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

[Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

My apologies for the teleconference yesterday. My phone was stolen.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)
COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC
MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE
GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN)

Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571
                           +243811980914
email:                   b.schombe@xxxxxxxxx
blog:                     http://akimambo.unblog.fr
siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble   Royal, Entrée A,7e
niveau.


2010/7/12 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.)
>
>
>