[gnso-vi-feb10] Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All-

Please find the chat transcript from today's call below.

Also, please note that next week's calls will be for a duration of 2 hours.

Best regards,

Margie


-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:49 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  avri:NYC
  Volker  Greimann:lebron?
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:He is staying in Cleveland. Does not want to become the 21st 
century Art Modell
  Ron A:LeBron going to the Nets would create one of the most watched rivalries 
that the NBA has ever seen...
  Ron A:LeBron James, b-ball player
  avri:Volker: tall guy who bounces a ball good, in a game where one person can 
make the difference, but who doesn't make a diference and still getscredit for 
being great.
  Volker  Greimann:lol
  CLO:So to respond to Amadeu  it is not an exceptions list that is closed, 
rather a list that is inclusive of at least these exceptions=Yes?
  Kristina Rosette:@CLO:  I understood it differently and though it was a 
closed list.
  avri:CLO: i lie that idea.  disadvantaged should be on the list, but not 
necessarily the only type of entitiy on the list.
  CLO:Ohhh dera we  DO NEED this CLARIFIED then  *sigh*
  CLO:@Avri so do I
  Volker  Greimann:actually, looming registry failure is possibly the biggest 
threat for abuse
  Ron A:+1 Tim
  Berry Cobb:It is really starting to bother me on the amount of time we are 
spending on "Exceptions" when all of these exceptions would disappear if we 
focused on a model that accomodates it.  We all agree that 
compliance/enforcement is the most important aspect to what ever model is 
chosen.  Free Trade model gives us all this without exceptions baseless rules.
  avri:I agree with Tim on disadvantaged support, except for the desire to keep 
the list as small as possible.  i think it should be as big as is reasonable.
  Jothan Frakes:+1 with a caveat Avri, some exceptions might be wolves in 
sheep's clothing
  Jothan Frakes:or morph into wolves
  avri:yeah, and that is why i favor a external review mechansim to look at 
each exception before mkaing it.
  Volker  Greimann:you are essentially suggesting what the european registrars 
advocated from the start, berry. Remove the artificial limitatiions and create 
stronger enforcement and conrol
  Jothan Frakes:gotcha @avri
  avri:and morphing is the reason i support audits and complainace enforcement
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Berry. Lets shelf exceptions until we decide on 
baseline rules
  Jothan Frakes:lol... mighty morphing TLDs
  Jothan Frakes:+1 tim...  yet there were some good elements in antony's 
document which helped encourage pace
  Berry Cobb:EXACTLY Volker!  I invite everyone to take a look back at the 
matrix created for the proposals.  Each field is so much easier and cleaner as 
compared to all the other proposals.  All have recognized that gaming and harms 
exist for all proposals.  So lets build a complaince framework that address 
these harms in a free trade model and move forward.
  Volker  Greimann:avri: how about random sample compliance audits by ICANN?
  avri:sure, like random doping test in cycling, where once you are suspected 
they can show at your door every day.
  CLO:@Volker interesting idea
  Ron A:@Avri: that is a perfect analogy for the type of compliance capability 
I am thinking of
  Volker  Greimann:i like the concept as well
  avri:i think it works for me.  though i would also lke to see a way for a 
third party to inititiate an audit request with sufficinet evidence of 
wrongdoing.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I have also thought this was a great idea
  Keith Drazek:i also agree with the focus on compliance, audits, enforcement, 
penalties, etc. perhaps conducted by third-party auditors once per year, paid 
for by ICANN
  Volker  Greimann:no problem with that avri
  Volker  Greimann:third party complaint followup would be an additional measure
  CLO:@Avri  I agree the ability to pull in third part audit/compliance is also 
an interesting concept  but needs a LOT more thought IMO
  Volker  Greimann:compliance enforcement will be a puzzle: dozens of pieces 
fitting together creating a picture
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I read an interesting article I will send to group. That most 
corporate fraud was found out by whistelblowers and third parties assisting 
compliance.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Here is the link  
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/columnists/wdeener/stories/DN-Deener_22bus.ART.State.Edition1.3dafd6c.html
  Volker  Greimann:the whois complaint feature works well, usually
  CLO:@Eckhaus thanks I'd appreciate that artical
  CLO:I agree totally with what Kristina is saying
  Phil Buckingham:Keith- my understanding is ICANN is looking at whether to use 
external auditors or internal auditors - but they will be retaining the 
evaluator teams
  Jothan Frakes:@eckhaus thanks.  good link.  is that WRT having had 
registrar,registry etc being called out in the IPC submission.... sort of a 
pot/kettle thing?
  avri:but marking the laundry list with the degree of support makes sense.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:This goes to the idea that ICANN Compliance does not need to 
be and will not be the only compliance body out there. If there is fraud or 
gaming there are 3rd parties that can do the job as well, if not better
  Volker  Greimann:was there ever doubt about this?
  Jothan Frakes:yeah, sure... makes sense if it has some throttling so it is 
not abused in a disruptive manner (ie Knujon whois submissions barraging the 
compliance team)
  Jothan Frakes:or a mechanism for competitor a to throw obsticles in front of 
competitor b
  Volker  Greimann:considering the amount of whois complaints we receive each 
week and subsequently investigate, I`d say whois whistleblowing works pretty 
well
  Volker  Greimann:we even get a few from knujon
  Jothan Frakes:congratulations, volker.
  Jothan Frakes:they mean well, but use a bit of a guerilla tactic
  Jothan Frakes:from time to time
  Jothan Frakes:I focus on the meaning well
  Volker  Greimann:and absolutely sloppy research methods. still thinking if 
suing them is the best way or not
  avri:ron: except what happens if they are part of a contention set?
  Jothan Frakes:+1 to Jeff.
  Ron A:: Avri: trying to take a step in the right direction.  A lot of things 
will need review and revision after the first round of experience. This element 
would be included as and when defined clearly.
  Jothan Frakes:Non profit does not equal better for public interest or benefit 
necessarily
  avri:i think it should be on a needs basis.
  Jothan Frakes:there's simply a perception
  avri:hard enough to define, but less subjective
  Tim Ruiz:@Jeff E., I don't disagree. It is difficult. I'm thinking maybe this 
was a bad idea that is going to get us nowhere.
  Keith Drazek:is there any opposition in the WG to allowing orphaned TLDs from 
self-distribution?
  avri:but this is just one of the exception basis.  the other one is the sigle 
user wo just does not need a registrars services.
  Keith Drazek:sorry, allowing self-distribution...
  richard Tindal:KD - not from me
  avri:the problem with orphans is that it seems to call for witing until they 
have been prven to be orphans.
  Antony Van Couvering:KD - not from me either
  Ron A:Avri: Devil is in the details, so let's take the time to do it.  Once 
done, it should need little revision -- if done right.  A "queue" provides some 
safe ground for all parties.
  Tim Ruiz:@Keith, after they are orphaned and make a request to ICANN that is 
open to community review? If so, no objection.
  richard Tindal:you'll know pre-launch if its orphan
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Mikey: polls on the list, not on the call, please.
  Keith Drazek:so that's a question of process and timing, but not in 
opposition to allowing orphans from taking thier TLD to market
  Antony Van Couvering:I agree with all of the rpprevious
  avri:i think we have enough time to define the details befoe ths tarting gun, 
as long as we have accepted the principles.
  Jothan Frakes:@Keith... as long as a protection is in place whereby an 
orphaned TLD is not orphaned by design via a high threshold / standard of 
registrar acceptance at the cause
  Tim Ruiz:@Richard, pre-launch perhaps, but not during the application process 
and initial agreement phase.
  Antony Van Couvering:Mikey - check the chat - I think there's quite a bit of 
consensus on orpaned TLDs
  Ron A:And if we don't?  What then?  Scramble in the public view and make 
decisions based on time rather than consideration.
  avri:i.e if we can accept that there is an exception list, that exceptions 
are reviewed by an exception panel and that set of guidleines will be provided 
for the panel, then we are halfway there.
  richard Tindal:Tim - agree, but is that a problem?
  Jothan Frakes:Only if by design
  Kristina Rosette:@ Jothan:  Meaning that an orphan isn't an orphan if it's an 
orphan by design?  If so, I disagree.  I can certainly envision access 
restrictions that the applicant may believe are reasonably related, but that 
others may not.
  Ron A:I would like someone to define "Orphan" to be clear that we are all 
thinking the same thing.
  Berry Cobb:You dont need an orphan TLD exception in the Free Trade model.
  Berry Cobb:Nor the SRSU or the SRMU
  Antony Van Couvering:Ron A: any TLD that has fewer than 3 unaffiliated 
registrars
  Antony Van Couvering:AVri - Not true -- you will know well in advance
  Antony Van Couvering:Because before sunrise, you will need to sign up 
registars; and you will know...
  Jothan Frakes:if the policies in a TLD were such that it either was horribly 
unattractive to registrars or the rules were such that registrar approval were 
gated, one could make the net outcome an orphaned TLD
  Ron A:Thanks gentlemen.  Just want to make sure we are all on the same page.
  Antony Van Couvering:Another way to solve this is to have several 'REGISTRARS 
OF LAST RESORT' who will agree to handle registries who are not picked up 
elsewhere (in their local language, etc.)
  Jothan Frakes:so there would need to be a process where a determination of 
orphan/landlock were present
  Scott Austin:avri would the third party audit request go as far as support a 
Third party's right to oppose accredutation or cancel certification if the TLD 
if an audit demand was not honored when evidence warranted it?
  Keith Drazek:Berry, that's true, but there won't be consensus around Free 
Trade, just like there won't be consensus around 15%, etc. so I think the 
exceptions discission is our last-ditch effort to find some middle ground 
consensus
  Berry Cobb:Middle ground produces unintended consequence.
  Jothan Frakes:but @kristina, you make a fair point as I consider it
  Berry Cobb:If we spent time focusing on framework for Free Trade, I think we 
could get past a lot of this.
  Jothan Frakes:+1 antony
  Ron A:+ 1 Avri
  Phil Buckingham:Avri - I like this approach-
  Jothan Frakes:Agree avri
  CLO:Yep +1 from me Avri
  Jothan Frakes:You know, upon reflection, I think that the scenario I 
suggested is probably not as likely under a circumstance where someone has put 
185k+++ up to apply
  Antony Van Couvering:Agree with speaker, except that if no-one applies then 
someone has to take on the task.  Think of the insurance pool for drivers who 
don't qualify for "normal" insurance
  CLO:Remember Jothan there is the other  JAS-WG  that is looking at ways to 
'assist'  in that 185K matter
  avri:Richard: you may be right, but iwth 100's of new gTLDs coming out in a 
limited amount of time, we really don't know the behavior of the registrar 
rush.  i also worry about a secondary notion of orphan.  some registrar say 
they will take a registry on, but either becuase the don't understand the maket 
(IDN isn a forieign land) or just plain overextended registrar
  Jothan Frakes:true, true
  Jothan Frakes:Orphaned / Landlocked
  Antony Van Couvering:@avri - that's why I defined "orphan" as 3 or more 
unaffiliated registrars
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Tim - they are separate issues. Am not thinking of "failed" 
operations
  Tim Ruiz:Thanks Jeff. Thought so, but wanted to be sure.
  Ron A:One of the key issues of orphans has to do with the potentiality of 
orphans with no take up are dead orphans with no registars to support it.  
ICANN wards?
  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Mikey, you are alone  in the conf ;-)
  Brian Cute:am on the call having trouble with mute...
  richard Tindal:Avri  -understood,  but remember the registry can set rules 
about who is accredited in their TLD -- e.g.  a registry could set reasonable 
rules about the  languages and markets served by their registrars
  Keith Drazek:compliance/enforcement/audit/penalties is the MOST critical 
component of our WG recommendation IMO, and hopefully an area where we can 
actually reach consensus
  CLO:July 7 version YES?
  Berry Cobb:@ Keith, +1
  Berry Cobb:we need it even for our current state models used today.  (0%CO & 
15%)
  Volker  Greimann:just to clarify: i did not disagree with the content of the 
compliance draft, but the way it was presented to the group, i.e. if it was 
already our result, not the start of discussion
  Volker  Greimann:many smaller registry could actually be as samll as 2-3 
people
  Jothan Frakes:we have a darth vader on the call
  Antony Van Couvering:Volker - I know - I just didn't want to say that in case 
someone screamed that 2-3 were not possible -- even though we know it is
  Volker  Greimann:lol
  Jothan Frakes:someone breathing heavy
  Volker  Greimann:eantony you are right, especially if RSP services are 
outsourced, you basically have only minimal support, legal and management, i.e. 
2-3 ppl
  Antony Van Couvering:If you have chinese walls, audits, reporting 
requirements, etc., it quickly becomes more than 2-3 people
  Jon N.:Even RACK requires compliance requirements
  Kristina Rosette:My experience (re: compliance schizophrenia) was similar to 
Tim's
  Tim Ruiz:@Jon right, but contains the fewest *new* concepts that need 
compliance.
  Jothan Frakes:having lived through the 'chinese wall' at VeriSign / Network 
Solutions, I would not wish that on anyone, and despite all efforts the public 
perception was never entirely convinced
  Jothan Frakes:+++2 Ron Andruff
  avri:100 years?  i doubt the current DNS will last that long.
  Tim Ruiz:Ron A +1
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I would hesitate from thinking anything we put in place is 
what will be in place for the next 100 years
  Phil Buckingham:Ron - so true -
  Volker  Greimann:we may have been too careful are well and deprived the 
internet of a new age of innovation
  Ron A:If a longer view is not taken, well then why bother trying to change 
anything now?
  Antony Van Couvering:Whatever we do will last for just a few years tops.  I 
agree with Ron A. that perception of the world matters at the beginning, and 
that's why we have to be very very careful not to appear anti-competitive
  Jothan Frakes:Bingo Antony
  Berry Cobb:To answer Ken's question with a question.  Isnt it up for us to 
recommend what should be done?
  richard Tindal:does someone have a duck with them?
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Quack
  Antony Van Couvering:Well, Ron, the question is what we're chaning or not 
*from.*  We don't have a baseline...
  richard Tindal:eckhaus!  i knew it was you
  avri:yes too much care, leaves people in the dark ages.  i remembers a really 
good song about people wo locked themselves up in a town to avoid the black 
plague and ended up dying of starvation after the plagues had been over for a 
while.  too much caution is deadly.
  Tim Ruiz:Oops! Sorry about that.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 Avri
  Tim Ruiz:Not a duck, just some serious gum popping.
  Ron A:Antony: Agreed
  Jothan Frakes:Amen Antony, Ron
  Statton Hammock:I like the message behind Avri's song.
  CLO:That would be great David :-)
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Look forward to that document
  Ron A:Statton: Caution does not mean braking.  It just means that we reviewed 
360 and at least know a view from all sides of the new dyanmic we have created.
  Ron A:+1 David
  Tim Ruiz:@Avri, true, but we should remember that compliance already has a 
lot to gear up for without anything we come up with. It's easy to say *we'll 
step up to the plate.* But quite another thing to see it happen.
  Scott Austin:+1 David: I like the 5 buckets you mention and the need for 
refinement of the distinction between compliance and enforcement
  Ron A:Sorry Mikey...
  Antony Van Couvering:Compliance is important because if it is seen as being 
done properly it will increase consumer confidence in ICANN.  This is the 
crucial point.
  Statton Hammock:Ron A: True, but I hear all of the cautions being raised to 
the point of paralysis
  Phil Buckingham:The whole compliance function needs to be scalable - because 
right know we dont know how many new gTLDs will be out there in 2012(say)
  Statton Hammock:What is that?
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Bring back the duck
  Mike O'Connor:regular phone AND cell phone?
  Phil Buckingham:Sorry know =now
  richard Tindal:duck's making a call
  Jothan Frakes:a criminal duck
  Tim Ruiz:@Statton, not paralysis, it's realism. No matter the amount of 
money, every resource has a limit - dozens/100s new TLDs, new TM protections, 
DNSSEC, etc. etc.
  Volker  Greimann:rhil: in 2012, we will likely have the same number as today. 
2013, maybe 50-100 more
  richard Tindal:Tim +1
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Alan - does that mean since you do not have faith in 
Compliance you are willing to block a whole class of applicants even though 
harms can come from any applicant?
  Tim Ruiz:@Volker, I hear we only need to worry about all this until December 
2012 ;-)
  Ron A:I don't see paralysis either, Statton.  Orderly rollout is just that.
  Volker  Greimann:the dreaded phone again... duh-duh-duhhhhhhhhh
  Keith Drazek:can we take up a collection for ken's new phone?
  Alan Greenberg:Jeff, I wouldn't put it that way. I beleive that the lack of 
understanding makes any concerns worse.
  Antony Van Couvering:Thanks Brian for taking on the drafting!
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I need to drop off the call . Sorry
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Quack
  Volker  Greimann:@tim: jeff made a good point. even barring registrars 
altogether, the abuse will still be possible
  Volker  Greimann:indeed biran, a good start
  Volker  Greimann:brian
  Antony Van Couvering:Zero interest in SRSU
  Antony Van Couvering:Kristina are you European? Vacation???!!!
  Kristina Rosette:No, alas.  Cruise with my in-laws. Don't ask.
  Jothan Frakes:first prize was 1 week, second prize was 2 weeks with the 
in-laws
  Antony Van Couvering:Not so vacation-like. My sympathies.
  avri:oh, the obligatory family 'vacation' -
  Kristina Rosette:@Jonathan & Antony: won't be awful.  just not looking 
forward to being stuck on a boat without email. What will I do without you all?
  Keith Drazek:i think we need a bigger boat....
  Volker  Greimann:lol, keith
  Keith Drazek:with wi-fi
  ken stubbs:kristina.. my guess is you will get along just fine..
  Volker  Greimann:who has the gas bottle to blow up the Rack?
  Alan Greenberg:Most cruises have Internet connectivity these days, but 
sometimes at unreasonable prices.
  avri:you will foget about us all, while lost in the bliss of family love and 
joy of shipboard life.  who sasy you won't have email?
  Tim Ruiz:No wi-fi! Hate that it's now available on planes already.
  Tim Ruiz:I actually think that Musuem has used pretty much that way.
  Tim Ruiz:or similar
  Antony Van Couvering:How about just .brand and all brands register under 
that? (duck)
  Tim Ruiz:What is a brand?
  Jothan Frakes:there's already a .tm antony :)  (ducking)
  avri:is't IPC associating with a TM?
  Volker  Greimann:I think TM in 3 countries over three conbtinents, i think
  Jothan Frakes:come to think of it Antony, I wonder if 'Pizza' ends up on a 
MOPO challenge
  Tim Ruiz:Kristina, I think I can get you TM.ME and you can go wild at the 
third level ;)
  Jothan Frakes:wasn't that the word that shut down .tm?
  Jothan Frakes:before it re-launched
  Jothan Frakes:+1 to richard's approach
  Antony Van Couvering:The word that shut down .TM was "pizza" believe it or 
not.  I was there, I know.
  Jothan Frakes:yeah, MOPO = MOFO
  Kristina Rosette:@Tim:  woohoo! It's a deal.  My work here is done. :-)
  CLO:the extra time for next week is fine by me
  Jothan Frakes:+1 CLO
  Volker  Greimann:me too
  Antony Van Couvering:No problem on longer call Monday
  Ron A:It's all the middle of the night for you in any case, CLO?
  Berry Cobb:We should also poll on our proposals as well
  Berry Cobb:would like to see if there is a shift from our last proposal poll
  Alan Greenberg:I may not be able to make the calls next week.
  Tim Ruiz:@Berry, and include the DAGv4 as one.
  Berry Cobb:absolutely Tim
  avri: can't make Thursday's next week.
  avri:+1 ken
  Antony Van Couvering:Thanks Mikie!
  ken stubbs:happy crusing Kristina !
  Berry Cobb:and by proposals, I mean teh JN2, RACK, MMA, Free Trade etc...
  Kristina Rosette:thanks, ken
  avri:thanks, later.
  Berry Cobb:Thakns Mikey!
  Jothan Frakes:have a good cruise kristina
  CLO:Thank Mikie  till next week all
  Jothan Frakes:thanks everyone
  Scott Austin:thanks mikey]
  Volker  Greimann:we have the entire weekend now. lets get something done till 
then
  avri:Berry and CAM3
  Roberto:bye all
  Berry Cobb:yes Avri.  my bad.  CAM3
  avri:(-:
  Berry Cobb:ttfn
  Volker  Greimann:good night all