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

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

hi all,

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

mikey

 - - - - - - - - -


Ron A:Is there a problem with the chat?  I don't see any posts?
 Kathy Kleiman:A quiet day!
 Roberto:@Ron: you are the first!
 Ron A:Indeed, a quiet day...;o)
 neuman:so none of these exceptions are for a registrar that just wants to be a 
registry.  If these were the exceptions to RACK, the first issue is not solved. 
 If this an exception to JN2, then others may find this acceptable.
 Tim Ruiz:@Jeff N., personally, I see it as an exception to RACK. So, no it 
does not solve that issue and was not my intention when I suggested this.
 Gisella Gruber-White:Ken Stubbs, Scott Austin, Richard Tindal, Milton Mueller 
and Jothan Frakes have joined the call
 Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff N. Can't we look at this issue as an exception in and of 
itself: to both models?
 CLO:@Kathy  I'm happy to try that 
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:But we do not know what the Board will choose as a decision. 
By putting in exceptions we are assuming the Board will decide towards a more 
restrictive policy 
 Jothan Frakes:I like Avri's exception document
 Jothan Frakes:I think that it should capture as an example, a TLD that has 
technical innovation (ie .TEL)
 Milton:Is the baseline DAGv4?
 Milton:In other words, make the baseline something no one likes, so that 
exceptions are fairly considered
 Gisella Gruber-White:Jean Christophe Vignes has joined the call
 richard Tindal:i think the baseline is Nairobi
 neuman:I guess that you would then have to have an exception for registrars 
that want to enter the registry business (and vice versa) if they agree to a 
higher level of compliance, audits, etc.
 Jothan Frakes:because TLDs that capture data points that are non-status quo, 
in the face of a thundering herd of TLDs, registrars might go for those with 
the simplset integration, and those that have additional datapoints or 
mandatory fields might not be as attractive to the registrar channel
 Tim Ruiz:Right, more or less.
 avri:i think on baseline as either niarobi or dagv4
 Jothan Frakes:+1 richard, maybe with the board friendly amendment to 2%
 Milton:OK, Nairobi is good for me
 Jothan Frakes:and hopefully higher
 Milton:equally distasteful to everyone!!
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:I believe excpetions unfairly influence the Boards discussion 
into a more restrictive resolution 
 Jothan Frakes:equity to dissatisfaction = victory most likely
 Phil Buckingham:Jeff  +1 Also agree with Jeff E and Stratton. Have to have a 
base line BEFORE any exceptions. SRSU model  could be worked out with out a 
base though IMO   
 Jothan Frakes:amadieu needs to mute
 Jon Nevett:So these are exceptions we can agree on regardless of the 
underlying rule?  Depending on the rule, there might be a need for more 
exceptions.  Is this correct?
 Tim Ruiz:@Jon, yes. That is pretty much the point.
 Roberto:@Jon: why don't we make it simple, we say baseline is no VI, exception 
list is all the cases in which VI is allowed?
 Jothan Frakes:agree Jon
 neuman:I am fine with an exceptions document in general, but if all we do is 
supply a list of exceptions, we have not even made a dent in our work
 Tim Ruiz:@Roberto, that puts us back in the same boat we're in now.
 Jothan Frakes:well, this group is essentially reccomending exceptions to board 
resolution wrt VI, that's at least clear
 neuman:@Roberto, I am fine with starting with the Nairobi resolution and then 
create exceptions.
 Milton:richard T: need to lower your hand? 
 neuman:Then we would need the de minimus exemption for public companies
 Tim Ruiz:BTW, my hand is a new hand.
 neuman:Perhaps a grandfathering exception for existing registries that are 
above the threshhold
 Berry Cobb:I feel like i am in high school sitting in the car parking lot 
spinning my tires in oil that generate nothing but a lot of smoke and a foul 
odor.  Lets get to the root cause!!!!  Exceptions that we talk about here today 
are only symptoms and not what causes the problem we face now. The root cause 
her is that any model other than Free Trade creates a lot of exceptions and 
rules that are difficult to please everyone.  Why is everyone so scare of Free 
Trade?  Its because of the potential gaming and harms of sharing data 
regardless of % ownership. Lets fix those, then all of this smoke disappears.
 richard Tindal:i had a cramp
 Milton::-)
 Volker Greimann:Sorry I am late
 avri:i think even free trade would have exemption in the other direction. 
 J.C. Vignes:Sorry too, good to be back, all! 
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:Berry - good point. why not free trade with limits? reverse it 
 Keith Drazek:if we can't all agree on the exceptions, perhaps we need to 
recommend a structure to deal with exceptions, without explicitly defining the 
exceptions
 Ron A:@ JC: Welcome back!
 avri:so it really is a somewhat logical oppostion: start out at 0 and except 
in the permissive directions or start out with 100% and have exemptions in the 
prohibitive direction
 Roberto:@Avri: my appreciation of thew current baseline is that we are more on 
the 0%
 richard Tindal:Keith - it would have to be a process without many recommended 
standards from us  - as we cant agree on those
 Volker Greimann:Berry, I completely agree. We originally proposed the Open 
Registrar Proposal with this in mind, and I still stand by that general 
proposition
 Volker Greimann:everything else is just compromise
 Roberto:In simple words, the baseline should be the situation if this WG 
vanishes without any result. What we have is Nairobi and/or DAG4, not at all 
100%
 avri:roberto: i think that may be true and that why we started with baseline 
and then permission as opposed to everything permited except for some 
prohibitions.
 Keith Drazek:@richard yep, it woiuld effectively be a punting of the details, 
but a recommendation for a process to handle exceptions TBD
 Tim Ruiz:@Roberto, probably right, or whatever the Board might surprise us 
with ;-)
 ken stubbs 2:we need to stay on a disciplined agenda timeline Mikey
 richard Tindal:Ken +1
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:I would support only two options:  either 0% or 100%.  
let's define a process that works from either direction
 Tim Ruiz:Key +1
 Jothan Frakes:Mikey, ownership and control is an important item, which I want 
us to have time for
 Milton:turn off your lawn mower, Amadeu
 Volker Greimann:who let one rip
 Michael Palage:Hey Tim do you not love the following obligation that the ICANN 
must follow per the AoC -"fact-based policy development" ... "ICANN commits to 
provide a thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken, the rationale 
thereof and the sources of data and information on which ICANN relied. "
 Michael Palage:I am still looking for this in connection with the Nairobi?
 Michael Palage:resolution
 Brian Cute:My apologies Amadeu.  The compliment was offered as a fan of FCB.
 Volker Greimann:Amadeu, i really appreciate your comment and reality check. 
especially considering CORE's previous position
 Tim Ruiz:@Michael, I love it, but don't always see it, or at least understand 
it.
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:ICANN could form a standing committee, similar to SSAC, 
that would provide a rapid review of all exception requests.
 richard Tindal:Michael - if only all GAC members used same approach with their 
legislation
 Milton:Is baseline "status quo" or Board resolutions? interesting question. 
one problem  is that the status quo is inconsistent
 ken stubbs 2:big difference between secsac & the committee tom is proposing
 Jothan Frakes:+1 Tom Barrett
 Jothan Frakes:call it the X-act
 Jothan Frakes:;)
 neuman:I disagree!
 Michael Palage:@ Mikey great ambiguity squared - UGH
 Jothan Frakes:please repeat
 Jothan Frakes:ok thank you
 ken stubbs 2:could easily turn into a committee "beauty contest"
 Keith Drazek:that would require the exceptions to be very explicit in our 
recommendation
 CLO:Does need  More work on it and I note the ability to do so IN the PC 
period of the Initial Report  but to placehold exceptions  YES
 Jothan Frakes:oooh, good point ken
 Tim Ruiz:I don't understand what difference that makes?
 Jothan Frakes:I change my vote
 Kathy Kleiman:I like Mikey's paraphrase: my wording was: any 
Registry/Registrar separation too strict to otherwise allow these narrow 
exceptions.
 Michael Palage:Hey Tom - read the CAM proposal - we have such a standing 
committee
 Jothan Frakes:I liked that part of CAM, Mike
 Keith Drazek:is someone on a submarine? ping once for yes, ping twice for no 
instead of check marks?
 Tim Ruiz:How would it work from 100%? An applicant isn't likely to ask for an 
exception in that case.
 Kathy Kleiman:I think it is important because we can include these exceptions 
without assuming our baseline (since there is no consensus). This works with 
DAG4, Nairobi, 15%, etc.
 Kathy Kleiman:But we don't have an agreement on the baseline.
 Michael Palage:@Jeff N - you will note CAM starts at ZERO 
 Kathy Kleiman:If you like these exceptions for Nairobi, why wouldn't you want 
them for DAG4?
 CLO:I'm saying that we NEED exceptions  and that this list  is a way of 
starting that set...
 richard Tindal:I view DAG4 as the detailed description of Nairobi   I believe 
the Board endorsed DAG4
 neuman:DAG 4 introduces a concept of beneficial ownership which is a loophole 
around a number rules.  It was introduced by the staff, but only partly
 Kathy Kleiman:@CLO Agreed!
 richard Tindal:I dont see DAG 4 beneficial ownership as loophole
 richard Tindal:i see it as consciously allowing ownership without policy 
control
 neuman:@Richard - YOf course you like DAG 4.  While you think it was 
intention, i view it as sloppy drafting and until ICANN answers the question 
(which they wont), we cannot assume it was intentional 
 avri:Kathy:  becaue some peopel who need them at 0% might not need them at 2% 
and that make the pain unequal.
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:The definition in DAGv4 of Beneficial Ownership may be 
incomplete
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:we need Staff to confirm
richard Tindal:I'm OK with Nairobi too   I'm just saying that DAG 4 language 
was carefully considered by staff and board - not sloppy drafting
 neuman:And Richrd - you can always sk for "beneficial ownership" to be an 
"exeption"
 Volker Greimann:very correct.
 Kathy Kleiman:@Avri, aren't these exceptions from any restriction of ownershp 
- to allow the orphan TLDs, etc., to have 100% cross-ownership? Wouldn't that 
be an exception they might need for 0%, 2%, 5% and 15% cross-ownership 
limitations?
 Ron A:@ Ken: Well said!
 Volker Greimann:an applicant needs to know the approximate chances before 
laying down close to 200k
 Milton:Yes, but if an exception is explicitly noted in the rules they can 
apply for it
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@Kathy:  there are also exceptions from equal-access of 
registrars
 Milton:Ken S. is pretending that an exceptions process is a coin flip or 
beauty contest. it isn't
 Tim Ruiz:@Volker, that's why the exceptions should be only for narrow and well 
defined situations. It *could* be done, but realize that overall we will likely 
choose not to do it.
 Milton:Exactly, Tim
 ken stubbs 2:you must be privy to some insight that ken doen's have here 
milton..
 Milton:KEn: sorry for the word "pretending" chosen in haste, what I meant was 
that you are framing or presenting exceptions as if it was some arbitrary 
process without any criteria or guidelines
 Volker Greimann:many different mechanisms must come together. in my post i 
compared it to a puzzle, where no piece yields the entire picture, but many 
pieces will enable you to see the picture (or abuse)
 ken stubbs 2:if we have clear criteria or guidelines then is there a need for 
a committee here ?
 Milton:we define the guidelines, and agree on the,
 Milton:them
 Keith Drazek:icann should fund independent third-party audits of cross-owned 
entities beyond de minimus percentages
 Keith Drazek:if alloweed under the exceptions process
 Roberto:@Ken, @Milton: my understanding is that we define precise criteria, 
but you still need to have a body to decide whehter these criteria are met or 
not, the Board cannot be expected to do the calls one by one
 Volker Greimann:one compliance suggestion I really liked were random 
compliance checks/audits
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:I proposed that the groups asking for cross-ownership fund the 
audits
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:and those audits could be random
 Keith Drazek:@jeffe, some have said that could be an undue barrier/expense to 
a small, startup entity....so perhaps icann funds the first audit and the 
entity covers the cost of future audits if the first uncovered issues?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:have the fees paid on a sliding scale. larger number of 
domains under management, higher fees
 Keith Drazek: i guess that assumes the cost of an audit would also be a 
sliding scale?
 Ron A:@ Vloker: +1
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@Milton:  Compliance also needs to do with equal-access 
of registrars
 Keith Drazek:compliance/enforcement/audidts, etc. would kick in at whatever 
the max cross-ownership threshold is...but that's still the question. is it de 
minimus, is it 15%, or something else?
 Keith Drazek:and tom is correct that it also applies to equal access
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:Compliance is not just about ownership
 richard Tindal:Keith - yes,  that is primary question
 Milton:Agree with Mikey: 
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@Keith:  I think it starts at 0%.  Let's not bake in any 
exceptions
 Berry Cobb:The rule should be written for multiple models. (0%, 15%, 50%, 
100%....VI Yes VI / No) etc.....)
 Berry Cobb:rules
 avri:Tom: agree 100%
 Berry Cobb:2 exist today (0%, no VI & 15%, no VI)  what ever models come from 
VIWG or Board...will produce another model
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:The problem with 15% is that it bakes in 
exceptions....as does de-minimus.  it has to be 0%.  fyi. I could also support 
100%
 ken stubbs 2:sounds like mikey wants a preamble..
 Mike O'Connor:<grin>  yep
 Brian Cute:agree equal access would be an area to develop 
 ken stubbs 2:distracted by Futbol ?
 Milton:@Berry Cobb: agree, multiple models, but an exceptions process allows 
that
 Milton:have to leave the call now. ciao
 Milton:p.s., in compliance discussions don't talk about "Chinese walls"
 Tim Ruiz:What are we doing? Seems like no matter what we discuss we keep 
coming back to the same arguments. Are we really spending our time wisely here?
 Volker Greimann:i did not like the term, but wasn't sure if it was a common 
term in English. Anyway, the Chinese Wall was not very effective as the Mongols 
conquered China multiple times after it was built
 Volker Greimann:realistically: the chances of breaking the system in its 
entirety is pretty slim, especially if encumbent TLDs of relevant size continue 
under the current policies
 Volker Greimann:i.e. chinese wall: something that looks good, but does 
nothing, i.e. percentages of ownership
 avri:and the stuff was dropped on the mailing list
 neuman:@Avri - I understand there may have been phone calls of the members of 
the subteams...is that the case?
 Volker Greimann:@Tim: as long as there is no progress, we need to find ways to 
bring us forward. sometimes hearing the arguments again in different form 
allows new ideas to sprout
 Tim Ruiz:Consensus or not, I think you still need to do a report.
 Berry Cobb:This late in the game, there is no consensus on anything.
 avri:not on the exceptions list as far as i know.  and did te drop over the 
weekend on Saturday.  though it may have gone unread as off topic.
 Berry Cobb:The report should contain the proposals we've defined and show the 
polling around them and then state the VIWG could not come to consenses.
 Tim Ruiz:@Berry, correct.
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Berry +1
 Berry Cobb:btw, a Free Trade proposal to Mikey's template is being constructed 
for inclusion alongside the other proposals.
 Kathy Kleiman:Friday deadline for publication?
 Tim Ruiz:@Volker, I don't agree. You simply will not always be able to find 
consensus. At the least, sometimes you need to retreat to your corners to rest, 
regroup, etc.
 Kathy Kleiman:We need time to review... +1 Ron
 Keith Drazek:if we're going to continue fine-tuning during the public comment 
period, should we focus on defining the high-level, conceptual areas of 
agreement (i.e. the need for exceptions, compliance, etc.) and not get hung up 
on the specific definitions or lists?
 Volker Greimann:@Tim Do we have the luxury of that time?
 CLO:and PC's  tend to have cooments all come in at the VERY END  time wise
 CLO:cooments = comments
 Tim Ruiz:@Volker, it's the reality of the situation. I don't see anything 
changing in the near term. Let's accept where we are and give Council the 
option of regrouping given that this one isn't getting there.
 Tim Ruiz:We may miss the first round, but a new group or reconstituted group, 
may do better.
 Volker Greimann:@Tim, that means either giving up or accepting Nairobi as the 
status quo. I am not willing to do that at this point
 Ron A:Don't agree that we should be putting out the Chinese menu of our work!  
That would produce a horrific result...  without the benefit of all our 
dialogue, we would be creating a space for chaos within the board
 Jothan Frakes:@ron, and leave people hungry an hour later
 Volker Greimann:Missing the first round will most definitely mean missing the 
entire process
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Roberto +1
 Volker Greimann:everything that is remotely interesting will be delegated 
after round 1
 Tim Ruiz:@Roberto, you can't effectively shut out one group of participants, 
and then present that work as some sort of consensus or work of the WG. It 
clearly isn't. Especially when those who could not participate were unable 
because of voluteering for other work, Council, ATRT, etc.
 avri:Ron:  there s a difference between putting out a menu, versus showing in 
part (a): what little we have rough consensus on and (b:) the ingredients that 
went into (a).  BTW it is an absolute requirements that minority points of view 
be included in any report.  the easiest way to do this is to include at least 
the summary and pointer to full text of every proposal.
 Volker Greimann:Tim, I agree to that sentiment
 Ron A:@ Avri: as long as that does not open the door for the Council or 
 Tim Ruiz:@avri, I submit that at the very least RACK itself is a Molecule on 
par with any others.
 Ron A:@ Avri: Board to start to constitute their own idea of what we have 
worked on.
 avri:i don't see it as a mlecule, i see it as one of the also rans like the 
rest of us.
 Volker Greimann:but does not RACK effectively do just that by excluding 
registrars from offering RSP services or investing substantially in a registrar
 Tim Ruiz:@avri, it has as many supporters as any of the Molecules.
 avri:also ran == ingredients
 Roberto:@tim: it is not my intention to shut up participants that were not in 
Brussels, but I also believe that the molecules from Bru. have to be mentioned 
in the report. Not as consensus, but as proposals.
 Volker Greimann:miserable? the week is great.
 ken stubbs 2:not quite here avri.. rack is and always has been a serious 
proposal
 avri:thee is no consensus on it.  in fact i do not think thee is consensus on 
the molecures.  i think only the 3 statements being worked on have a chance of 
being rough consensus statement with all else endnotes.
 Berry Cobb:all proposals are serious proposals.
 ken stubbs 2:you can try to minimize it if you want but that is not the case
 avri:Ken: all of the proposals were serious.  are you intimating that they 
weren't?
 ken stubbs 2:no .. you were
 Tim Ruiz:@Roberto, they cannot be presented as something *above* or more on 
par than the proposals. That's what it sounded like you were proposing.
 avri:on the other hand, i am sawing all proposals are ingredients to the 3 
rough consensus statements.
 avri:saying
 Volker Greimann:I agree with tim: The molecules need to be presented on equal 
footing with JN2, Free Trade, Open Registrars or even Rack
 avri:and ken, while it is ok to ask me if i am saying X, but please do not 
tell me i am saying X.
 Tim Ruiz:@avri, I am talking about the molecules that were drafted in 
Brussels. The RACK, JN^2, etc. should be considered on par with those.
 Roberto:@Tim: not my intention. it is further development of work, or an 
attempt to come to progress, but since we did not have consensus, it is 
proposals for discussion
 richard Tindal:volker - whats the difference betwwen FRee Trade and Open 
Registrars?
 avri:Tm, I agree.  including CAM.
 Roberto:I think that when we go to public comments we present all proposals, 
and let the public comments express some views
 avri:and i am fine calling CAM minority, just don't call it not serious
 Volker Greimann:Same basic philosophy, different viewpoints. In fact, I 
believe ORP is more restrictive by proposing a stronger regime of controls and 
penalties
 CLO:All the proposals INCLUDING the molecule work from Brussels
 Ron A:@ Roberto: I disagree.  These proposals devoid of background would draw 
useless information for us to work with
 avri:CLO, yes and all as ingredients in the final statements we have been 
taling about today.
 ken stubbs 2:never said we shouldnt do a report but the first public draft is 
not necessarily the final public report
 CLO:@Avri  yes   and to @Ron A  why would/should they be presented in the 
interim report withour background :?
 Volker Greimann:i disagree with the speaker: the first round may not be the 
only one, but it is the defining round. Rounds after the first will be only 
shadows of the first, in size and in importance and relevance of the launched 
TLDs
 Phil Buckingham:Tim +1 -  surely we have to tell the Board what we have doing 
the past three months and especially why we cant reach consensus  
 Roberto:@Ron: not sure I understand
 Volker Greimann:TLDs launched in Round 2 will never get the same coverage as 
those launched in round 1
 avri:Ron: I strongly disagree.  All of the proposals need to re referenced in 
the rport in at least the apendices.  that is what it means to do a ful report.
 Berry Cobb:that not true Ron.  The break out sessions were about the ATOMS.
 Volker Greimann:RSP providers excluded in round 1 will not be able to 
effectively compete in subsequent rounds
 Roberto:@Ron: thx, I understand now
 Michael Palage:@Ron -1
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Ron
 ken stubbs 2:+2
 Brian Cute:+1 Ron
 richard Tindal:+2 Ron
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:So all the RACK group supports Ron and the limiting of 
choices? 
 avri:I think the rough consensus part is very short - the 3-4 statements we 
have been working on.  the addenda with the proposals is longer - though i 
think it is fie for each proposal to get a one page sumary with a pointer to 
the full proposal.
 Michael Palage:So Brian as Chair of the Transparency Team, how can the ICANN 
Board make a factual determination when all data points are not included for 
public comment ?
 Keith Drazek:We unfortunately don't know the current levels of support for ANY 
of the proposals or molecules. IIRC, the last poll was over a month ago, prior 
to Brussels. One challenge is we don't know what proposals have "strong 
support" even without consensus, so we don't know how to characterize the 
various proposals in the Initial Report.
 Ron A:An initial report that says here are all the things that were proposed 
and we weren't able to come to any consensus sounds like a punt to me.
 Michael Palage:+1 Keith
 avri:Ron: that is not what is being suggested.
 CLO:I want to make sure that the molecules and Atoms work from Brussels  goes 
into the Interim report  I see losts of traffic about "all the other" original 
proposals to get a place as well and as long as there is context to that I'm  
supportive of this approach becasue of the complaints of those who were not (or 
felt not) included  in the Brussels  work
 Volker Greimann:Point in case: If the report comes out only featuring JN2 and 
the RACK, I will definitely not feel represented in any way by it
 Kathy Kleiman:I think we really converged around two proposals -- RACK+ and JN2
 Jothan Frakes:right Kathy
 Keith Drazek:similar but not identical
 Volker Greimann:not really. 100% has strong following
 Jothan Frakes:And then we talked around the atoms
 Kathy Kleiman:They became the basis of the molecules we were discussing in 
Brussels, but that discussion in Brussel seems to have generated some 
discomfort among those who could not participate
 Ron A:Why were they not discussed in Brussels?  What was the reason?  I 
understood that it all boiled down to those variations.
 avri:you may have, but those of us in the moniroty do not gethe monrotiy do 
not get surpessed.
 avri:ie. we get represented in the report as well.
 Volker Greimann:JN2 is a extreme compromise position, not the position of 
choice where as RACK is the proposal of choice of the proponents
 Jothan Frakes:my concern is that we're going to hand too many diverse and 
conflicting results over as a product
 Ron A:@avri: No problem with represenation, but don't want to present all to 
the community and say chinese food anyone?
 Jeffrey Eckhaus:sorry if we send in conflicting results but that is the most 
representative of this group
 Volker Greimann:Jothan, we do not have a product, we have a bundle of ideas
 Jothan Frakes:maybe a better choice of words volker
 Jothan Frakes:thanks
 richard Tindal:Nevett +1
 CLO:Yes the Brussels outputs were DIFFER#ENT to JN2 or RACK +
 Jothan Frakes:+1 JN
 avri:Ron: that was never my idea.  i think the 3 docs on exceptions, 
complaines, SRSU ... are included for refeence.
 Sivasubramanian M:At Brussels decisions were taken by those physically present 
with remote participation not enabled. What was the proportion of WG members 
physically present at Brussels ?
 Keith Drazek:also, the BRU2 proposal allowed 100% cross-ownership provided no 
self-distribution
 Volker Greimann:i rather show a correct representation of the views in this 
group than a glossed over papaer neglecting major groups
 avri:those 3 are the report --- everything else is adenda
 Ron A:@ avri: I agree with that
 Berry Cobb:The polling will dictate the weight.  
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Ken!
 avri:-1 Ken
 Volker Greimann:ken: how do we define which proposals gained traction and 
which did not?
 Berry Cobb:Free Trade is in that format.  and will be circulated soon.  Fact 
Checking with propoonents.  Coming soon to you Siva, as being the original 
author.
 Volker Greimann:i may be going out on a limb, but I believe each single one 
proposal brought some unique ideas to the table hat may form part of the full 
picture
 Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Berry
 Volker Greimann:Berry, can I preview? I may want to add a few points from ORP
 Berry Cobb:We need to have 1 standard format  +1 Mikey
 Roberto:This discussion looks to me as back to the beauty contest on proposals 
we were a couple of months ago. Or am I missing something?
 Berry Cobb:yes Volker.  will be sending out in a few minutes
 Berry Cobb:Perhaps Roberto, but the beuaty contest has the most meaniful 
content.
 Ron A:@ Roberto: You stated my point exactly!
 Ron A:We are going in reverse here...
 Berry Cobb:The matrix is the meat and heart of the efforts put forth
 Roberto:@Berry: but has the disadvantage that it is guaranteed not to achieve 
consensus, therefore voiding the purpose of this WG
 Keith Drazek:perhaps we should add in the Brussels molecuies to Kathy's 
original matrix and be done with it, rather than the reverse
 Phil Buckingham:Jeff +1 - we need to submit all proposals and how and why we 
converged on the two at Brussels  . Yes all proposals must be in the same 
format 
 Berry Cobb:we tried it without the beauty contest....and we still do not have 
consensus.
 Volker Greimann:just take the poll as a method to weed out the proposals 
without sufficient support from the report
 Berry Cobb:+1 Keith.  I can accept that.
 Ron A:+1 Tim
 Brian Cute:+1 Tim
 ken stubbs 2:if anything, you just made the very point.. there is, at this 
point in time after 15 weeks, no consensus
 richard Tindal:Tim -- yes, an atom in one molecule doesnt have same effect as 
that same aton in different modelule
 Berry Cobb:+1 VOlker, thats why I said at our private face 2 face.  there are 
basically 3 proposals that have support  (RACK+, no significant change, JN2, 
middle ground, Free trade, innovation)
 Berry Cobb:thats the results of that last poll.
 Keith Drazek:the matrix worked well prior to Brussels, so let's use that as 
the baseline comparison document, but the Brussels work should also be captured 
IMO
 Berry Cobb:+1 Keith
 Volker Greimann:i would still like to see a more current view of the 
poisitions of the group
 Volker Greimann:the old poll is weeks old, and there has been movement since 
then
 Roberto:@Avri: that was my opinion as well. We have no consensus on proposals 
(neither initial, nor molecules) but we have identified 3 elements we need to 
work on
 Berry Cobb:+1 Volker.  My position has changed since that last poll.
 Berry Cobb:What I learned outsideof the WG made the difference.
 Volker Greimann:Brussels changed a few minds, I think
 richard Tindal:i agree with Avri ---  on what topics is there something 
approaching consensus?   Is it Orphan?
 CLO:Report must include Brussels outcomes as well IMO
 Phil Buckingham:Keith +1 matrix format is good . Clear and concise for the 
community to understand 
 Roberto:@Richard: Orphan is one of the exceptions. I think we have rough 
consensus (to be verified) that we need to have an exception list over the 
baseline
 Volker Greimann:ken +1
 richard Tindal:Roberto - agree.   I feel we have substantive consensus on 
Orphan concept too
 Keith Drazek:the report should include anything we have consensus on, even it 
it's at a conceptual level, and it should also include the appropriate 
background to represent the various views from A to Z
 CLO:and some of us only gave VERY conditional support for proposals in the 
orignal poll
 Keith Drazek:exceptions and compliance
 Phil Buckingham:Who gets to vote on these polls ? Everybody who sent in a SOI 
originally ?? 
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Keith - exceptions and compliance
 ken stubbs 2:no criticism here.. but we never got to SRSU.. (fully understand 
why) .. still a fact..
 Volker Greimann:Phil: I imagine so
 Ron A:Certainly, we ALL agree on compliance getting the resources it needs to 
start the rollout of new gTLDS.
 avri:we have discussed in interminably on the list
 Volker Greimann:ken: regrettably true
 Roberto:If we have a poll, on which I agree, we should really have the 
proposals in the same format.
 Keith Drazek:@ken, isn't SRSU an exception? i agree we should have spent more 
time on it, but isn't it covered by the 'exceptions' heading in some way?
 Keith Drazek:not entirely admittedly
 Kathy Kleiman:or not covered by the exceptions -- SRSU seems very different 
from the exceptions outlined
 richard Tindal:thanks Mikey  Chin up
 Berry Cobb:Thank Mikey!
 Berry Cobb:& Roberto!
 Jothan Frakes:thanks all
 avri:we discussed SRSU at very great length on the list.
 avri:more than i think we discussed anyting else.
 CLO:and it is an exception listed in the draft
 Keith Drazek:agreed, i just meant over the last 2 meetings
 Ron A:Just haven't gotten to any form of consensus needed in 72 hours...
 CLO:*sigh*
 Jothan Frakes:I am off
 Ron A:@ CLO: I feel the same way... Have a good morning!
 CLO:LOL  gee thanks :-)
 Volker Greimann:still on the line, I'd love to listen in on you talking
 Ron A:By all.
 CLO:Bye all
 avri:bye (and i did hang - despite my great desire to becme a spider on the 
wall)
 avri:hang up
 Jothan Frakes:bye all
 richard Tindal:do we have consensus on how much happiness that this WG is 
winding up?   2%?
 Jothan Frakes:good luck roberto and mikey
 avri:i did
 avri:100% hapy
 avri:happy happy, joy, joy
- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)