[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's call
- To: Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's call
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:25:01 -0500
here's the chat transcript from the call today.
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
> Volker Greimann:Btw: good work to get the ball rolling Jeff
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> 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
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)