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

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

hi all,

here's the chat transcript from our meeting today

mikey

Begin forwarded message:

> From: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: August 9, 2010 3:17:21 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Roberto:Hi, all.
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:hi
>  Roberto:Not much traffi on the list. Hope the call is well attended, though.
>  ken stubbs:good evening
>  ken stubbs:is this document available by email ?
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I can send to the list now with the few updates that I had
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:from submissions by others
>  ken stubbs:plz do ....
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:sent
>  ken stubbs:thx
>  Roberto:Mid summer night's dream?
>  Jothan Frakes:Thanks Jeff
>  CLO:buzz on the line?
>  Jothan Frakes:someone's light sabre is too close to the phone
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Have not seen it
>  Ron A:Didn't arrive on the list, as far as I can see.
>  Jothan Frakes:could this be shared with the list now?
>  Roberto:i sent it
>  Jothan Frakes:Thanks roberto.  I suspect that it sounds like that is not the 
> formal memo until it has review from Kristina Rosette, just so folks on the 
> WG understand that it is subject to change
>  Keith Drazek:i just joined fyi
>  Ron A:Thanks for the clarification, Jeff E.  All clear.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Sure
>  avri:if they want to do so fine, but there is no reason to have to do so.
>  Keith Drazek:+1 jeff, I'd also add that some companies/individuals may have 
> changed positions since earlier letters were written and made public
>  avri:will Margie have to check with everyone to make sure they agree with 
> the summary?
>  CLO:Roberto has sent Scotts memo to the list  though
>  avri:why ca't we get to a document before the end of the review cycle?
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Apologies from Michele Neylon
>  Roberto:@CLO my undeerstanding was that Scott intended to send it to the 
> list and it did not go. Did I misunderstood?
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I received Scott Austin's document. Roberto sent it out in 
> the last 30 minutes
>  Sivasubramanian M:If the course of our PDP depnds on the outcome of the 
> Board's reaction, why not take it easy till we hear from the Board?
>  Sivasubramanian M:Is it necessary to distinguish harms as harms from VI and 
> harms from Vertical separateion?  Why don't we examine harms as harms and 
> propose solutions?
>  Tim Ruiz:+1 Sebastien
>  avri:other issues - does that mean WAPO/WoPo and recommendation 6?
>  Tim Ruiz:WhatPO?
>  ken stubbs:+1 jeff
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Kristina Rosette has joined the call
>  Roberto:@JeffE indeed, let's issue another "call for harm items"
>  avri:Serious question?  the new 'overarching issues' i.e. the gac letter to 
> the board: http://gac.icann.org/system/files/GAC_on_MoPo_August_4_2010_0.pdf 
> - i assume this is one of those other issues that may give VIWG more time to 
> walk in circles around the tree.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Roberto - OK
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Phil Buckingham joined the call
>  ken stubbs:+1 on avri's comment above
>  Brian Cute:yes
>  Jothan Frakes: lol mikey
>  Alan Greenberg:I am now on call.
>  Tim Ruiz:Ahh, the GAC again. I'm sure you saw Peter's response as well.
>  CLO:Bye all
>  Sivasubramanian M:Bye
>  avri:Peter's repsonse was to the older missive.  Not to this one.  this is a 
> newly reopened wound.
>  Sébastien:thanks and bye

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