[gnso-vi-feb10] Fwd: Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

["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 16, 2010 1:32:25 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Volker Greimann:helle everyone
>  Jothan Frakes:hi volker
>  Jothan Frakes:hello everyone
>  Keith Drazek:hello all
>  ken stubbs:hello guys
>  CLO:Hi all
>  Roberto:Hi all - waiting to get in
>  Jothan Frakes:I'd imagine we see a thundering herd by 10 past
>  Brian Cute:Put your ear to the ground...  :)
>  Katrin Ohlmer:Hi all
>  Volker Greimann:hi
>  Berry Cobb:I would say that the summary by Margie accurately reflects the 
> comments, but some of the comments may not be so accurate  :-)
>  Volker Greimann:+1 berry
>  Michele Neylon:hi
>  Michele Neylon:phone problems here
>  Michele Neylon::(
>  Mike O'Connor:you want us to call you, Michele?
>  Michele Neylon:hangon - will try a different number
>  Michele Neylon:finally in
>  Volker Greimann:welcome
>  Mike O'Connor:we're on page 3
>  Michele Neylon:so basically our comments just say we agree with Volker
>  Michele Neylon:not sure if we said anything beyond "whatever Volker said"
>  Alan Greenberg:If anyone knows of specific DAG comments that apply, they 
> should explicitly tell her.
>  Volker Greimann:scott +1
>  Volker Greimann:i think my comment speaks for itself
>  Volker Greimann::-)
>  Berry Cobb:For those that may not have seen Antony's suggestions about the 
> Board making a decision on VI, I feel are spot on.  Take a look when you get 
> a chance.
>  avri:i think that so many VIWG members used the comments to reinforce their 
> arguments is intersting.  I tend to think the comment period is for non WG 
> members.  but that is obviously a miority viewpoint.
>  Volker Greimann:just add them as an additional appendix
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 avri
>  Michele Neylon:Volker +1
>  Jothan Frakes:I do think it was worth having other proposals somehow 
> referenced, though
>  avri:+1 Jothan
>  Volker Greimann: 
>  Jothan Frakes:Thanks Avri.  Its why I avoided making a comment... 
>  Jothan Frakes:we have the list
>  Jothan Frakes:'the public' don't
>  Volker Greimann:we may have the list, but somehow i am not that confident 
> the board or "the public" (and are we not all part of the public?) will read 
> every post on the list, so I felt it necessary to summarize our position
>  Jothan Frakes:rather they have read only access to the list dialog
>  Michele Neylon:expecting any normal person to do through the list archive 
> would be more than a little optimistic
>  Jothan Frakes:@Volker I wasn't suggesting that the request to include the 
> open proposal was lobbying
>  Volker Greimann:4000+ messages, have fun
>  Sivasubramanian M:+1 on the idea of making all the original proposals 
> visbile.  This will give a clear idea of the rationale behind every proposal
>  Michele Neylon:What is wrong with just shoving them in an annex / appendix ?
>  Alan Greenberg:If MArgie's summary would point directly to the comment along 
> with the note that the full proposal is there, that should be a stable 
> pointer to it. (not point to the comment and not the attachment).
>  Jothan Frakes:I have no problem with that siva
>  Volker Greimann:siva +1
>  Michele Neylon:Siva + 1
>  Michele Neylon:Siva - i've got to stop agreeing with you :)
>  Sivasubramanian M:No Michele, you don't have to stop agreeing with me now.. 
> If you are eager to disagree with me, sooner or leater I will start saying 
> something that you don't like !! That is inevitable
>  Jothan Frakes:I think we are saying the same thing, the subtle nuance is 
> that I am building upon Avri's comment and saying there is requesting 
> inclusion for something that isn't... and then there is "My position is 
> better than your position" from members of the WG
>  Berry Cobb:Agree Siva.  For example, the Free Trade Proposal listed in the 
> Initial Report, does reflect a compromise of Equal Access when it was 
> completed via the co-chair template.  However, the original Free Trade did 
> not include Equivelent Access, and that is the primary distinguishing 
> difference between the original Open Registrar and Free Trade proposals.
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Phil Buckingham and Brian Cute's lines have been muted 
> due to noise
>  Michele Neylon:Scott - some ccTLDs don't have any concept of registrars
>  Jothan Frakes:See, Berry, that statement made my eyes roll into the back of 
> my head because of its complexity.  And I am in the WG.  I took a moment and 
> read it a couple of times and then figured out exactly what you meant
>  Berry Cobb:sorry, my writing skills are not the best on the fly.
>  Berry Cobb:heck they are great after 3 iterations  ;-)
>  Roberto:Would it be useful to have a list of all ccTLDs who do have full VI?
>  Jothan Frakes:I am concerned, and I think it may have been the logic behind 
> narrowing initially so as to keep people from getting too confused by all the 
> thousands of mailing list items and handfulls of strengths or weaknesses of 
> each approach from the proposals.  And then the iteration
>  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Berry, when both the original and the revised 
> proposal is visible side by side, it becomes clear to the reader what is 
> taken out, what is reatined and what is added
>  Jothan Frakes:To Jeff's point, many of these holding registrars do this so 
> that their registrar competently handles their expiry process
>  Scott Austin:So you can be accredited as a registrar without operating as a 
> registrar? What benefits; i.e. why go through the accreditation process?
>  Berry Cobb:@scott, cheaper price
>  Jothan Frakes:Scott.  long list depending upon the profile of the client but 
> Berry's point is at the top of list
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:If you own 100,000 domain names or more it could be cheaper 
> to own a registrar than to pay the markup
>  Berry Cobb:personally, I think it is an issue with accreddiation, but thats 
> a whole different topic
>  Phil Buckingham:Berry +1 
>  Jothan Frakes:@Scott, Berry   there is also a matter of juristictional 
> benefit and self destiny with respect to policy
>  Michele Neylon:Scott - depends, we are accredited with ICANN for ALL current 
> gTLDs - we don't offer all of them at the moment though
>  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:@Berry...I dont understand what the issue is. 
>  Michele Neylon:We're also accredited with several ccTLDs, but still do the 
> regs via someone else
>  Jothan Frakes:@Michele  folks do that because it normalizes all the 
> connection headaches and wide variance in policies
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Lines unmuted - thank you!
>  Michele Neylon:Jothan - sure I know why we do it - can't speak for anyone 
> else :)
>  Berry Cobb:@Tom, just muddies water if you ask me.  But to be honest it is 
> only my gut feel, it is not a topic I have researched thoroughly.
>  Michele Neylon:Berry - why?
>  Jothan Frakes:@michele also lets a registrar introduce ccTLD to their 
> clients with a lower operational cost initially
>  Michele Neylon:Berry - if a company wants to be accredited and isn't doing 
> anything wrong, what difference does it make?
>  Michele Neylon:@Jothan - which does?
>  Jothan Frakes:using a reseller system to start with on a ccTLD offering
>  Michele Neylon:Jothan - oh yeah - of course 
>  Jothan Frakes:many do that to start and then directly accredit when they hit 
> a certain volume
>  Berry Cobb:agree Michele.....again, my gut tells me that if you not selling 
> domains to the public, you should not be icann accreditted.  But again, I 
> need to be better educated about it...hence not pursing it.
>  Michele Neylon:Berry - we were accredited for months before we actually put 
> ours live
>  Volker Greimann:some cctlds are quite hard or expensive to get accredied in
>  Michele Neylon:Berry - the key thing is that they comply with the rules that 
> apply to the rest of us
>  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:I think that firms like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc 
> see their ICANN accreditations as an insurance policy.  they dont use them 
> but if they had to, they could transfer all of the names into them.
>  Michele Neylon:Volker - tell me about it
>  Volker Greimann:well, michele, for example..... ;-)
>  Jothan Frakes:There are also registrars that are purely research based like 
> name intelligence
>  Berry Cobb:I see your side Michele!
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Registries and Registrars should be VERY conerned about this!
>  Michele Neylon:Berry - as I said to you in Brussels - ping me directly if 
> you want to talk more about anything 
>  Volker Greimann:michele +1
>  Jothan Frakes:so the purpose of a registrar is less important than their 
> abiding to rules and policy
>  Berry Cobb:Absolutely.  
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Wake up contracted parties......
>  Scott Austin:@ Berry ; Thanks qualified wholesaler's discount makes sense as 
> a benefit, but I see the other insider benefits and issues raised, including 
> whether one who qualifies should have to declare whether they are or are not 
> a duck for VI purposes
>  Michele Neylon:Jeff - we're listening 
>  avri:this falls into the grey area of PDPs that are not picket fence issues. 
>  
>  Volker Greimann:why should a "holding" registrar be treated differently than 
> a "trading" registrar?
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Avri - the PDP is the PDP regardless of whether it involves 
> something within the picket fence or not
>  avri:and in this case we have a Board who said that unless the GNSO came up 
> with another recommendation then we were going to do X.
>  Michele Neylon:Volker - if they have ANY domains on their accreditation - 
> they shouldn't be
>  avri:Jeff even in the WG we have discussed a difference between the two 
> types.
>  Michele Neylon:Volker - though expecting someone to provide WHOIS etc., if 
> you have zero domains would be a bit pointless
>  Volker Greimann:well yes, but as soon as there is domain #1, the  system 
> needs to be the same
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Actually Avri - We have said in the WG that the PDP moves 
> forward with the same process regardless of whether it involves a consensus 
> policy or not.  The determination of whether something is in the picket fence 
> is not relevant necessarily to the outcomes of the Working Group
>  Scott Austin:@ Volker +1
>  avri:what should they do after reading it if not consider, then what?
>  Volker Greimann:i read as consider as ''take it into consideration as what 
> it it''
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Avri - Why does the GNSO have to tell the board to consider it.
>  Volker Greimann:what else should they do? red it then forget about it?
>  Volker Greimann:red=read
>  Volker Greimann:one can take a mere status report into consideration as well
>  Amadeu Abril i Abril:jeff: this is more a Council discussion than a WG 
> discussion, I guess. 
>  Volker Greimann:ideed, the board will do what they consider best anyway...
>  avri:we would like them to add this to the pile of paper they have received 
> n the subject?
>  Jeff Neuman 2:I agree this is a council discussion, but since we were asked 
> about our opinions, I gave it
>  avri:"here is some food for thought, take it or leave it" ?
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Avri - That would be a good resolution :)
>  Volker Greimann:that is encompassed by the word consider, I think, avri
>  Jeff Neuman 2:Asking the Board to "consider" something is asking the Board 
> to take an action
>  Volker Greimann:not really
>  Jeff Neuman 2:We should not be asking the Board to take any action until 
> this is final
>  Volker Greimann:to consider means to think about, not necessarily to do 
> anything about
>  avri:i think we have a semantic diference on the word 'consider' which is 
> overloaded with meanings.  hence the value of picking a different word or 
> term.
>  Volker Greimann:how about "take it into consideration" then?
>  Volker Greimann:ken +1
>  Jothan Frakes:Ken +1
>  Volker Greimann:we should point out that we have started compiling a list of 
> harms for internal deliberation
>  Volker Greimann:agree, potential harms
>  avri:potential does not mean anything.  is P = .01  or P=.99
>  Volker Greimann:-1 on including it in report as is. 
>  Jothan Frakes:Could we snap the line on what we have already received as 
> harms and poll on them.  not making a sarcastic statement, II actually mean it
>  Volker Greimann:avri: exactly
>  avri:anything is potentially the case.
>  Volker Greimann:so far, the list is not discussed by content or likelyhood. 
> it is just a list of potentials
>  avri:i would support a statement like this is a list of harms for which at 
> least one person tought i might be a possible harm.
>  Volker Greimann:none of these, not one, needs to be an actual harm in reality
>  Volker Greimann:no avri, the list needs to be substantiated by arguments for 
> and against each harm
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 Ken.  
>  Volker Greimann:(soory mikey)
>  avri:but still it is just something that at least one person has an argument 
> for.
>  Jothan Frakes:MIKEY:    Poll to gauge harms severity and likelyhood
>  Michele Neylon:@Jothan - don't use the "P" word!! :)
>  avri:+1 Jothan  - then at least we would have a guge of what the gorup 
> thinks.  not just the one person that suggests it.
>  avri:what holiday?
>  Volker Greimann:mikey, just point out that we have started compiling a list 
> of possible harms of both VI and VS
>  Jothan Frakes:Yes, we can quantify where we're poll vaulting over rat turds. 
>   oops I mean pole
>  Jothan Frakes:still, Amen Mikey, +1 to you
>  Volker Greimann:jothan -1: we need to have a properdiscussion and exchange 
> of arguments before we poll
>  avri:... compiling a list of what at least one person thought might be a 
> possible harm ...
>  Jothan Frakes:can we take what we have and measure them?
>  Jothan Frakes:not close off submission of other new harms
>  avri:Jothan, we could, it is just that for some people that is a bad thing.
>  Keith Drazek:we should build the list of harm and include whatever caveats 
> are necessary to show the list is still a work in progress
>  Jothan Frakes:but to actually measure this stuff
>  Volker Greimann:avri ... we need to says it has yet to be discussed
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 Keith 
>  avri:we can only measure opinions about the list.  we canot measure hem 
> against some possible future.
>  Jothan Frakes:that seems to be a way to thin out some of the 'what about the 
> children' stuff that's confusing forward momentum
>  Volker Greimann:but i disagree with including the harms list as is
>  Volker Greimann:that will be instrumentalized
>  Jothan Frakes:sure volker.  I think the poll would be a catalist to motivate 
> discussion of other harms we've not seen discussed yet, but at very least, we 
> can illustrate that we have socialized them and measured them in some manners
>  Jothan Frakes:I am even saying that the harms from not having VI/CO as 
> Antony had documented is worth measurement as well
>  Volker Greimann:jothan, it is too soon
>  Sivasubramanian M:My line is disconnected,  If the meeting is coming to an 
> end, it is ok
>  Jothan Frakes:Volker maybe I am misunderstanding our pending deadline
>  Volker Greimann:both lists are not yet complete. I would even want to see a 
> list of possible harms that may occur with or without
>  Roberto:@Siva: wrapping up
>  Volker Greimann:jothan: i rather release nothing than the lisrt without 
> cooments
>  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks 
>  Phil Buckingham:Ken - yes must do a complete job . Cant see the point in 
> just listing harms. Must do probabilities , precedents , actual examples , 
> etc even vote on it ( dare I say)
>  Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Roberto
>  avri:Pil +1
>  Jothan Frakes:ok thanks all, talk next week
>  avri:i mean Phil +1
>  avri: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.)