[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's meeting

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

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from the meeting today...

mikey

Jothan Frakes: Jon, a friendly amendment to own, control, supply, and sell... 
would be service, because many outsource their DNS or auction services as well
Jothan Frakes: or even TM screening in sunrise
Jon Nevett: ok supply/service
Jeff Neuman: Not quite 100% of the value....remember, it cannot dispose of 
those shares
Jothan Frakes: jon, prolly worth merging, but I think that the EPP system would 
be weighted hevier than the others
Volker Greimann: hmm, i can see a registrar from c
Volker Greimann: sicily ''controlling'' a registry in nyc without any formal 
control: ''nice registry you have there, would be a shame if it burned down, 
right?''
Volker Greimann: and I apologize for the inappropriate stereotyping
Jothan Frakes: you're using the touton haiti redelegation example volker
richard Tindal: Jeff N - correct, registrars could enjoy 100% of the profits of 
their registry but could not sell the shares while they are in registrar 
business.  having said that -- I think most applicants entering registry 
business will be in for the long term. 
Amadeu Abril i Abril: sorry...
Jothan Frakes: So the control would be a separate, arm's length entity or 
administrator, richard?
Jothan Frakes: That could work without  percentage of ownership becoming an 
issue
Jeff Neuman: Richard, one of the comments we will be filing is that ICANN's 
definition of Beneficial Ownership is incomplete.  They copied part of the US 
Securities and Exchange commission's definition, but ommited the following 
''Any person who, directly or indirectly, creates or uses a trust, proxy, power 
of attorney, pooling arrangement or any other contract, arrangement, or device 
with the purpose of effect of divesting such person of beneficial ownership of 
a security or preventing the vesting of such beneficial ownership as part of a 
plan or scheme to evade the reporting requirements of section 13(d) or (g) of 
the Act shall be deemed for purposes of such sections to be the beneficial 
owner of such security.''
Jothan Frakes: wow.  Jeff that seems like it is more focused on the accounting 
for ownership than about control.
Jothan Frakes: and good catch btw, you constantly impress me
Volker Greimann: actually, thats what I saw as well. summaries of working 
groups, not proposals
Milton Mueller: Alan: Keith Drazek circulated a second proposal
Milton Mueller: its on the list
richard Tindal: It may be the staff omitted that by intent -- which I agree 
with as our concern is operational control
Kristina Rosette: Hate to do this so early, but it will be physically 
impossible for me to be on a call or vote on July 12th.  I'd appreciate if the 
relevant staff person will let me (and others who may be in the same position) 
how that circumstance will be dealt with. 
Jeff Neuman: Well if the staff omitted it intentionally (and I cant imagine 
why), then they will have some explaining to do to the community. I for one 
give the staff the benefit of the doubt and just believe they missed it :)
ken stubbs: tim +1
Jon Nevett: Actually agree with Tim -- we should add RACK
Volker Greimann: and jn2
Ron: Tim +2
Jon Nevett: to do otherwise, wouldn't be fair
Volker Greimann: and orp
Volker Greimann: and...
Milton Mueller: Mikey: that is not the case
Jon Nevett: mikey, that's not the case
richard Tindal: staff may have omitted in order to allow registrar to own a 
registry as long as it doesnt control
Amadeu Abril i Abril: This is why we need more than two columns ;-)
Milton Mueller: No
Volker Greimann: if we put rack back on the table, we need the others back as 
well
Milton Mueller: No, we don't need to add a column, unless you add one for EVERY 
pre-existing proposal
Berry Cobb: We should stop calling the saturday activity as ''PROPOSALS''.  
They really were more in depth discussion of ''ATOMS''
Berry Cobb: We should take that effort on the atoms back to the proposals.
Jothan Frakes: let's hear avri
Roberto (privately): @milton +1, we have to make sure we do not go backwards, 
we are past the original proposal, at least so I thought
Volker Greimann: one thing i have still not heard from the Rackers is which 
harms specifically the limitation is intended to outright prevent.
Roberto: @milton +1, we have to make sure we do not go backwards, we are past 
the original proposal, at least so I thought
Milton Mueller: where did avri come from? 
Milton Mueller: :-)
Jothan Frakes: Vloker can you explain your question on harms better?
Keith Drazek: to be clear, i'm not advocating for the brussels proposals over 
other proposals, i just want us to agree on the baseline so we can move 
forward. if that baseline is 5 proposals or just the atoms, fine, but let's 
make that decision. 
Volker Greimann: yes: what harms _will not happen_ with the 15% restriction in 
place
Volker Greimann: will not happen as in: impossible, totally prevented.
Volker Greimann: name one!
Jothan Frakes: public perception of collusive ownership
Jothan Frakes: want more?
Volker Greimann: we are worring abbout public perception?
Volker Greimann: or real issues
Alan Greenberg: ICANN has said they would support compliance to do what is 
necessary, that presumes we can make rules that are actually enforceable - in a 
real practical sense.
Volker Greimann: indeed, alan: let us take their work
Tim Ruiz: Keith, I agree. I'm just not convinced that that atom threads or 
whatever actually have consensus of the original proposers or just of those who 
were able to participate in that.
Volker Greimann: their word
Jothan Frakes: well, having been at VeriSign/NSI at the time there was 
cross-ownership, I can tell you that perception (incorrect or correct) is 
actually very significant
Alan Greenberg: That ''word'' presumes a judgement call on the practicality of 
the rules. You judgement may differe from mine.
Tim Ruiz: BTW, my hand is up as a new hand, not a left over this time :)
Jothan Frakes: ianyway, we're in the weeds, as I am more of the thought that 
removing the percentage may be smart if we have the DAGv4 definitions of 
control used
Jeff Neuman: Avri is right that too many people in this group have the bunker 
mentality and as long as that persists, we will be unable to make progress
Volker Greimann: +1
Jothan Frakes: I am more about what's better than justifying one proposal over 
another
Volker Greimann: I still contend that any form of abuse or harms will be just 
as likely with or without registrar involvement
Michele Neylon: volker - agreed
Jothan Frakes: I hope you're right.
Milton Mueller: Tim: If GoDaddy sticks with its current position, then it is, 
in effect, supporting DAGv4
Milton Mueller: In other words, Tim is saying he will block consensus
Jeff Neuman: Tim - I think that is true for many of the companies on this list
Milton Mueller: OK, Tim, hope you like DAGv4
Keith Drazek: Consensus can still be reached if enough others are willing/able 
to compromise, it just won't be ''full'' consensus. It remains to be seen what 
the levels of support actually are, and who will and won't compromise at the 
end of the day.
Kathy: A big yes to Mikey. 
Jeff Neuman: I think I agree wth Jon's comment earlier.  I do not believe we 
should ask for additional time
Tim Ruiz: DAG4 is fine with us, but the 2% is not workable and I think the 
Board will eventually see that.
Scott Austin: I agree we should not ask for additional time.
Milton Mueller: Consensus also leaves a minority unheard when people who 
benefit from the status quo block consensus.
Jothan Frakes: I hear you, Milton :)
Jeff Neuman: Careful Milton----not everyone who would benefit from the status 
quo is attempting to block consensus
Milton Mueller: i known that, JN
Ron: All agreed re our efforts, but trying to piece together separate parts 
sounds too ''Frankenstein'' and therefore something hard to agree to.
Jothan Frakes: How about Frakes-enstein, ron?
Tim Ruiz: Now we're blocking consensus, whatever. Name calling doesn't really 
get us anywhere.
Milton Mueller: A camel is a horse produced by a committee
Milton Mueller: Frakes-enstein sounds good
Ron: @ Milton +1
Jeff Neuman: A camel is a horse ??? :)
Ron: @ Jothan: I don't view you that way, J.
Jothan Frakes: :) thanks @ron
Milton Mueller: agree with Ken Stubbs about this - Board doing whatever the 
hell it wants is both poassible and a bad feature of the system
Milton Mueller: ''possible'' not ''passable''
Jeff Neuman: Man, there is some heavy breathing on the call.....please mute!
Milton Mueller: Its Frankenstein
Berry Cobb: Volker & JC came up with a reasonable framework to produce the 
predictiblity around compliance....there was very little said in response.  As 
it was mentioned if that framework were established, it may reduce some of the 
issues in the atoms where disagreement is set now.
Jothan Frakes: @milton lol.  
Milton Mueller: ...''it's alive....!!!''
Jothan Frakes: I have been muted through the call, can't take credit for the 
darth vader
Jeff Neuman: CLO - always so formal in her statements :)
Volker Greimann: ithanks berry
Milton Mueller: Ken, can you lower your hand? We waste minutes onf scarce time 
trying to figure out who is really in the queue
Milton Mueller: thanks Ken!
Tim Ruiz: CLO +1 
Phil: Ken - Compliance is ICANN 's problem . Our job is to craft policy / rules 
 THEN  ICANN work out compliance/ enforcement / audit etc from that 
Milton Mueller: +1 Phil
Volker Greimann: +1
Milton Mueller: unless of course we define a policy for which compliance is 
impossible
Volker Greimann: we are the policy-making body, so lets make policy, based on 
real issues
Alan Greenberg: @MM +1
Tim Ruiz: @Phil, that's a naive approach. Policy has to be enforceable and 
enforcement needs to be a consideration.
Kathy: +1 CLO                        
Milton Mueller: of course enforcability is a consideration, but RACK supporters 
tend to start from a rigid assumption that compliance with anything is 
impossible
Volker Greimann: @tim See the second part of the framework JC and I proposed
CLO: As Chairs I suggest you ask for a process report not just the summarry 
that was prepared,  OR we could hasve a report from the Groups To a future 
meeting
Roberto: do we have a castanet player who wants to join the cochairs band?
Jothan Frakes: @mm not everyone
CLO: :-)
Jothan Frakes: but tim's point shouldn't be dismissed
Tim Ruiz: @Milton, not true, Several aspects of RACK rely on 
compliance/enforcement.
Volker Greimann: I agree. We may end up finding that enforcement is simply 
impossible
Volker Greimann: however, I still see the problems as unresolved if we simply 
impose a percentage. Even with 0%, the same forms of abuse is possible, see dot 
Tr(cough)el
Milton Mueller: aw, DO call it ''bunker mentality''
Milton Mueller: Non-consensus IS bad
Volker Greimann: I am ze Tcherman, I know ze Bunker mentality ;-)
Milton Mueller: veerrrry interestink
Jothan Frakes: @JeffN  I was very impressed with the progress that your group 
made when we were in Brussels, btw
Jothan Frakes: @Volker lol, just read your comment
Jeff Neuman: I dont feel bad that we have not reached an agreement -- I feel 
bad because of the unwillingness of some to not even want to discuss other 
viewpoints
Michele Neylon: Volker - ROFL - you take politically incorrect to new levels - 
I am impressed :)
Kathy: I agree with Mikey. The question is how to write up where we are -- in a 
manner that is fair to all, and reflective of the key proposals and concerns.
Roberto: About consensus, can somebody remind me about the consensus reached by 
multiple WGs on WhoIs?
Milton Mueller: are you being sarcastic, Roberto?
Roberto: Milton, what makes you think that?
Milton Mueller: I'll explain when I talk
Berry Cobb: atoms like % ownership are complicating things....not reduceing it.
Jothan Frakes: I was not a participant in the WHOIS WG but from an outsider's 
perspective it seemed to be a 7 year Circumjerkular loop
Jothan Frakes: and a good example of how not to solve things in big peices but 
rather in smaller, manageable peives so that one can chip away at trouble areas
Volker Greimann: why not require the registries to maintain a glass-like policy 
when it comes to data that could be abused
Alan Greenberg: @Tim +1
Ron: Tim just detailed the overriding concerns that I have noted on the list.  
With hundreds of new TLDs, there aren't enough cops on the street.  Once there 
are enough cops and laws, and we live in a ''safe'' world, we can revisit this.
Jeff Neuman: Tim/Ron - with that argument, why wouldn't that support the IP 
owners argument that we should have no new TLDs.  Isnt that the safest option?  
(By the way I am NOT advocating that)
Volker Greimann: @Ron,@tim: i kind of see where you are coming from, but would 
you not agree that any abuse  so far proposed coulld be constructed without 
CO/VI just as easily?
Ron: Trying to move the ball down the field, Jeff
Ron: @ Volker: Yes
Tim Ruiz: @Jeff, if that is truly an option, I would support it.
Jothan Frakes: @Jeff, that's  SOME IP owners not ALL
Ron: But, again, Volker, I am un-schooled on the technical possibilities when 
it comes to harm, fraud and the like
Berry Cobb: +1 MM on your 3 options you outlined.
Ron: @ Milton: Exactly my fear and the reason we need to be concise in our 
report
Statton Hammock: I am very disappointed about the way the conversation has gone 
today. 
Keith Drazek: no consensus from this WG equals uncertainty and potentially 
worse results than any of the proposals on the board, depending on where one 
sits
Milton Mueller: agree
Berry Cobb: +1 Keith
Alan Greenberg: No consensus may not be a ''failure'' but it certainly is not 
success.
Phil: +1 Keith-  surely evert
Keith Drazek: and i'm not talking about ''full'' consensus, i'm talking about 
consensus based on GNSO policy processes which allows for a minority view
Milton Mueller: right
Michele Neylon: Roberto - I don't have that issue - though I'm probably in the 
minority
Jothan Frakes: I do like what Roberto is saying
Jothan Frakes: like his email on SRSU and Niche from prior to the call
Tim Ruiz: @Alan, right. As Roberto said, it is simply a fact. 
Keith Drazek: we need to know, sooner rather than later, how we define 
consensus and what constitutes ''most'' and ''small minority'' or we'll never 
be able determine whether we have consensus or not. We need the parameters for 
THIS working group of 65 members with varying levels of participation. 
Volker Greimann: no consensus is certainly not a failure for anyone who can 
live with DAG4
Phil: + Keith - surely everyone on the WG  does not  want  DAG 4 . Am I right 
??????  We need to vote on this and convey that message 
Ron: @ Kristina: You feel that the Board won't piece something together based 
on what exactly?  History says something different...
Jeff Neuman: I would be surprised if a compliance plan both existed and they 
shared it with us
Volker Greimann: can we all agree that compliance will need to be beefed up for 
the era of new gTLDs?
Keith Drazek: Until we know where the numerical consensus line is drawn for 
this WG, even at the atomic level, we can't count votes, and it'll forever be a 
moving target.
Kristina Rosette: @Ron:  So many Board members were adamant about not doing so 
that I would be very surprised that they would do an about face at this point.
Ron: Yes, Volker.  And your ideas in your recent postings are a good place to 
start.  Thanks for that (on-going?) contribution
Berry Cobb: WRT to Complaiance Plan for new gTLD, there does not appear to be a 
specific line item in the new gTLD Budget plan.....so I am sceptical.
Ron: @ Kristina: Thanks for that clarification
Milton Mueller: Phil: But if we can't offer the board an alternative, why 
shouldn't they give us DAGv4?
Volker Greimann: I ask again: what do proponents of RACK believe will be 
resolved completely with their 15% limit?
Sivasubramanian M: I got disconnectted from the call
Jeff Neuman: Siva - we are at the same place we were before you got 
disconnected.
Jeff Neuman: :)
Tim Ruiz: If the Board does make any signficant changes to DAG4, it will need 
significant justification, IMO.
Milton Mueller: JN right, we've been there for several months...;-)
Volker Greimann: i guess no answer is an answer too
Sivasubramanian M: At least we can work faster to produce the camel
Berry Cobb: @ Volker, I would certianly like to know the answer.
Jeff Neuman: There's that camel analogy - what do people have against camels
Alan Greenberg: I've always sort of liked camels.
Sivasubramanian M: I like camels too. 
Ron: @ Volker: For my part, i need to think that through... Not ignoring you.
Sivasubramanian M: They are bigger than horses
Alan Greenberg: We are reaching consensus on camels!
Volker Greimann: sure ron
Jeff Neuman: But are camels really bigger than horses?
Jeff Neuman: Do we need to test that out
Jeff Neuman: audit it if you will
Alan Greenberg: Perhaps we should have a poll on camels.
Sivasubramanian M: So, if we aim for a horse and actually end up producing a 
camel or an elephant, we are actually more successful than normal
Tim Ruiz: One hump or two?
Volker Greimann: i'd support that mikey
Jeff Neuman: 15% of one hum
Alan Greenberg: This is an ICANN WG.  THREE!
Michele Neylon: camels are probably a bad idea in Ireland
Milton Mueller: We must make sure the camel complies with our orders
Jothan Frakes: Well, we should consider that we might end up with a Bull if we 
fail
Milton Mueller: no spitting, for example
Tim Ruiz: The charter refers to the WG rules where consensus levels are 
defined, and that does not include counting votes.
Ron: @ Avri +1
Michele Neylon: I'm confused
Jothan Frakes: @avri +1
Jon Nevett: Tim/Avri +1
Michele Neylon: what's the difference between that and voting?
Kristina Rosette: agree with Avri and Tim
Milton Mueller: you don't need to count
Tim Ruiz: @Michele, then you have it right :)
Jothan Frakes: well, consensus might also assume that there is balance in the 
stakeholder participation
Alan Greenberg: @MN ???  Don't get along with Leprechauns?
Michele Neylon: Tim - so as long as I'm permanently confused I'm in the right 
place?
Michele Neylon: Alan - I was thinking more along the lines of our climate
Kristina Rosette: @Jothan:  balance in a WG?  Surely you jest.
Tim Ruiz: @Jothan, right. I think that is still an issue the PPSC needs to 
address.
Jeff Neuman: Keith - never apologize; just pay the group back in beers next 
time we get together :)
Jothan Frakes: @Kristina, in fact I was going to point out that we had lower 
numbers from the IPC in this WG
Jothan Frakes: than individuals or registrars
Michele Neylon: Jeff - he already bought me loads .. 
Michele Neylon: or maybe that was someone else
Alan Greenberg: Michele, think my rationalization is better.
Jeff Neuman: Michele - I know...i saw the pictures....
Michele Neylon: Jeff - now you understand why I'm avoiding alcohol
Kristina Rosette: @Jothan: not disagreeing
Michele Neylon: Jeff - zero alcohol has passed my lips since I left Brussels
Ron: @ Jon: +1
Jothan Frakes: @michele, you would love INTA.... INTA is latin for ''Liver 
Damage''
Jeff Neuman: Those IP Attorneys sure can party
Kristina Rosette: @Jothan:  LOL. So true. 
Michele Neylon: Jothan / Jeff - I know - I have flashbacks to 4am with Fabricio 
and a bunch of IP lawyers .. 
Kristina Rosette: Um. Do we even have a partial report?
Berry Cobb: Delerium PTSD
Alan Greenberg: Mikey is fading...
Jothan Frakes: Mikey can we work the mailing list a little over the next few 
days ala Roberto's effort
Jothan Frakes: Don't lose faith Mikey
Jothan Frakes: I am sure this is fatiguing
Tim Ruiz: If we can identify the various report sections we want, we can then 
divvy it up.
Michele Neylon: thanks Mikey
Jothan Frakes: good idea tim
CLO: Thanks all
Tim Ruiz: Bye all. Thanks Mikey.
Jothan Frakes: thanks all
CLO: THANKS  Mikey & Roberto

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