[gnso-vi-feb10] *complete* chat history from today's call

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

ah!  thanks to Marika, i now have a clue.

here's the complete chat transcript from today's call.

thanks Marika!

mikey

> 
> 
> 
>  Volker Greimann:hi all
>  Mike O'Connor:hi Volker...
>  Volker Greimann:we are drawing in crowds tonight
>  Volker Greimann:anyone on the call already? I was supposed to be connected, 
> but am not
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Hi Volker - you are on the call - they may have put you 
> in a pre-meeting but I am checking on that
>  Volker Greimann:thank you
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Richard Tindal has just joined the call
>  Volker Greimann:@tim: pretty narrow as in JN2?
>  avri:as long as we start at the Dagv4 level of 2% might make sense.
>  Berry Cobb:What if 75% of applicants apply for the exception?
>  Volker Greimann:and why should they not?
>  avri:and if they deserve them based on the criteria we set, so be it.
>  CLO:Yup
>  neuman:What is the criteria for getting this exception....I think this is 
> what we have been working on....
>  neuman:in the end, you still need to have criteria
>  avri:(BTW i still prefer a starting place of 0% over 2 % for exception 
> processing, but can live with 2% if we have to)
>  Jothan Frakes:let's hear Mike Palage on this
>  avri:yes. we would need criteria.  but even if we don't have all the 
> criteria day one, the exception process can be set in place with a minimal 
> set of conditions - conservative as Tim says, e.g. IDN where there are not 
> registrars capable.
>  Keith Drazek:there's some background noise so for everyone not talking, 
> please mute
>  Volker Greimann:JN2 also starts with 15% as general rule and then lists 
> possible exceptions. 
>  avri:15% is way too high a starting bar.
>  Volker Greimann:or too low
>  avri:too high - 2% is high enough
>  Volker Greimann:i still view 100% as just as harmless/dangerous
>  neuman:Avri - Based on what?
>  neuman:I think the starting point should be at least 5 for reasons 
> previously stated
>  Berry Cobb:+1 Volker attaching Milton's point "absent of market power"
>  avri:state that there is essentially no co-ownership - but takes into 
> account incidental stock ownership.
>  neuman:Avri - that would be 5% in most countries
>  Antony Van Couvering:It would be useful for those of us who are here late if 
> someone could recap Tim's proposal.  Thanks. 
>  neuman:Because under 5%, there is no requirement for disclosure
>  Volker Greimann:prohibition never worked. It just serves to drive crime 
> deeper underground
>  neuman:Thus a public company would not know anyone who has <5% unless that 
> personentity disclosed it voluntarily
>  Berry Cobb:The more and more I study this VI concept, it almost seems easier 
> if we allowed 100%, then we would not have all these exceptions
>  avri:5% seems high when one looks at leaders such as V & G.  but i suppose 
> that may be a possible compromise.
>  neuman:So what does a public company do if it does not know who owns under 5%
>  Antony Van Couvering:Berry, you're very right about that, but what it 
> doesn't do is soothe fears.  Even if you and I don't have them, others do.
>  Keith Drazek:AVC: TIm's proposal is to establish an exceptions process for 
> unique cases of need for CO/VI, but to retain the current 15% restriction as 
> a starting point. proposal would be to be conservative and narrowly focused 
> for exceptions
>  neuman:And how does Tim's proposal apply to distributing in TLDs for which 
> they are not providing registry services?
>  Antony Van Couvering:Thanks Keith. 
>  neuman:I would be fine with Tim's proposal if it started from JN2 as the base
>  Berry Cobb:@ AVC, and the fears is what perplexes me.  The is CHOICE out in 
> the market now.  So from a consumer perspective, they will pick up on the 
> fact of scam and choose not to signup for a 2nd lvl domain and stay in .com, 
> org or net.
>  Jothan Frakes:but @jeff not in your own TLD is a very bad thing
>  avri:i am fine if it starts from virtual Zero, be that 2-5.
>  neuman:the exception process would be for in your own TDL
>  neuman:TLD
>  Berry Cobb:+1 Volker
>  Jothan Frakes:sounded like Ken want s in the queue
>  Antony Van Couvering:I would be fine with Tim's proposal if (1) the 
> exceptions process is not too lengthy and difficult, and could be done prior 
> to delegation and (2) shouldn't be limited to "community," which under 
> ICANN's definition is insufficiently large.  IDN gTLDs and TLDs serving 
> non-common languages should also be covered.  My favorite example, .kurd, 
> would not qualify as a community, for instance.  Also an entrepreneurial TLD 
> in an underserved market would be ripe for such an exception. 
>  Jothan Frakes:good point antony
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Kathrin Ohlmer has joined
>  Antony Van Couvering:Tim - it's a working group
>  Antony Van Couvering:Tim - that WG didn't come up with any useful definition 
> of "deserving."
>  CLO:Avri is one of the co-Chairs of the JAS - WG
>  CLO:and  many of us are members
>  Berry Cobb:To Volker's point, what I learned in hallway/bar conversations is 
> that no matter what we do here, GAMING is still a threat.  So lets identify 
> the threat and build a framework to monitor/mitigate it.
>  Berry Cobb:@ Brussels
>  Antony Van Couvering:They even had Steve del Bianco arguing for financial 
> aid for brands
>  Keith Drazek:hey ken, time to get a new phone! ;-)
>  neuman:Keith - We have been telling him that for yeard :)
>  neuman:years
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Ken is showing online
>  Antony Van Couvering:Once again I am brought to the conclusion that the only 
> thing that makes sense is either virtual zero % cross-ownership or 100%
>  Berry Cobb:+1 AVC
>  Richard Tindal:0% not practical - 5% to 10% is
>  avri:.e.g the JAS group is thinking of excluding .brand completely from the 
> aid program.
>  Antony Van Couvering:@Richard -- said "virtual zero" for that reason
>  Richard Tindal:got it
>  Antony Van Couvering:Something that will prevent public companies from 
> getting caught out.  I think that's 5% usually.
>  Keith Drazek: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.  
>  Sivasubramanian M:That is a very good point. Any thing that can happen in an 
> environment where there is vertical integration can very much also happen in 
> an evironment of legal vertical separation
>  Antony Van Couvering:Where is the check mark?
>  avri:same place as hand raising
>  Antony Van Couvering:(got it)
>  neuman:What is the Base for Tim's proposal
>  Volker Greimann:i think tims approach is too narrow
>  Sivasubramanian M:Yes I offer to be on the drafting team
>  Phil Buckingham:Exactly Jeff  - what is the base for Tim proposal
>  Antony Van Couvering:Volker, I agree with you, but it's the first movement 
> I've seen from the RACK people and we should go there and see if we can get 
> anything done.
>  Alan Greenberg:I was assuming it was the RACK proposal - specifically one 
> with no exceptions included.
>  Volker Greimann:I am not disagreeing with you anthony. I am happy to see 
> movement there
>  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  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
>  avri:what holiday
>  avri:that was yesterday.
>  Jothan Frakes:bye all, talk again thursday
>  Mike O'Connor:TTFN...

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