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

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

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from the call today.

thanks,

mikey


Begin forwarded message:

> From: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: August 2, 2010 3:21:36 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Volker Greimann:all is quiet
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:The wait for the call took a few minutes
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:hi folks, the oeprator told me that there was no conf 
> at this time...
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:Gisela, or someone: could you please thck with them and 
> tell them that is really now?
>  Roberto:@Amadeu: is it really ;>)?
>  Jon N.:me too -- I had to call back
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:I tried again.. and he told me again that there was no 
> such conf, that he had already told me and hanged up. weird
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:is there a special command to bypass a secific 
> operator? ;-)))
>  Volker Greimann:get his name next time and ask to speak his supervisor
>  Roberto:@Amadeu and all: apologies, I thought you were in the call, did not 
> realize that the problem was real
>  Roberto:@Amadeu: Mikey is dealing with this, the operators will be informed 
> of the problem
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:not yet. I wait a couple of minutes and try again. If I 
> have the same result... will go for dinner, a good alternate plan ;-)
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:wow, already in
>  Palage:welcome
>  Volker Greimann:Btw: good work to get the ball rolling Jeff
>  CLO::-)
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:and it was the SAME oprstor for the third time ;-)
>  Palage:dinner will have to wait :-)
>  Roberto:it was too early for dinner in Barcelona anyway...
>  Sivasubramanian M:If we are examining harms, we could examine harms 
> irrespective of a certai harm's  'elastity' to Vertical Integration
>  Volker Greimann:siva, that is step 2
>  Sivasubramanian M:Harms could be examined as harm, not worrying whether 
> vertical integration influences them or not
>  Volker Greimann:step 1: name the harms
>  Volker Greimann:step 2: analyze the harms, and find how far they relate to 
> VI/CO
>  Volker Greimann:step 3: propose solutions, mitigating factors for each harm
>  Sivasubramanian M:It is fine Volker, to follow that sequence
>  Sivasubramanian M:Was just making a broad point
>  avri:why do it, if we intend to keep it secret?
>  avri:what are we so afriad of in this process?
>  Volker Greimann:do we, avri?
>  Roberto:@avri: ???
>  Volker Greimann:not really following you there
>  avri:Tim's points.  they seem to be about fear of how we use this 
> discussion, and of whether we make it public.  i do not understand the 
> concern/fear.
>  Roberto:@avri: isn't there a distinction anyway between making publi the 
> result of a discussion and the details thereof?
>  Volker Greimann:I don't understand many of the concerns/fears...
>  Volker Greimann:If there is a problem, it can be fixed. 
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:voice disappeared?
>  avri:isn't everything we are doing meant to support consensus, the making of 
> it, and the informing about it?  i am very confused.
>  Kristina Rosette:I'm confused, too.
>  Mike O'Connor:somebody's typing up a storm -- could you mute?
>  Volker Greimann:Let's be realistic: Robbing banks is a harm to the 
> community, so there is laws against it. Still banks are robbed from time to 
> time. Lesson learned: No matter what is done, harms will occur. It is how we 
> deal with them that will make the difference
>  Sivasubramanian M:@Volker Was saying that we don't have to worry whether or 
> not a certain harm relates to VI/CO, when we begin analysing harms in Phase 
> II. 
>  Brian Cute:What is our actual timetable on this work Mikey?
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:OK, folks, I'm off. It is raining here, and in this 
> village in the mountains is either rain or phone network, one or the other 
> ;-) Internet will disappear in a few minutes, I guess (dowan to crawling 
> speed). 
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:wll read you on the list
>  CLO:Hear Hear Mickey
>  Volker Greimann:Also, there is ways that banks make it harder to be robbed, 
> by installing police call buttons, checking their numbers regularly, paying 
> for guards, etc. This can be compared to creating a structure that makes 
> abusive behavior that much harder to pull off
>  CLO:Sorry typo 
>  CLO:the Y just slipped in :-(
>  Keith Drazek:to the extent "harms" or "absense of harms" are used to 
> advocate various proposals, we should continue the work to define what they 
> are and identify ways to address them. and the output should be included in 
> the final report IMO
>  Volker Greimann:@siva, yes, that is a discussion to be left for p2, and 
> shouldf be ignored in p1
>  avri:a bit of a what?
>  Volker Greimann:1+ Jeff: Let the fearmongers put their fears on the table 
> for discussion. 
>  Volker Greimann:ping?
>  Volker Greimann:My view for the list of harms: Add your harm now or be 
> forever silent ;-)
>  avri:that's right, and if a new harm emerges, act like it didn't.
>  Jothan Frakes:Could we call for consensus for or a deadline to calling the 
> list Jeff had submitted as being complete to the best of our awareness, and 
> then we can make determiniations (poll or otherwise) of which are rational 
> and irrational
>  Volker Greimann:avri: generalize, if need be
>  Kristina Rosette:@Jothan:  Not opposed in principle, but have just emerged 
> fromf 2 weeks of crazy, end of quarter deal closing and haven't had time to 
> focus. Suspect others have been focusing on other things since the Initial 
> Report, too.
>  Alan:Perhaps we can go on to other speakers?
>  Jothan Frakes:we could even make a statement to say that a large pool of 
> subject matter experts and interested parties put forth their best 
> estimations of what harms were but they may have not been by any means 
> comprehensive
>  CLO:were also (or should be) looking at POTENTIAL of Harm and the consequent 
> Risk Analysis needed from a VI perspective
>  avri:my thought was the list would be used to make sure that there were some 
> rlues or some compliance measurers etc to repsond to all the harms.
>  Volker Greimann:sorry, can't respond on the phone right now (something nice 
> is frying in the pan), but yes, I do think this starter list should be an 
> incentive to finally get all the cards (feared harms) on the table... 
>  Jothan Frakes:sure, CLO, that was more eloquently put
>  Volker Greimann:if we are to discuss harms in step 2, we need a definition 
> of the harms
>  Jothan Frakes:we can say, ok here's a list of harms we were able to come up 
> with, now lets as a group commit our perspectives, wisdom, and 
> position/interests into focus and determine their strengths
>  Volker Greimann:and a (near) complete list
>  Volker Greimann:jothan +1
>  Keith Drazek:+1 volker and jothan
>  Roberto:From the co-chair POV, I would like to avoid that a few weeks down 
> the road we have a all foul because we did not consider some important harms
>  Jothan Frakes:We're trying to move it from a list, to a curated list so that 
> we can elevate the discussion in more of an actionable form
>  Volker Greimann:i agree roberto, and i think the solutions proposed in step 
> 3 should be broad enough to be able to prevent not only the concrete harms we 
> listed, but also new ones that just popped off someones head. OTOH, the 
> sooner we have a good list everyone feels confident about, the sooner we can 
> start working and discussion
>  Volker Greimann:Jothan: actionable as in "legal action"?
>  Jothan Frakes:no, actionable as in us being able to poll and measure
>  Jothan Frakes:ie have the group rank them on  1-5     1 being real, 5 being 
> edge case
>  Volker Greimann:i know, I was kidding, jothan...
>  Jothan Frakes:and other aspects
>  Roberto:that's why i proposed to have a comprehensive list, in brainstorming 
> mode, err by adding items that will be then deleted rather than omit items 
> that can be relevant
>  avri:40 minutes so far, tick tick tick
>  Volker Greimann:vacations? who has vacations?
>  Jothan Frakes:oh, ok...  You often astonish and impress me with the level of 
> your aptitude with english,  I try to be sensitive to the fact that others 
> are not all native english speakers so I take things literally often
>  Jothan Frakes:@volker, I have been on 'vacation' since EOI vote :)
>  Sivasubramanian M:If ghe only topic that has come up so far is "harms",  
> please include two other topics to be explored by this WG. 1) Good Practices 
> and 2) Constituency level comp0liance framework ( Internal to the Business 
> Constituency) and 3) a Broader compliance framework
>  Kristina Rosette:If I could make the image of my hand wave back and forth, I 
> would . . . . 
>  Berry Cobb:Bottom line is now that Initial Report is submitted, and we are 
> past agressive timelines, it is now time to move in to an in-depth analysis 
> phase of VI.  I see several components to this analysis.  One being how 
> perceived harms affect the proosal models we have worked on thus far.
>  Jothan Frakes:Tim, with all due respect can we move to the rest of the queue?
>  Sivasubramanian M:three other topics 
>  Statton Hammock:No offense taken...
>  avri:another word banned in the VIWG?  
>  Berry Cobb:Jeff was not adversarial in anyway
>  Jothan Frakes:there goes my application for .monger, shoot.  :(
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Now is the time for people to elaborate
>  Volker Greimann:well, then lets not have new TLDs...
>  avri:if FUD allowed?  how about fear, uncertainty and doubt?  are hese words 
> banned as well?
>  Volker Greimann:that is the only way to prevent all possible harms
>  CLO:Actually Volker that is an option  but not one most of us have as a 
> PREFERRED one
>  avri:So putting people out of business is a harm.  is that on the list?
>  Alan:Just because we cannot prevent ALL harms does not mean that we should 
> try to prevent the ones we know about.
>  Jothan Frakes:Volker, I hear you but I think that the only path forward is 
> to accept that gray is an outcome as opposed to black or white
>  avri: am confused about this discussion, not the the process.
>  Berry Cobb:the analysis is still in the charter.
>  Alan:@volker - there is a big difference between someone violating rules, 
> and doing things which cause harms but that there is no rule against.
>  Jothan Frakes:My complements to Jeff Eckhaus for compiling this harms list...
>  Volker Greimann:Alan: I agree 100%. In Germany, early in the last century, 
> there was no law against drawing electicity without permission of the power 
> company, as electicity is not a "thing" it is not theft. So when this 
> happened the first time, laws were made to make this illegal
>  Jothan Frakes:He meant the other Jeff, Jeff Neuman
>  Jothan Frakes:perhaps
>  Roberto:@Alan: my understanding of Volker's point is that we accept the fact 
> thaqt there are going to be harms, we need to list the potential ones, and to 
> set rules and make sure that we have compliane in place to enfore them
>  avri:50 minutes and still only 1 new harm listed - companies being driiven 
> out of business.
>  Volker Greimann:+1 roberto
>  Alan:Volker, I understand that concept, but ICANN is not a government and 
> cannot make laws after-the-fact is they have signed an agreement that allows 
> something.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:sorry avri - I have that one listed
>  Roberto:to enforce4 compliance, I mean, not to enforce harms ;>)
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:or at least thought i did list ot
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:it
>  avri:oh 50 minutes and nothing new. 
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:lol
>  Jothan Frakes:Alan do you think that the process on addressing the Add-Grace 
> worked to address a 'harm'?  
>  Volker Greimann:We could create a poll on harms: I favor this harm, i can 
> live with it, I oppose this harm...
>  Jothan Frakes:Where a consensus policy was able to be created to shore up 
> what was perceived as abuse/harm which evolved in the whitespace.
>  Alan:Jothan, yes, but that was an issue within the picket fence and we were 
> allowed to unilaterally make a new rule. Things such as ownership or what you 
> can do with data are not likely to be within the juridiction of consensus 
> policy.
>  Roberto:it was no joke, ken *really* has a new phone!
>  Jothan Frakes:@alan, good point on the nuance.  I think I'd interpreted your 
> concern differently
>  Volker Greimann:i believe such harms will best be handled by equal access 
> provisions... violate equal access, lose your TLD
>  avri:i still want to rating based on degree of harm and likelihood on a 5 
> point scale.  i know a few people shot it down, but i think it is the only 
> way to evaluate the WG's view on the harms listed.
>  Jothan Frakes:+++1 Avri
>  Jothan Frakes:(on all counts)
>  CLO:@ Avri  comes back to Risk Analysis
>  CLO:yep
>  Jothan Frakes:amen Cheryl
>  Roberto:@avri: i probably agree, but hope we get into the rating only after 
> we have a complete list, not mixing the different steps.
>  Alan:Volker, that was just a quck example. ICANN's contracts will always 
> have things that are beyond the range of consensus policy. If we don't get 
> those right the first time, we are not likely to be able to fix them easily 
> or quickly, or perhaps at all.
>  avri:Roberto, of course.
>  Jothan Frakes:Agree @Roberto.  Could we perhaps get some form of a deadline 
> for subimssions on that list so we can get started with what Avril's 
> described?
>  Volker Greimann:alan: I agree, but I also am of the opinion that restricting 
> CO will not prevent any one of these harms in itself
>  Jothan Frakes:There's a lot of us that would like to measure these 'known' 
> or 'estimated' harms 
>  Roberto:@Jothan: we will try. I see that some people, for instance Kristina, 
> need some more time - the intention was to close today, but we need more time
>  Volker Greimann:Avri: rating and commenting on the harms is step 2
>  avri:Volker:  i agree, but isn't that one answer to Tim
>  Jothan Frakes:Not suggesting tomorrow is deadline.  But if constituencies 
> will circulate for their stakeholder input, having a deadline helps
>  avri:isn't this Tim's concern of how we are going to use these things? first 
> we willlist them, ten we will rate them, and then we will look at ways to 
> overcome or alleviate them?
>  Jothan Frakes:again, we don't have to say it is the full list of harms
>  Volker Greimann:yes, avri, it is. put the harms on the table so we may know 
> them, then work together to build strong rules to prevent both known harms 
> and unknown harms.
>  CLO:And with new gTLD's  and vastly more global spread of these inclusing in 
> new scripts and into "green fields"  the "landsacpe now is DIFFERENT 
> (predictably) from  where we are now (or to some extent have been before)  
> this changes the considerations we need to explore in our Risk Analysis of 
> potential Harms
>  Volker Greimann:We have to get it right the first time round, but we will 
> ignore the possiblity of most hamrs occuring by relying on vertical 
> seperation (VS)
>  avri:and then we will put them in the annex of the final report with all 
> sorts of caveats to makes sure no one thinks this is natural truth being 
> spoken and there is a difference of opinion on evertthing including the 
> nature of truth.
>  Volker Greimann:caveat to this list of harms: while they may occur with 
> VI/CO, they will just as likely occur in VS
>  avri:Volker: but they may be more liklely in one scenarion than in another.
>  Katrin Ohlmer:+1 avri
>  Volker Greimann:will we have gained something where a harm, that would have 
> occured 10/100 times with CO/VI, now occurs only 7/100 times without VO, but 
> now without a body of rules and consequences?
>  Volker Greimann:vo VI/CO
>  Volker Greimann:vo= vi/CO
>  Volker Greimann:my position is no, we will have gained nothing, but lost much
>  Jothan Frakes:VO is a trademarked term volker ;)
>  Volker Greimann:oh?
>  Roberto:the guy in Austria was not me!!!!!
>  Keith Drazek:was he an employee?
>  Keith Drazek:j/k
>  Volker Greimann:Re: data sharing harm. I agree that this is a danger, but I 
> can see it happen just as likely where a third party (domainer, etc) simply 
> buys the data from the registry, or someone from the registry uses this data 
> for his own purposes. You do not need to be intergrated or co-owned to abuse 
> that data.
>  Volker Greimann:For this reason I proposed earlier that one possible 
> solution may just be a requirement to publish such data
>  Keith Drazek:nice work on the list of harms Jeff, thanks for your continued 
> efforts 
>  ken stubbs:no .. the guy was not an employee. he registered the names thru 
> an icann accredited registrar in the pre-landrush stgage of the initial 
> rollout..
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:thanks Keith
>  avri:instead of SRSU - I would like to talk about SR, and the conditions 
> under which it might or may not be ok to do SR.
>  Sivasubramanian M:Someone was mentiing an instance of 5000 trade names 
> registered by a registrant, This and other harms BY Registrants can also be 
> examined,  to be ffair
>  Sivasubramanian M:fair
>  Volker Greimann:one thing always makes me wonder: an ICANN accredited 
> registrar may be able and allowed to handle as many ccTLDs as RSP, but for 
> gTLDs, no matter how marginal, it is impossible, due to "potential harms".
>  Keith Drazek:@ken, yeap, I know, I was just wondering out loud how that case 
> of abuse related to the VI-CO discussion, but you followed it up in your 
> comments. 
>  Alan:Volker, just because we have no power in some domains (pun intended) 
> does not mean we should ignore the issues in areas where we do have some 
> jurisdiction.
>  Mike O'Connor:typing and breathing...
>  Kristina Rosette:@Roberto:  I agree.  They should run in parallel.  I still 
> think, though, that our first priority should be to make sure that the WG has 
> checked the box on everything in the WG charter.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 
>  Volker Greimann:Alan: True, but should we not look at such ccTLDs for 
> examples on how it can work, and if harms occured/occur there?
>  Sivasubramanian M:I got disconnected, require a dial out
>  Roberto:@Kristina: We are on the same wavelength
>  Kristina Rosette:Two?  Ack.
>  Alan:@Volker - sure we should.
>  CLO:Ending now SIva
>  Volker Greimann:I do not know how big the involvement of GoDaddy is in .me, 
> but I did not see any harms there
>  Jothan Frakes:thanks everyone
>  CLO:Bye all

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