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

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

Jothan Frakes HM:Be nice to CLO
 Tim Ruiz:BTW, I think Jon's version of JN2 is better. And recognize that the 
RACK description may need a few edits as well.
 Volker Greimann:I agree that removing all advocacy is probably the best way to 
go
 jeff neuman:@Tim - Yeah, was kind of shocked that RACKers criticized my 
version and then their description had more advocacy than my version of JN2
 jeff neuman:@Tim - statements like:  “In the interest of registrants, 
registrars and registries of all sizes, this proposal recommends the 
continuation of ICANN’s current policy of separation between registries and 
registrars.” and "This cross ownership approach allows both registry operators 
and registrars to invest in domain name wholesale and retail businesses thus 
stimulating growth in the industry.  At the same time, the 15% ownership cap 
avoids creating ownership positions that provide incentives for registries and 
registrars alike to discriminate against unaffiliated competitors" are advocacy!
 Volker Greimann:yes, but sometimes it is hard to remove all advocacy when it 
sneaks in without one noticing
 Eric Brunner-Williams:@jeff n: i saw brian's text when you did. both your text 
and his were disapointing as they failed to state a policy without advocacy
 r tindal:RACK+ 200 worder needs to be amended also
 Brian Cute:could we have a draft by Wednesday?
 Brian Cute:pretty please?
 Tim Ruiz:@Jeff, I'm not denying that. We'll fix it.
 jeff neuman:@tim - Thanks!
 Tim Ruiz:@RT, the word limit is rediculous. I think we're all trying to be as 
succinct as possible. And I thought it was 250 anyway.
 Brian Cute:I thought we only had 200 words.
 jeff neuman:We did ours in less than 200 and I see no reason to revise
 Brian Cute::)
 Tim Ruiz:Brian, are you going to edit? I can do it otherwise.
 Brian Cute:happy to edit.
 Jothan Frakes HM:Exec Summary Neutralization under way
 Brian Cute:ok will check it.
 Brian Cute:thanks
 Volker Greimann:tbh, i did not count words, but tried to be succinct anyway
 Jothan Frakes HM:I think Nevett did it well with JN
 Jothan Frakes HM:wrt the exec summary
 Marika Konings:https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?compliance
 Marika Konings:I presume that is the latest draft?
 j.C. Vignes:sorry to be late guys1
 Keith Drazek:mikey left section 4 in on purpose to get jeff riled up ;-)
 Kathy Kleiman:that's right, S&W didn't care about it -- and that's what the 
paragraph says.
 ken stubbs:why cant we just put a link to their report in the report. all they 
did was to just brief us on the report
 jeff neuman:Actually Kathy -- I asked the question!
 jeff neuman:I asked it in January 2010 in Washington DC
 Jothan Frakes HM:I think it is important that the DAGv4 be factually 
summarized as well, else the reader may not understand the baseline
 Kathy Kleiman:then you asked a different question, jeff
 jeff neuman:I asked the question also in Sydney in 2009
 Eric Brunner-Williams:case-by-case (s & w) != single contract (jj & dh & kp & 
...pdt)
 jeff neuman:If anyone were to write that paragraph it should have been me (as 
I do have the transcript)
 jeff neuman:But I think the paragraphs should be omitteed
 Kathy Kleiman:no quite
 Kathy Kleiman:not quite
 avri:they spoke for an enitre meeting.  so that last statemnt of Jeff's is not 
really true. 
 Kathy Kleiman:isn't that purpose of the paragraph? how can we disagree on what 
we agree on? 
 r tindal:jeff's point is valid   -  we did not spend much time on S & W
 ken stubbs:tim +1
 avri:i beleive it should be included - so it will not be full consensus
 Roberto:@jeff @richard however, we should keep the reference to the report - 
maybe not extensive text, but for sure the reference
 jeff neuman:@avri - not a surprise since it supports your view
 avri:no, our views is based on their analysis - cart before horse
 jeff neuman:@Roberto - Yes, that is what we agreed to on Friday by a huge 
consensus
 Phil Buckingham:Roberto +1
 Jothan Frakes HM:so ote is to remove w&w
 Jothan Frakes HM:>>> Also, Mikey, are you disclosing who votes what way?
 r tindal:i agree re reference inclusion
 Brian Cute:are absentee ballots available?  do you count chads?
 Jothan Frakes HM:lol brian
 Kathy Kleiman:lol
 r tindal:who's Chad?
 r tindal:is he  a Pole?
 Jothan Frakes HM:that's a bush/gore reference
 Eric Brunner-Williams:about a third, if not more, of the cherokees involved in 
cno politics would like for chad (smith, current cno principal chief) to ... 
retire
 avri:we will pretend they don't exist.
 jeff neuman:That was not my proposal
 Jothan Frakes HM:wait, mikey this is confusing
 Jothan Frakes HM:what does I agree = ?
 jeff neuman:My proposal was reference the report, reference the call, but not 
restate their position or do their advocacy
 Eric Brunner-Williams:s&w's pretense was that there were no industry specific 
fact issues to consider, so as far as they were concerned, the dns didn't exist
 r tindal:jeff +1
 Kristina Rosette:Agree with Roberto
 Jon Nevett:Agree with Roberto -- we can reference without all of the 
subjectivity
 CLO:I agree with Roberto it is work done and can be footnoted or annexed
 Ron A:+1 Roberto
 Statton Hammock:Agree with Robert
 Kristina Rosette:I like CLO's footnote/annex suggestion.
 avri:we should move what is in 6 to the annex
 Jothan Frakes HM:+1 Kristina, CLO
 Jothan Frakes HM:+1 roberto
 Phil Buckingham:Roberto - yes this a fact must reference +1
 Jothan Frakes HM:annex
 Keith Drazek:+1 jeff n
 Keith Drazek:let's poll on that
 Tim Ruiz:Jeff's suggestion is fine with me.
 CLO:So suggetsion id footnote to sec 2.2
 CLO:is not id
 avri:i thik this erasure of indormation is wrong and willmake the report 
defective.  the section in the report now should be moved to the annex.
 Volker Greimann:hi all, back on my backup portable
 Alan:@Eric +1
 CLO:As I said footnote  OR annex  I just want to know where we are putting 
reference to the work done
 Roberto:@Volker: is it a trick to vote twice? ;>)
 Volker Greimann:"We" as in all of us, or "we" as in those of us who did not 
share their view?
 Volker Greimann:i wish
 Keith Drazek:+1 avri
 Volker Greimann:@roberto I wish. Just lost weeks of drafts
 Keith Drazek:we considered the report, we had a call with S&W, that needs to 
be referenced somehow
 avri:so onclude CRA
 Keith Drazek:links to the CRA and S&W are fine
 r tindal:keith +1
 ken stubbs:move that we close debate & finish final poll
 avri:you had the opportunity to have them bring CRA or other.  you did not but 
wuited until the end to prejusidce the case.
 Phil Buckingham:Keith / Jeff N +1 links 
 avri:you lack of transparency frightens me
 Brian Cute:I just said keeing in a reference by way of footnote is fine.
 avri:this is supression of information
 Brian Cute:there are other quesitons of transparency concerning the economic 
analysis that was undertaken
 Volker Greimann:annex, but in the shortened form
 Jothan Frakes HM:ok so to clarify, "I agree = footnote"
 Kristina Rosette:um. why can't it be both a short footnote with an annex?
 r tindal:JF - yes
 Brian Cute:if it is part of the report and can be read in full by readers, I 
don't see the suppression.  
 Jothan Frakes HM:++++++ 1000000    Ken
 avri:you had the chance to get other economic info discussed.  doing it at 
\this late date is suprossion of information you don't like. at this poit it 
looks like direty tricks.
 Jothan Frakes HM:so Agree=footnote    disagree=annex
 Kristina Rosette:so if I think it should be both, I shouldn't vote?
 Amadeu Abril i Abril:is polling addictive?
 Jothan Frakes HM:@Kristina isnt Annex the same as both?
 Brian Cute:please Avri.  If reps in this group had put forward alternative 
economic analysis, it would have been attacked as self interested and, if 
allowed in the report, would have been designated as the view of the members 
that put it forward.  
 Kathy Kleiman:avri, I think it is fair to discuss the weight of outside 
research and presentations. We did question their work, we did on the call, and 
now we are raising similar concerns and questions. That seems fair and 
transparent.
 Kathy Kleiman:what?
 Kristina Rosette:@Jothan:  I think there needs to be an annex. However, if 
there's no footnote, why would people think to even look for it in the Annex 
or, if they found it, read it?
 avri:i am not saying a foot note saying there was divided onpion is not 
approproaiate
 Eric Brunner-Williams:i wish there was a third category for GONE
 Jothan Frakes HM:@KR footnote would say see annex _X_
 Jothan Frakes HM::)
 Tim Ruiz:@Jothan LOL
 jeff neuman:No good deed goes unpunished
 Kristina Rosette:my head hurts
 Volker Greimann:more voting
 ken stubbs:+1 kristina
 Kristina Rosette:I'm about 5 minutes away from recirculating a revised SRSU.
 Kathy Kleiman:can we go back to the original SRSU, the one we voted on in the 
poll?
 Jothan Frakes HM:@KR would you reccomend we postpone SRSU polling until after 
we see this?
 Kristina Rosette:@Jothan:  That would seem to be a good idea
 Volker Greimann:tim+1
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Time
 Kathy Kleiman:+1 Tim -- fingers not working today :-)
 Ron A:+1 Tim
 Jothan Frakes HM:(joking) we need an R2D2 proposal
 Ron A:@ Jeff re SRMU +1  Nothing more than a reference is appropriate
 Volker Greimann:@tim: a lot of restrictions make no sense
 Jothan Frakes HM:Ron, Richard, can you do a proposal?
 r tindal:Agree with Jeff and Tim. SRSU concept has most 'In Favor' and 'Can 
Live With' support of any question on poll --  but not the details
 Phil Buckingham:Jeff +1 - talked about it , so must reference. SRMU 
 r tindal:noting that Orphan exception support is almost identical to SRSU
 Ron A:+1 Kathy Absolutely correct
 Eric Brunner-Williams:@tim +1
 Jothan Frakes HM:+1 Richard, I made that point earlier...   the reader needs a 
baseline
 Jothan Frakes HM:so a summary of the DAGv4 would benefit from the clarity that 
a summary would provide
 Jothan Frakes HM:@Kristina have you sent the SRSU update?
 Jothan Frakes HM:got it
 Kristina Rosette:@Jothan.  Yes.  sent to the list.  It's about 1 1/2 pages.
 Jothan Frakes HM:gtrateful for brevity
 Eric Brunner-Williams:reading it
 Jon Nevett:Agree with Alan
 Jon Nevett:take a quick poll and be done with it
 Phil Buckingham:Alan +1 exactly
 Kristina Rosette:I have a hard stop at 2:30 so I can do (gasp!) paying work.  
Are we still planning to cover poll and tone?
 Eric Brunner-Williams:we are not icann staff, what we think, confused or 
correct, is what motivates us
 Kristina Rosette:In light of the differing interpretations, what's the harm in 
simply noting that?
 Eric Brunner-Williams:i have to stop at 2:30 to take the kids swimming 
(splash!) so i'll not be using adobe after that point
 jeff neuman:Its amazing to me how we as a community are so tolerant of ICANN 
staff not clarifying what they meant despite the fact that they did it top-down
 jeff neuman:Isnt that a part of accountability
 Alan:@jeff +1   also @tim +1
 Kristina Rosette:@Jeff: disagree with you on the tolerance bit.  I think we're 
going to see that in the public comments - on DAG4 generally.
 jeff neuman:@Kristina...glad to hear
 jeff neuman:Becuase nothing is more infuriating than having staff set out a 
rule which has some ambiguities saying "the words speak for themselves"
 Phil Buckingham:So lets call Kurt ??? and see what happens ?
 ken stubbs:+1 tim
 Eric Brunner-Williams:that's been tried
 Kristina Rosette:am I the only one humming the Twilight Zone theme music?
 Eric Brunner-Williams:jepordy
 jeff neuman:Its typical avoidance
 r tindal:i think there is only one ambiguity in DAG4 cross ownership langauge  
 the rest is very clear
 Alan:@Kristina - nope!
 jeff neuman:+1 Tim!
 ken stubbs:if not people are playing craps with the $185,000
 Phil Buckingham:Tim +1
 ken stubbs:+1 tim
 Volker Greimann:the answer i think is that staff does not know it 
 Paul Diaz:+1 Tim
 jeff neuman:Why is our interpretation of the DAG relevant?
 Alan:I can understand they they don't want to rephrase, but that is VERY 
different from refusing to answer if we have it right.
 Jon Nevett:Mikey +1 and say silence is assent
 Statton Hammock:Agree with Tim
 j.C. Vignes:+1 Ti,
 Volker Greimann:in brussels, during the RC meeting, board members pretty much 
came out with the statement that Nairobi was supposed to be only a clear slate 
for us to do our work, intended as an uncomfortable baseline that would force 
us to come to  a consensus

 Volker Greimann:if that was the intention, there is no hidden sense, it means 
what it means, as it is only a placeholder for what we come up with
 Kristina Rosette:it's a kind of snarky idea, but why doesn't someone put the 
questions in a letter and mail it to ICANN?  Then it will go up on the 
correspondence page (or someone will have to explain why it's not there) and 
the absence of a response will speak for itself.
 Kathy Kleiman: We could submit a formal letter to ICANN, probably to Kurt, 
with the question. The letter, and any response, would appear on the public 
Correspondence list.
 Kathy Kleiman:this is what Ken just said as well.
 Kristina Rosette:Kathy and I are having a mind meld. spooky
 Jothan Frakes HM:+1 ken, kathy, kristina
 Kathy Kleiman:That's wierd!
 Kathy Kleiman:But cool!
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:can someone summarize what they thik is ambigious about 
the DAG for VI/CO?
 Jothan Frakes HM:The K3 proposal
 Kathy Kleiman:lol
 Kristina Rosette:@Kathy: definitely
 ken stubbs:kinda what transparency is supposed to be
 CLO:Don't start me on that today @Ken  *sigh*
 ken stubbs:sorry..  i share your pain (but dont want your burden)
 CLO:Not just mone
 CLO:mine
 Brian Cute:how about "violently" divided?
 Alan:Ken, It is "ICANN transparaency"
 Eric Brunner-Williams:@alan +1
 Volker Greimann:if you can see through it, it has no content
 Volker Greimann:so much for transparency
 Alan:Volker, you can see through holograms, but they have loads of content!  
;-)
 Volker Greimann:true
 Volker Greimann:but the it is not real
 Kristina Rosette:have to drop off.  The only thing on my VI WG to do list is 
the summary for section 6 of the IPC proposal.  If I've missed something, 
please let me know via list.  thanks!
 Alan:Not sure we want to go down that road with respect to ICANN!
 Volker Greimann:jc+1
 Volker Greimann:there is always a middle way
 Volker Greimann:i agree, we made progress, minds were changed, proposals 
amended
 Jothan Frakes HM:will we please include polls in document
 Volker Greimann:more talking about polls ;-)
 r tindal:i think if we're going to nclude the Poll we include the whole Poll   
 Taking pieces out selectively doesnt feel right to me
 ken stubbs:disagree  most of poll was somewhat convoluted & confusing to many
 ken stubbs:especiall with reference to atoms
 Volker Greimann:the lurkers argument again
 r tindal:how will we decide which parts are not confusing -- and will not 
removing some parts of the thing make it even less clear?
 Volker Greimann:if they wanted to vote, they would have
 Kathy Kleiman:aggregate data, perhaps, is valuable, but individual data, I 
don't know. 
 Volker Greimann:some of the lurkers are possibly only here as observers
 Eric Brunner-Williams:it is irresponsible for volunteers to abadon their 
committment to participate reasonably to the best of their abilities.
 Sivasubramanian M:hello  I was watching wag the dog waiting for the meeting to 
start at 19.00 UTC... Didn't notice that it was to start at 17 30 today
 Volker Greimann:true, but making the argument that the poll is invalid because 
not everyone voted on it makes no sense
 Sivasubramanian M:( not dialled in)
 Phil Buckingham:Give the 20 non responders 3 days to reply / complete ???
 Ron A:I agree, lurkers are not helpful in any way...  If someone submits an 
SOI to be in this group and just listern, they should be comelled to vote at 
the very least!
 ken stubbs:the reason in many cases for starts & stops was the confusion prev 
discussed
 Volker Greimann:i am against any obligation to vote, phil
 Volker Greimann:and now... the 5 minutes on polling are up...
 Kathy Kleiman:can we poll the poll??
 Volker Greimann:can we have a poll on if we want to talk to talk more on the 
poll?
 Alan:Sorting by name, Cheryl, Ron and Scott show up twice. 
 r tindal:ken's putting more quarters in
 ken stubbs:got
 ken stubbs:got cut off.. re dialing back in
 Ron A:For transparency, my first time round didn't take for some reason, hence 
I'm in twice.... :o)
 Alan:Unfortunately we cannot tell which was first...
 ken stubbs:+1
 Ron A:My point all along, Tim...
 r tindal:lets poll on including the poll
 Brian Cute:let's have a poll on no more "poll jokes."  We'll call it the "Dead 
Horse" poll.
 r tindal:i wasnt joking
 Brian Cute:I had an Auntie Poll.  She lived in Sheboygan.
 CLO:Mikey re the me in twice  issue => It looks like my changed a few views 
run on the Poll did not override the 1st initial one (when I was more confused) 
so ditch the data from my 1st listed one in order of sort by name please...
 Brian Cute:Ron +!
 Brian Cute:1
 Tim Ruiz:Polls for our own use can be adhoc, done ourselves, etc. Polls for 
public consumption/reporting/final decision making should be prepared 
professionally.
 Ron A:@ Mikey: Please select my second attempt as well.  Thanks!
 Ron A:+1 Tim
 Alan:@amadeu +1
 CLO:I agree with @amadeu
 CLO:on interests issue
 Alan:Never expected to have "death penalty" raised in the VI discussion!
 CLO:Ohh I don't know Alan  seems this all MUST be life and death stuff ;-)
 Volker Greimann:well, we do have the RACK, so the death penaltiy is not far 
off...
 Kathy Kleiman:what are the deadlines ahead??
 Alan:ok. I yield.
 Volker Greimann:can we poll on this, mikey
 r tindal:volker +1
 Kathy Kleiman:can we poll on "to heck with polls"?!
 Jothan Frakes HM:+1 volker
 Ron A:Not in the queue, Mikey
 Alan:I think we need a poll to decide on if we have a poll on polls.
 Ron A:Kristina has dropped off, Mikey...
 Phil Buckingham:Jothan Frakes His Majesty/ Volker +1
 Jothan Frakes HM:it stands for 'hire me'  lol
 Volker Greimann:i was thinking the same about the HM in his name, phil
 Volker Greimann:Jothan as first registrant for .royal?
 r tindal:notquite.royal
 Tom Barrett - EnCirca:.HMS
 Tim Ruiz:I'd like a Numers version for the iPad :)
 Tim Ruiz:Numbers version that is
 Phil Buckingham:Does the O Connor Foundation require donations ?
 Volker Greimann:still waiting for the version with frnt cam
 Tim Ruiz:Thanks Mikey
 Jothan Frakes HM:jothan.jester
 Jothan Frakes HM:thanks everyone


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