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

["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 30, 2010 1:09:26 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Volker Greimann:Hi Margie
>  Margie Milam:Hi-
>  Margie Milam:You are on early!
>  Volker Greimann:better early than late ;-)
>  Jothan Frakes:hello people
>  Kathy Kleiman:I'm on - hi all!
>  richard tindal:good day,  VI junkies
>  avri:can you imagine the joy for junkies, VI and MaPO all the same day.
>  Keith Drazek:how is this process different from our statements of interest?
>  Volker Greimann:seems to be new rules
>  Liz Gasster:A declaration of Interest is in new Ops Procedures 5.4 and 
> requires diclosure of direct or indirect interest that may affect a party's 
> judgment on an issue that is under review, consideration or discussion
>  Keith Drazek:thanks liz. is that the case for every WG call now?
>  Paul Diaz:In the interest of saving time before each and every WG mtg, can't 
> we simply note if there's a change from our published SOI?
>  Liz Gasster:Yes, different from an SOI which is updated at least once/year 
> or when there is a material change, a declaration of interest -- is "issue 
> specific" and is asked on each WG call
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Each WG call?
>  Sivasubramanian M:I am taking part in this wotrking group as the President 
> of Isoc India Chennai as an at Large Structure, taking part in this working 
> group to represent the individual user's interests
>  Keith Drazek:thank goodness this process was implemented after the initial 
> report was finalized
>  Statton Hammock:Hopefully, next time we just respond with "No change in my 
> interest"
>  Liz Gasster:yes, polled at the beginning of each meeting where that issues 
> is discussed
>  Ron A:That is how it should be going forward Statton.
>  Alan Greenberg:Sorry to be late.
>  Liz Gasster:This was a consensus change to the Ops Proc made by a WT 
> associated with GNSO Improvements, the Council Operations Team 
>  Kathy Kleiman:I'm using the documents on the Wiki...
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:howdy vi/ex/ed editor users, today we have the harms 
> of emacs ...
>  Alan Greenberg:Or EWAKS or EWOKS
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:i'm gratified by how zealously my comments on the 
> jeffe and avc drafts have been ignored.
>  Volker Greimann:to be honest, your comments were mostly "this is duplicate" 
> and "strike this". riht now, we are still adding, not removing, Eric
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:hey! a reader! you're correct volker, i pointed out 
> that there are duplicates in those notes. i also pointed out two harms not 
> contained in any of the chair-noticed notes in a third note to the list.
>  Volker Greimann:Eric, I always read your posts (even though sometimes I do 
> not understand what you are trying to convey). I noted that you added some 
> harms, maybe they were overlooked. Jeff, fell like adding them?
>  Volker Greimann:fell=feel
>  Alan Greenberg:PDF with comments may work if not too many people are making 
> comments.
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:jeff "overlooked" the observation that a "harm" is 
> possible when two or more parties collude during auction.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:EBW - Is that a harm from VI or is that just a harm people 
> can do when they collude? . There is a big difference
>  Ron A:That's my understanding too, Mikey.  Fully fleshed out docs until they 
> are ready for public viewing.
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:how about "it is a harm that you have to be convinced 
> thata a harm exists" or what part of "brainstorm" means jeffe gets to decide 
> what is relevant? 
>  Volker Greimann:EBW: Actually, any harm attributable to VI or CO can be 
> attributed to two independent parties colluding.
>  Eric Brunner-Williams:and to gravity and sunspots. 
>  Kathy Kleiman:But @Volker, isn't the incentive and opportunity greater when 
> there is a joint financial interest?
>  Volker Greimann:that would bring us back to discussing likelyhood.
>  Jothan Frakes:I'd have to concur that the Knujon report is extremely flawed 
> and subjective
>  Volker Greimann:it may be easier for an integrated entity, but where there 
> is a will to abuse the system, VI is not required. Two like-minded parties 
> are sufficient. 
>  Jothan Frakes:wihtout being too harsh on the quizotic goal they have
>  avri:i understand that the Knujon report is still being studied  by the 
> ICNAN Staff for sceintific validity and for its conclusions.  Has that study 
> been completed?
>  Ron A:@ Jeff E -- I was more asking a question about the completeness of the 
> harms list we are working on.  I apologize if I mischaracterized what I was 
> trying to say.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Ron - No problem, just wanted to clear that uo
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:up
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Avri - I do not believe that was an ICANN project
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:re:Knujon studied by ICANN
>  avri:i thought the ICANN security folks were looking into it the  Knujon 
> report, but would need to confirm.
>  Kathy Kleiman:sure 
>  avri:So Jeff, it was not originally an ICANN project, but i think that 
> revieiwing it for scientifc validity and for its conclusions had been taken 
> up by the ICANN security staff.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:OK. I did not know that> I am happy to have them dig in
>  Berry Cobb:We need to create a matrix of harms similar to how we created a 
> matrix of proposals.  So we should start to define what the columns will 
> be...aka "components of the harms".  This creates a template and forms a 
> standard by which we add new harms and eventually evaluate them.
>  avri:and if that is true, we should hold int in abeyance until such time as 
> we have the report of that review.  but i might be wrong about the activity - 
> i head it spoken of once in another WG's meeting.
>  Ron A:@ Avri: indeed, what is important is that ALL harms are included in 
> our review
>  avri:@Ron, but there is a difference between the harms we list now as 
> conjecture.  and the harms Knujon lists as fact.
>  neuman:I keep getting dropped because I am on Amtrak....I will be signing 
> off and listen to the file.
>  avri:@Ron as long as we treat them as conjecture, it is ok.  But we must be 
> careful not to give them the status of establoshed fact unitl the validity is 
> establshed.
>  Volker Greimann:avri +1. 
>  Ron A:@ Avri: Agreed
>  Jothan Frakes:I simply want to ensure that the potential harms from a "not 
> in your own TLD" which I emailed the list will get incorporated
>  Volker Greimann:Also: All harms may be harms that can be dealt with by 
> better rules of compliance
>  avri:ballet bar?
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@Jothan - I can add that to the list
>  Kathy Kleiman:@Volker, we have discussed this often - that the invasiveness 
> of compliance, difficulty of audit, availability of international audit, etc. 
>  
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:just unsure who is now owner of document
>  Kathy Kleiman:... (continued) make compliance and enforcement difficult.
>  Jothan Frakes:thank you Jeff
>  Ron A:Hand this off to staff, so that Jeff E is not persecuted further
>  Roberto:@Jeff - would seem logical to have staff managing it from now on
>  Volker Greimann:never claimed it would be easy or even possible to detect 
> all abuse, but the same goes for two colluding parties
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:OK - Thanks 
>  Kathy Kleiman:I would still love to see a real wiki on this...
>  Volker Greimann:as an example: frontrunning is possible with or without 
> vertical integration. 
>  avri:wikis are not that hard, folks!
>  Kathy Kleiman:I agree with Avri!
>  Volker Greimann:so the solution is not VS, but rules that say "Do not 
> frontrun", define frontrunning, and define penalties for frontrunning. 
>  Ron A:All harms that can affect VI should be included, Volker.
>  avri:even formatting something to look pretty is relatively trivial.
>  Volker Greimann:not debating that. I am all for adding to the list at this 
> stage
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Scott!
>  Ron A:+1 Scott
>  Kathy Kleiman:I think a Wiki will allow a much greater robustness of 
> editing... I think the structure, for whatever reason, has slowed debate. The 
> format does not provide much room for editing. 
>  Volker Greimann:How about harmpedia.com?
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:LOL
>  Kathy Kleiman:Some of us may want to broadly restructure, rearrange, keeping 
> the points, but using some context, definitions, etc.  Very difficult with 
> the current format - as wonderful as Margie is (and she is!)
>  Berry Cobb:@ EBW, early in our Harms discussion, I recall you mentioning 
> that ICANN staff developed a list of harms and/or a presentation about the 
> topic.  Can you provide more details about when and where that occured?  Or 
> am I mis-remembering?  I think it will be important for the information to be 
> included in our list.  
>  Volker Greimann:or harmapedia.com
>  Volker Greimann:both are free for registration
>  Volker Greimann:get them now!
>  Volker Greimann:+1
>  Volker Greimann:my words exactly...
>  Sivasubramanian M:If ICANN had developed  a list, it is important that we 
> inlcude it in our discussions, even if that list is incomplete
>  Volker Greimann:@ron, of course, so we need to generalize the harms once we 
> got the list as fare as possible.
>  Ron A:@ Volker: Agreed
>  Sivasubramanian M:+1 on what Mikely said about a long list
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Jeff!  We need context, description, and clearly defined 
> "buzz terms."
>  Ron A:+1 Jeff E
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 about adding some definition on these terms
>  Ron A:That is exactly what we need to separate the various harms...
>  Sivasubramanian M:Yes, a wiki page that everyone can edit would be good
>  avri:+1 Mikey - it is alwasy good to have a monitor orn a wiki, and good to 
> have a helping hand on the work in the wiki for those who have dificulty or 
> who do not have adequate bandwidth.
>  Volker Greimann:@siva: with a history function to prevent hooliganism
>  Sivasubramanian M:Volker, hooliganism in the wiki?
>  Volker Greimann:yup
>  Volker Greimann:+1 mikey
>  Sivasubramanian M:Hooliganism on a serious collaborative document must be 
> treated the same way spam is treated : dumpt them away and keep the wiki 
> clean...
>  Jothan Frakes:siva, if only there was 'an app for that'
>  avri:i would assume the spam on the wiki is only in the appended comments 
> and not in the text itself as the text can only be editted by group members. 
> - and their changes are attributable by looking at previous versions of the 
> page.
>  Sivasubramanian M:Whenever there is a major instnace of hooliganism, the 
> moderator can reset the page to the most recent clean version, with a record 
> in the history that shows what is reversed
>  Keith Drazek:if members of the WG hadn't submitted comments, there would 
> have been 11 comments total
>  Sivasubramanian M:Johtan I think wiki, espectially the Cofnluence Wiki that 
> ICANN is migrating to, has such features
>  Jothan Frakes:Keith that is an interesting data point...
>  Ron A:@ Keith: You're saying that WG member comments added some depth?
>  Keith Drazek:i agree that comments from non-working group members would have 
> been beneficial, particularly if the WG was recommending a consensus position
>  Ron A:+ Jeff
>  Ron A:+1
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I think the comments in this format is very helpful
>  Volker Greimann:+1
>  avri:most people have an affinity to where they work and tend to agree with 
> its postions - except for those who abhor their jobs.  that is why we declare 
> our working place in SOI.  but the viewpoints can still be individual.
>  Jothan Frakes:avri, I abhor NOT having a job
>  Jothan Frakes::)
>  Jothan Frakes:at least now that summer is over and the weather starts to turn
>  Kathy Kleiman:Who needs holidays?  I'll try to join the call on Monday!

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