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

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

rats!   the Adobe thing has a buffer and i see that a little bit of the chat 
got cut off again.  sorry about that...

mikey



Tim Ruiz: Regarding my suggestion, it is mine and not necessarily that of RACK 
in whole.
Keith Drazek: reposting  a question for tim....if we acknowledge that there are 
possible scenarios where CO/VI is reasonable and/or worthwhile, is the reason 
to defer that permission to a ''exceptions process'' rather than 
exceptioncriteria in the final Applicant Guidebook mostly a time constraint? To 
Jeff N's earlier point, the criteria will have to be established in either 
case.  
Alan Greenberg: As one of the ''RACK people'' I have said from the beginning I 
favour a number of exceptions. And I have not been the only one to say that.
Tim Ruiz: @Keith, it is an attempt to find consensus on something within the 
time we have.
Antony Van Couvering: Sorry, Alan, I apologize.
Volker Greimann: Alan: I understand that, but ''the Rack'' in itself offered no 
exceptions
neuman: I am not convinced that SRSU is allowed under current rules
Volker Greimann: A RACK is a nasty thing to be on, actually
neuman: In fact I know some people are working on comments to narow down what a 
registry is allowed to reserve
Phil Buckingham: Brian +1 - more niche than brand IMO
Gisella Gruber-White: Eric Brunner Williams had joined the call
Richard Tindal: Jeff --   what contract provision do you believe stops SRSU?
neuman: The contract provision on ''reserved names'' actually now requires you 
to use a registrar if you want to use it
neuman: I will find the provision for you....one sec
Jothan Frakes: TLDs that capture odd data 
Jothan Frakes: like Altitude/lat/longitude (ie GEO)
Jothan Frakes: may not get rapid adoption by registrars 
Jothan Frakes: in the face of 100s to choose from... 
Jothan Frakes: registrars, it seems to me, will assimilate those that are 
simplest to impliment initially
Antony Van Couvering: +1 Tim - let's not perpetuate incumbents
Jothan Frakes: in addition to the language/cultural like antony mentioned
neuman: Here is the language:  ''Registry Operator may establish policies 
concerning the reservation or blocking of additional character strings within 
the TLD at its discretion. If Registry Operator is the registrant for any 
domain names in the Registry TLD (other than the Second-Level Reservations for 
Registry Operations from Specification 5), such registrations must be through 
an ICANN accredited registrar.''
Antony Van Couvering: Tim - the problem is exactly that new businesses will not 
be able to compete because they won't be able to start a registrar to sell 
their new TLD
Volker Greimann: One thing is clear... some niche TLDs will die and some will 
deserve it
Jothan Frakes: but the point is that there will be TLDs that are not initially 
the most attractive choice to the registrar channel or consumers
neuman: Not sure what qualifies for names needed for ''registry Operations''.  
Given that vagueness, we cannot say definatively that SRSU would be allowed
Jothan Frakes: lol Volker, not disagreeing, but if that death is caused by 
having a wall in front of it that kept it from being of benefit to its relevant 
community that would be a bad thing
Jothan Frakes: I still stand by the belief that ''Not in your own TLD'' is a 
really bad rule
Richard Tindal: Jeff - that language doesnt stop an SRSU
neuman: it stops from self-distribution
Volker Greimann: Jothan, why is that?
neuman: my only point is that it is currently a grey area and not a given that 
it is allowed
Jothan Frakes: ok, so if a registry's registrar is unable to offer their own TLD
Richard Tindal: perhaps - however you're original comment was that SRSU is not 
allowed
Jothan Frakes: you'll see cross registrar gaming
Phil Buckingham: Tim +1 - must give every potential applicant a chance to apply 
, identify the barriers that could prevent them from applying
Jothan Frakes: and/or you'll see 'orphaned/landlocked' tlds
neuman: Richard - Yes, SRSU TLDs are allowed....its how you distribute names 
that there is uncertainty about
avri: don't we already have rules on some of this stuff? don't we need perhaps 
just to review the rules we have?
Jothan Frakes: true avri
Jothan Frakes: some
Volker Greimann: strange idea: should we also prevent registrants from starting 
a registry?
Keith Drazek: ken +1 on that 
Sivasubramanian M: We already have rules, but do these rules cover everything? 
Are there areas that have gone undefined? Or areas where the existing set of 
rules are inadequate? We need to examine the existing set of rules that way
avri: ICANN has guarantteded to do what is needed.!
avri: this is very FUDlike
Jothan Frakes: wouldn't ''control'' in the DAG provide a way to firewall 
against the harm of the registrar scenario that ken just gave?
Richard Tindal: Jeff - I agree.   The phrase ''other than the Second-Level 
Reservations for Registry Operations from Specification 5''  in the section you 
quoted may allow for a registry-registrar to allocate names directly -- just as 
Neustar and Afilias (for example) currently reserve names
avri: that lack of confidence is FUD
Jothan Frakes: valid point @richard
Jothan Frakes: I have a stronger sense that compliance is more of a priority 
and has more attention now that they have David Giza
Jothan Frakes: just my personal opinion
CLO: Indeed  it is and properly resourced and empowered would (ALAC beleives) 
keep improving 
Katrin Ohlmer: @Jothan +1
CLO: that should read {IF} properly resourced
neuman: Richard - That assumes you know all of the names up front
avri: CLO - especially if we keep on their backs about it.t it.
Phil Buckingham: Jothan ++++++1  just my personal opinion also !
Jothan Frakes: No dount that David could benefit in his efforts from more staff
Jothan Frakes: doubt
Alan Greenberg: Jothan, that is quite true, but they still will need to be 
fully resourced (even last year they were prevented from filling vacancies) and 
they will need to have rules to enforce which are reasonable.
Volker Greimann: why are registrars made out to be that black hats? anyone 
could abuse that data
Jothan Frakes: amen alan
CLO: We plan to do pur bit re this Avri ;-)
CLO: pur = our
avri: all those who think ICANN can't do is are volunteering
Berry Cobb: not me.
avri: good.
Berry Cobb: we just need to make sure they are armed with right and adequate 
resources to do it
avri: yes, and then we have to stand bhind them with pitchforls to make sure 
they really do follow thorugh on their promise to do it right.  i am more than 
willing to wierd one of the pitchforks.
Jothan Frakes: @Volker, that was probably a rhetorical question (re black hat), 
but there's a very large educational gap in the world outside of ICANN.  Though 
well intentded, groups like knujon don't help that perception at all.  Or at 
least all registrars are painted with the same brush, and suffer the 
consequences of those registrars who operate in the 'black arts'
Berry Cobb: I have strong confidence in D. Giza that he will pitchfork himself.
Antony Van Couvering: Avri - I think ICANN can do, I am joining to make sure 
that the compliance recommendations don't unfairly affect smaller registries
avri: knujon - exaggerrates and risks their own beleivability.
Alan Greenberg: @Berry, David is constrained by the rules. Including staffing 
and budgeting rules
Berry Cobb: @ Alan, and thats why I qualified my statement with the right and 
adequate resources to do it.
Jothan Frakes: within the ''ICANN bubble'' (ie those who follow it) that is 
true, but the general public listens to them
Jothan Frakes: re Knujon
Volker Greimann: @jothan: Should we then help perpetuate this image by 
insisting on special restrictions for registrars for problems that exist 
anyway? 
Antony Van Couvering: Brian's email address?
Jothan Frakes: no, I am just watching for knujon to get sued for libel so that 
they stop tarnishing the registrars who are good actors
Antony Van Couvering: I think we can get drafts done by Thursday
Volker Greimann: We would be saying: Look, we do not even trust each other, 
ICANN does not trust us, so it is probably right to view registrars with 
suspicion
Jothan Frakes: sure volker, but let's chat about that elsewhere and focus on 
this discussion
Volker Greimann: @jothan: I would if they were based in Europe. I know too 
little abot US law to estimate our chances of success for libel in the states.
neuman: I am not volunteering for the compliance group, but I owuld ask that 
they start with the list our group developed in Brussels
Volker Greimann: who am i supposed to write to for the drafing group?
Roberto: Ken, the Board will not take formal decisions at the retreat, but 
needs to get the material for the discussion sometimes in advance
Roberto: At least this has been my experience when on the Board
avri: i do not think there is any defence for a class of entitities from libel 
- otherwise the lawyers would have sued everyone in the US now - since everyone 
badmouths laywyers and they are the ones who know how to sue.
avri: i do not beleive it is a joke.
Antony Van Couvering: Brian is making the best case yet that I've heard for 
100% cross ownership
avri: Brian is making a perfect case for fear, uncertainty and doubt.
Jothan Frakes: avri, I respect you deeply but I am not sure that's fair
neuman: Under Brian's logic we should not have any new tlds
neuman: because they will not be able to enforce anything
Antony Van Couvering: Jeff +1
avri: he even took to derisively quoting the way rod made his guarantee to make 
his case.  we all chuckled - that should be a clue to the polemics being used.
Jothan Frakes: ok that's fair
amadeu Abril i Abril: I am sooooooo clever. I thought it was at the same timae 
as last Thursday :-(
Antony Van Couvering: Mikey - the GNSO can consider this in one meeting if we 
can come up with a report given our schedule
Volker Greimann: hi amadeu, thank you for your mail. I will get back to you 
tomorrow
Jothan Frakes: yet there are parts of wisdom in what Brian said...
Volker Greimann: who am i supposed to write to for the drafing group?
Antony Van Couvering: @Volker - which drafting group?
Jothan Frakes: I mean, we should actively listen to all people's statements and 
incorporate what makes sense
Jothan Frakes: not saying everything makes sense
Volker Greimann: the compliance group. mikey said to write someone a note, but 
I forgot to who
Keith Drazek: mikey, i tend to agree...we should submit an initial report with 
a summary of the various proposals and indicate where the areas of 
consensus/divergence are, and tell them we're still working to find a middle 
ground during the public comment period
Jothan Frakes: take what works, leave the rest
Antony Van Couvering: @Volker - it's Brian Cute
Volker Greimann: thank you
avri: btw, i spelled out FUD, btw, becasue i was afriad i would get accused of 
using a bad word.  first he started by list the authroity he was pseaking from 
(a polemic refered to a reference from authority and then he ended with 
derision)  any thing worthwhile in the middle to be gleaned got lost.
Antony Van Couvering: Let's stop talking about the schedule and get some work 
done
Richard Tindal: Jeff N -- to your earlier SRSU comment - I dont see anything in 
Spec 5 that requires a registry to reserve all names up front - i.e.  their 
list can be added to
Jothan Frakes: lol.  I understand.  I've certainly heard a lot of 'what about 
the children' arguments in my time with ICANN
Antony Van Couvering: How does a working group get the sense of the group?
Antony Van Couvering: ''group'' = the whole group?
Phil Buckingham: Brian - as a fellow auditor / investigator I so so agree . We 
must do this - but CANT rush this . But we are 2 years away from operating new 
registries , so there is loads of time to put place an  regulatory/enforcement  
environment .  
neuman: Richard - We need clarification
avri: do those groups discuss on the wide list/ so we can all see the 
discussions?
Richard Tindal: I agree
Jothan Frakes: sure, assign it to the guy who isn't here :)
avri: who?
Jothan Frakes: doorbell, burning bag....
Antony Van Couvering: No good deed goes unpunished!
Jothan Frakes: Jakko from Nokia @avri
Phil Buckingham: Jarrko @ Nokia
Jothan Frakes: +1 avri
Jothan Frakes: could this be deliniated with [teamname] in the subject line
Jothan Frakes: amen mikey, great minds think alike
CLO: Yup
Jothan Frakes: [compliance], [process], [srsu]
amadeu Abril i Abril: i arrived late: how ae the groups beng populated?
avri: volunteers
Sivasubramanian M: What are the tasks for the process group?
amadeu Abril i Abril: oh, i wanted to opt for the one with a salary attached ;-)
Volker Greimann: we are all unpaid volunteers here
Alan Greenberg: Don't we all!
Alan Greenberg: All except those who are paid.
Sébastien: ;)
Phil Buckingham: Sorry Mikey - put my hand down .
Jothan Frakes: +1 Amadieu, lol....
Liz Gasster: Staff will draft the summary of the AGB draft 4 model if the WG 
would like us to 
Keith Drazek: mikey, please resend the list of questions
Volker Greimann: I am in agreement here mikey
Jothan Frakes: good call
CLO: Indeed
CLO: Bye all
Volker Greimann: nice of all the us.citizens to take the time on the holiday

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