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

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

hi all,

here's the chat from today's call.

mikey

Begin forwarded message:

> From: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: August 23, 2010 1:00:34 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Roberto:nice music....
>  Jothan Frakes:Hello everyone
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:3 -4 minute wait to get on conf.
>  Kathy Kleiman:just got on..
>  Katrin Ohlmer:got disconncted....
>  Katrin Ohlmer:again in
>  Jothan Frakes:You're welcome jeff
>  Jothan Frakes:Dunno if I want the association with palin
>  Jothan Frakes:(can't see Russia from my house)
>  Paul Diaz:@ JF, lol!
>  Jothan Frakes:I apperciate the comments Jeff.   Registries are most 
> certainly more neutral now 
>  Jothan Frakes:and the current pool of registrars are all we have as a known 
> source of this
>  Berry Cobb:It all boils down to "evaluation criteria" of the harms.  Mikey's 
> question to the group is just one of several elements by which we need to 
> evaluate the harm.
>  Jothan Frakes:As I read it, JN2 changed the neutral status quo to non-neutral
>  Berry Cobb:The evaluation is what is at debate.  Some think we shouldnt, or 
> are concerned how it will be used, and many other beleive we should do the 
> eval.
>  CLO:Of course were hearing these important examples of LOW frequency of 
> 'harms' from the experiences of the CURRENT not NEW gTLD world and from good 
> actors as well :-)
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 alan
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 CLO
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 CLO
>  avri:ae there any analogous situations in CCTLDs that are integrated but yet 
> sell through other registrars as well?  i.e. some evidence that the same 
> behavior occurs in an inegrated environment.
>  Jothan Frakes:like Nominet for example
>  Gisella Gruber-White:JC Vignes, Scott Austin and Kristina Rosette have 
> joined the call
>  Jon N:Under the Transfer policy, registries currently do sit as judges over 
> registrar transfer disputes.  That is a fact -- I wouldn't want to see this 
> group taking on changes to the Transfer Policy as well.  That kind of mission 
> creep would be most unwelcomed.  
>  Jon N:TDRPs can ONLY be brought by registrars
>  CLO:WE understand  registrants start the action
>  CLO:and it is the potential for 'harms' to registrants that is the concern 
> of ALAC / At-large
>  Jothan Frakes:@Jon, totally not the intent of the 'not in your own TLD=bad' 
> to widen the scope of this group to cover TDRP
>  Berry Cobb:Mikey, I like the road you were heading down!!!!  Competition 
> harms vs. operational types of harms.
>  Jothan Frakes:My voice is hoarse else I'd be tlaking on the call
>  Jothan Frakes:talking even
>  CLO: and side bar  re road rules examples  we did as the use of that 
> transports  increased expotentially  develop road rules and Car safety  (and 
> driver) standards ;-)   remember cars  didn't used to ship with brakes ;-)
>  Jothan Frakes:that and Alan and Richard made by points
>  Jon N:Jeff, liability avoidance
>  Sivasubramanian M:Jon N,  why should we be resistent to the idea of 
> examining issues? One issue after another gets brushed aside as irrelevant, 
> then we aren't paying attention to most of the issues
>  Gisella Gruber-White:Krista Papac has joined the call
>  Jothan Frakes:I thought I gave a reasonable example of how this might play 
> out in my email to the list
>  Scott Austin:+1 Berry
>  richard tindal:Alan  - sorry for mischaracterizing     Agree with your last 
> coment
>  Alan Greenberg:Richard, I found nothing wrong with your comment. I was 
> reacting to Jeff countering my comment with the belief that transfer disputes 
> would not increase.
>  Alan Greenberg:Which was not the focus of my original comment. Was simply 
> triggered by Jeff's example.
>  J.C. Vignes:+1 Mike re hammer
>  Jothan Frakes:Thank you for considering my points on 'not in your own TLD'.  
> Even though we disagreed in individual points we did arrive at a similar 
> conclusion, that 'not in your own TLD' is sub-utopean
>  Jothan Frakes:between volker and I
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus: I am not saying they would not increase, just stating the 
> numbers I have seen in com/net/org
>  Paul Diaz:Labor Day is in 2 weeks, Mikey (Sept 6)
>  Berry Cobb:Aug 30th is not labor day week, so we should be able to do 
> comments next week
>  CLO:Mikey mentioned he was batteling a virus today so he's kinda excused
>  avri:unless of course the virus has a permanent effect.
>  Berry Cobb:My take on Scott's is it touches more on Competition types and 
> not some much Operations.  Additionally, there are several paragraphs that 
> are what I call "Use Case", vs a framework.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Good Point Berry
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 Berry
>  Sivasubramanian M:Can't we draw up a list of harms without any restraint 
> first, and then narrow down on the ones that we should work on? This would be 
> a better approach than examining harms in a VI environmnet and harms in a 
> vertically separate environment
>  Berry Cobb:@ Siva, I think this is where we are going.....the narrowing 
> down.  We have a great start of a list via Jeff & Antony's docs.
>  Berry Cobb:One other point about Scott's doc is it only cites law 
> jurisdiction of United States.  We need to consider other jusrisdiction where 
> US types of limits may not apply.
>  avri:Berry +1
>  Sivasubramanian M:@ Berry, it is a good idea to narrow down on Jeff and 
> Anthony's Documents. At the same time, we should continue to examine if there 
> are an;y harms left out of these two lists.
>  avri:In my view, in a process that is supposed to be focused on reaching the 
> rest of the world, the amount of time we spend on US centric discussions is 
> worrisome.
>  Sivasubramanian M:1. Harms in a VI evnromnment 2) Harms in a separted 
> environment and 3) harms unrelated to VI / separation
>  Berry Cobb:Yes it is.  And thats why I embrace Scott's doc at the same 
> time!!  Thx Scott
>  Sivasubramanian M:+1 on AVri , a ++1 really
>  Scott Austin:Berry Thank you.
>  Sivasubramanian M:(Using the word harm not necessarily in a strong sense) If 
> we draw up an unrestained matrix of harms, we will find that there are harms 
> in every quadrant...  ICANN, Rgistry, Registrar and Registrant placed in four 
> quadrants, and if we see if there are any harm done by Registrars on 
> Registrants, on other Regsitrars, on Registries and then on ICANN, we will 
> find that in some respects there is some harm done BY ICANN on Registrants 
> and Registrars, either by wrong action or by inaction..We will also find that 
> there is some harm done by Registrants.
>  CLO:PLEASE NOTE my POssible apologies for next week I'll be in Beijing for 
> the ATRT F2F meeting  SO it will depend on time zone and dial out connectivity
>  avri:bye 
>  Kathy Kleiman:feel better, Mikey!!
>  CLO:yes take care Mikey
>  Mike O'Connor:i don't really feel *that* bad...  just fuzzy...  a nap seems 
> like a Good Thing.  thanks 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.)