neuman: Antony - WHich many according to this poll could live with
richard tindal: which surprises me
Antony Van Couvering: Jeff E +1
richard tindal: as its inordinately restrictive
Antony Van Couvering: I am concerned that the issues in the new poll come from 
a presumption that the RACK/JN2 proposals are the baseline
Kristina Rosette (presenters): Ohhhh.  Given what Mikey's just said, my poll 
responses were not accurate. Sorry. 
avri: i tought they cam e from the matrix headings?
avri: and the views on them can be all over the map.
avri: Mikey may a chair has to say it for it to be definitive
Antony Van Couvering: They really need and ''N/A'' heading.  For instance, if 
you believe in the free trade proposal, then heading such as ''Less restrictive 
CO/Control limits if Rr agrees not to distribute'' are nonsensical
avri: i support compromise
avri: i might support compromise
avri: i dont support cmpromise
Michele Neylon: I don't think Doodle is the right tool to ask the question
avri: exactly
Statton Hammock: I agree with Alan that the color is counterintuitive
avri: i think it is a fine tool, but people need to have logic handling 
capability.
Michele Neylon: avri - it's fine for arranging meetings .. 
avri: i was not making any specific accusations.
Sivasubramanian M: survey monkey is better, yes
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Survey will work better
Michele Neylon: polldaddy 
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Agree with Michele - Doodle is good for meetings
avri: ROTFL
Michele Neylon: http://polldaddy.com/
Alan Greenberg: MAking it REALLY clear that this is a poll on willingness to 
compromise (regardless of what your position is) and not for and against the 
concept.
avri: i apologize to everyone for having made a suggestion.
Michele Neylon: ROFL
Jon Nevett: could we do both by having 5 choices -- support; support but 
willing to compromise; do not support; do not support but willing to 
compromise; and unsure?
Alan Greenberg: Yellow would mean ''I am willing to move a little bit from 
wherever I am, but not a lot''.  Not sure that is particularly helpful.
Statton Hammock: Good idea Jon. Gets us more data too.
richard tindal: Jon N +1
Katrin Ohlmer: Jon N. +1
Phil Buckingham: Jon - like this +1
Alan Greenberg: I need a column that says ''willing to compromise with certain 
provisos''
Jeff Neuman: So We have Red, Pink, Yellow, Blue/green, and Green :)
Michele Neylon: Jeff  - so many horrible metaphors available :)
Jeff Neuman: Michele - nice!
Antony Van Couvering: Structural separation is a nightmare for a small registry
Antony Van Couvering: Are you going to ask a small registry to pay two rents, 
hire two staffs, etc.?
Jeff Neuman: AVC - its a nightmare for any registry
Antony Van Couvering: JN - yes
Antony Van Couvering: My point is that structural separation only makes sense 
-- if it ever does -- in a very large company
Kathy Kleiman: +1 Scott
Antony Van Couvering: Also introduces a new set of things for ICANN to try to 
regulate, and not an easy set either
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca: K.I.S.S.
Kathy Kleiman: @Antony: SSeparation is a nightmare for a small registry which 
also happens to have a co-owned (and perhaps large) registrar??
Sivasubramanian M: If cross ownership and control is permissible, then 
''structual separation is unnecessary, beyond absolutely required visual 
separation. It would make opeations expensive, espeically in geographic zones 
where software adminstration costs and professional fee are very high  
Structual separation would mean dual legal costs ???
Kathy Kleiman: @Antony - a nightmare at 15% or 100% cross-ownership?
Antony Van Couvering: KK - yes.  Imagine a 10-person registry/registrar bundle. 
 Who works for whom?  Are you going to ask people to wear 2 hats?  I really 
don't see this as workable in a small, hungry, competitive registry.  IMO 
you're just asking for rule-breaking.
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca: The fewer restrictions and rules that we have, the 
easier enforcement is.
Antony Van Couvering: TB +1
Jeff Neuman: Tom - Or the other way around.....if you have a complete 
restriction, its fairly easy to enforce...
Antony Van Couvering: Mikey - another dimension - how easy is it to enforce - 
is it enforceable?
Brian Cute: I am happy to work with Jeff N., Kathy and Mikey on defining 
ownership percentages v. ''control'' exercise.  The are not entirely separate.  
Different classes of shares with different voting rights can achieve 
''control'' at as low as 15%...
Antony Van Couvering: JN - are we really talking about either of those cases?
Sivasubramanian M: Large and powerful players would have the resources to find 
workarounds and be in a postion to handle a complex environment, but smaller 
players would be lost in a situation where there are complex controls and 
complex procedures
Antony Van Couvering: Siva +1
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca: I see the 15% as a form of gaming.  It should be 
either 0% or 100%
Jeffrey Eckhaus: Agree with Jeff N.
Kathy Kleiman: @Jeff N. I think enforcement is a key factor - it's ''how do you 
know the rules are being followed?''
Antony Van Couvering: Now that I hear Jeff N explain, I agree with him
scott austin: Lack of rules makes it easier as long as you believe no rules are 
needed to assure fairness and an efficient market.
Thomas Barrett - EnCirca: fairness to whom?
Antony Van Couvering: I do see structural separation as very hard to enforce as 
well as to implement
Sivasubramanian M: There are several polls beyond doodle and survey monkey, we 
can find out one that suits our purpose
Jeff Neuman: Utimate fighting...cage match---one proponent from each side in 
the ring :)
Antony Van Couvering: I would propose a second meeting later in the week...  
not all of us are there Sat. morning -- and I think thoughts will develop over 
the course of the week
avri: completely openly.  lets not get into the roayal only we can sit at the 
tables and talk attitude of the GNSO council
Antony Van Couvering: I'm just throwing it out there
Antony Van Couvering: I would find it useful
Sivasubramanian M: +1 on Avri
Alan Greenberg: WOuld have to be Wednesday or earlier for many of us.
Jeff Neuman: All meetings should be open
Antony Van Couvering: I agree with Avri on openness
Antony Van Couvering: Thanks Mikey
Jeff Neuman: The schedule is really full
Antony Van Couvering: I realize I may have scheduled a dreaded early-morning 
meeting for myself..
Jeff Neuman: It should be after Tuesday
Jeff Neuman: After constituency meetings
Jeff Neuman: (sorry stakeholder group meetings)
Antony Van Couvering: Jeff N +1
Kathy Kleiman: how about Wed AM - early?
avri: how early 6 am
scott austin: I would also be happy to work with Mikey and Kathy on 
ownership/control
Jeff Neuman: 1 am at the bar
CLO: Gisella has a comprehensive calemdar  she might find some opportunities 
for the later in the week meeting
Kathy Kleiman: :-) No!
Jeff Neuman: over a game of poker
Jeffrey Eckhaus: +1 Jeff N
Michele Neylon: I like Jeff N's idea
Antony Van Couvering: Ouch!
avri: who plays poker?
Michele Neylon: if we can find a 24 hour bar
Jeff Neuman: Where there is a beer there is a way
richard tindal: thanks Mikey
Michele Neylon: Jeff N + 1
avri: or is 'play poker' a euphemism for the gTLD business?
avri: these new heading seem real confusing to me.  perhaps i am just too 
simple.
Volker Greimann: sorry for my lateness, 
Mike O'Connor: meeting is over -- this is a rump session... :-)
Kathy Kleiman: ownership caps + [other] protections to prevent cross-ownership 
control (e.g, debt, voting shares, contract, etc.) 
Phil Buckingham: Mekey - I am still listening in . Is that OK ? As an 
accountant / auditor  I have studied/ used these concepts lots . Crucial  
Mike O'Connor: no worries
Phil Buckingham: Thanks Mikey
Sivasubramanian M: if there are ownership limits,  how would the oversight 
mechanism deal with indirect situations? For example, if a Mutual Fund or a 
Venture Capitalist has a 15% + holding in a Registry and has a 15%+ owneship in 
a Registrar, would these two entiries be considered cross- owned ? ( Assume 
that in this situation, the real owner in the Registry with a 51% holidng and 
in the Registrar, the owner is an unrelated perosn with hsi own 51%. The link 
between these two entities arise because of a common banker. How eould you 
exempt this situation, and if this situatioon is expempted, why can't a 
Registry resort to such an indirect route to circumvent such restrictions?
Phil Buckingham: If a businesss owns 51% of the shares that this is deemed as 
control - in the UK as per Companies Act . Maybe this is different in US , 
France etc.
Volker Greimann: question: is the question of control really the relevant 
question? I.E. is it really inconceivable to allow full 100% control provided 
sufficient safeties against abuse are in place?
Volker Greimann: Should we start from the assumption that ownership caps are 
necessary?
Phil Buckingham: A board member , who runs/ controls the operations of a 
business and has 51% of the voting rights has control , but he / she may only 
own 1% of the shares of that company. Does this help Jeff , Kathy , Scott ????. 
 Volker I totally agrre . The application process can elimainate all these 
issues via evaluator questions
Volker Greimann: agree to this approach. Both options should be viable
Volker Greimann: for discussion
Phil Buckingham: Jeff - that is exactly right. Ownership is irrelevant if there 
is no control. Lets face it all  Gtld applicant need investment but this does 
not neccessily mean these investors will control and run / potentially game the 
system. 
Volker Greimann: Even for control, is a limit reasonable in all directions in 
every case?
Volker Greimann: Key-Systems has been approached by some of our corporate 
clients (names are under NDA atm) to provide registry services for them. As 
registrar, we would provide the registry back end service (100% control). Where 
is the problem if the TLD is never offered to the public?
Volker Greimann: Both RACK and the board decision totally destroy viable and 
reasonable business proposals.
Volker Greimann: yeah, still here
Mike O'Connor: Limits on control throughmeans other than ownership percentage 
limits
Phil Buckingham: The problem is we have new potential registry around the globe 
and there the statutory, legal , audit, compliance  requirements etc that are 
at totally different levels country by country. Volker - I so so understand 
where you are coming from . I think the ICANN Board will not let this happen . 
Volker Greimann: i understand as much.
Mike O'Connor: Limits on control through means other than ownership percentage 
limits
Phil Buckingham: Hello Mikey - very good conversation . Scott/ Jeff  doing a 
great job . Should have done this weeks ago , though .
Phil Buckingham: Sorry Brian also - great job
Phil Buckingham: Yes - it is a two way  arrow in all business relationships . 
Maybe should be top down ( from registry ) only . Much easier to audit, enforce 
and compliance rules !!!!
Mike O'Connor: Hastie lumbago!

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