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

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

Begin forwarded message:

> From: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: September 13, 2010 1:40:30 PM CDT
> To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
> Reply-To: mike@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
>  Roberto:Hi. Am I early or the others late???
>  Mike O'Connor:here's a link to the "harms" wiki page
>  Mike O'Connor:https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?harms
>  Mike O'Connor:hi Roberto, we're off to a slow start today
>  Roberto:so does the operator, apparently. I'm waiting.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I am waiting for about 3 minutes
>  Alan Greenberg:Welcome to the conference centre. Please have your passcode 
> and conference leader's name available and a coordinator will assist you 
> momentarily.
>  Statton Hammock:Congrats Krista on the recent announcement. 
>  Roberto:momentarily => eventually
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:She won a video music award
>  Krista Papac:Thank you Statton!
>  Statton Hammock:I'll hold Ken to that, too.
>  Jothan Frakes:yes, congrats krista
>  Krista Papac:@Jeff -- music is something i will, unfortunately, never 
> receive an award for
>  Krista Papac:thank you Jothan!
>  CLO:Hi there Sorry I'm late... 
>  ken stubbs:+1 mikey
>  Jothan Frakes:I'm feeling that unemployment peice, btw
>  Richard Tindal:I think its a cost to registrants
>  Jothan Frakes:'Harms to further dealy"
>  CLO:On what Jeff just said and Richard is outlining  can we list  Harms and 
> Considerations  perhaps ? 
>  Jon Nevett:so Jeff, in your example the benefits might outweigh the harms
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:@CLO - I agree we should include considerations
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:but these should be thought of as a consideration. not a harm
>  CLO:+1 Kathy
>  CLO:the ability to predict outcomes  too specifically here is way too 
> difficult =>  now I DO actually have a crystal ball but... .. ... 
>  Ron A:@ Kathy +1
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:if you have a crystal ball what are the lottery numbers for 
> this week? Ken Stubbs promised he is sharing his winnings 
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 Kathy
>  Alan Greenberg:Unfortunately having a crystal ball is not the same thing as 
> having a crystal ball that accurately preducts the future...
>  CLO:@ Jeffrrey I have one but I'm never worked out how to use it  to 'good 
> effect'  (other than a prop in some of my lectures ;-)  which is kinda my 
> point and that AG just picked up on...  but if we all had the nuuimbers 
> would't that share the winnings  rather thinly :?
>  Brian Cute:If the cost is related to mitigating a harm, and the cost 
> wouldn't exist but for the presence of the harm, then there is a harm 
> element, at a minimum, to the cost in question.
>  Roberto:I wonder whether we are not making the matter more complicated than 
> it is
>  ken stubbs:+1 roberto
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Roberto!
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Scott
>  Richard Tindal:Brian +1
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 roberto, let's measure these harms now that we've captured 
> them, as a group, and pass that measurement along with our list of harms
>  Jothan Frakes:won't be perfect or complete, but it will make whatever we 
> deliver more competently actionable
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:oh no. passing to the board may be a new mess
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:please stay away
>  Jothan Frakes:we can tell the "solid'" from the 'Vapor'
>  Jothan Frakes:I said deliver, not necessarily implying deliver to board
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 
>  Brian Cute:sorry. dropped off. 
>  Jothan Frakes:as brian noted, there are some board members who track this in 
> real time
>  Brian Cute:back
>  Jothan Frakes:the product of this group in its current draft form is absent 
> context and measure
>  Jothan Frakes:with respect to harms
>  Ron A:+1 Ken
>  Mike O'Connor:i just disconnected
>  Mike O'Connor:dialing back in
>  Mike O'Connor:Roberto has command.  :-)
>  Mike O'Connor:back in...  sorry about that...
>  CLO:I know  you just couldn't stay on with me talking @ Mikey  ;-)
>  Alan Greenberg:+10 ^ 2 Ken
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Ken, which is why I think we need to point out the 
> dramatically increased costs of compliance - and the harm which is take place 
> if it is not done, or done incompletely.
>  CLO:+1
>  CLO:in fact ++++1
>  Alan Greenberg:HArd to have an opinion on compliance wen it has seemingly 
> disappeared.
>  Alan Greenberg:HArd to hear!
>  Ron A:Agreed, Alan
>  Scott Austin:+1 Ron neutral costs
>  Phil Buckingham:Ken +10 - re compliance  ICANN to continue inhouse or 
> outsource it ??? 
>  Jothan Frakes:"Does VS address this harm?"
>  Jothan Frakes:looks like final bullet addresses this though
>  Jothan Frakes:I'll ask this on the call, but could these questions be 
> re-worded as binary (yess/no) so we could use these in a poll?
>  ken stubbs:the pollmeister !!
>  Jothan Frakes:I know, Ken, I am an enabler
>  Jothan Frakes:for the poll addiction here
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Brian - food for thought
>  Jothan Frakes:I'll take that bet brian
>  ken stubbs:brian was climbing anapurna last week !
>  Ron A:@ Brian:  Agree with your point and look forward to the debate around 
> each of the noted harms
>  Jothan Frakes:if we could make the slight friendly amendment to it being 
> "... and would it matter"
>  Alan Greenberg:I'd take a bet that harms WOULD happen - the challenge is 
> which ones
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I also agree . Harms will happen with or without VI
>  ken stubbs:everest trails were too congested !
>  Jothan Frakes:I think the search engines and users would just avoid .crap
>  Jothan Frakes:if a TLD turns into .crap
>  ken stubbs:your prob right but it could be a long dirty trail to that end 
> with many bodies scattered along the way..
>  Jothan Frakes:many of the new TLDs are vying for the hygiene that .EDU and 
> .GOV enjoy
>  Jothan Frakes:because they illustrate value and utillity
>  ken stubbs:edu & gov have incredibly tight parameters for registrants
>  Jothan Frakes:well, that and 25 years of 'traction'
>  Ron A:Tight parameters might not be such a bad thing...
>  Phil Buckingham:Brian - we have to assume that (say) domain tasting COULD 
> happen again - unless the mechanism is still in place to stop DT happening 
> again . Question of probabilities and risk assessment
>  Jothan Frakes:brian's statement is true, that there will be 
> "entrepre-maneure-ial" activity 
>  Ron A:Alan makes a VERY valid point that the current list is undoubtedly NOT 
> complete.
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Ron - We all agree with that
>  Jothan Frakes:I think the balancing factor will be search engines and 
> individual user preferences
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:there is no doubt that the list of potential harms is 
> incomplete
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:some may not have even been thought of yet
>  Jothan Frakes:to offset TLDs that are more 'fast and loose' with their rules
>  Ron A:Why does the WG resist our opening this up to the larger ICANN 
> community then?
>  Jothan Frakes:I don't 
>  Jothan Frakes:I think it is a good idea Ron.  I also balance that with some 
> of the educational divide on what we are trying to do here
>  Jothan Frakes:within the larger community
>  Ron A:Taking this question of harms to the community would at least give us 
> a more comprehensive list, in my view.
>  Roberto:@Ron: the issue is not whether or not to open up, but how to do it.
>  Jothan Frakes:sure, it would help.  candidly, though, I think that the only 
> way we'll see the actual harms will be when we're live and on the air with 
> delegations
>  Alan Greenberg:Agreed Roberto. Framing the questions to the wider community 
> without asking them to listen to or read vast amounts of info is difficult.
>  Jothan Frakes:we'd get some additional harms in the wiki form, but I think 
> that we'd also get a bunch of obtuse comments from the 'haters'
>  Jothan Frakes:how could we gain the benefit of additional suggestions from 
> community on harms with some quality / context sieve?
>  Jothan Frakes:I think that is a great idea Ron in a strategic sense, I just 
> get stuck in the tactical execution of accumulation
>  Ron A:@ Mikey: some 'noise', yes, but more information filtered from it 
> would be helpful to everyone.
>  Jothan Frakes:look no further than the xxx comment periods
>  Jothan Frakes:for an example of the obtuse
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:and some comedy
>  Jothan Frakes:yes, that too
>  Jothan Frakes:"my mouse doesn't work"
>  Ron A:@ Jothan: I don't agree that XXX and VI would create the same noise 
> level...  The XXX write-in campaign was pretty obvious.
>  Jothan Frakes:sure, apples/oranges
>  Roberto:How about to publish in the wiki the draft list, once we agree it is 
> ready for prime time, then to advertise that we open for external comments. 
> The WG can then decide which comments add value and can be added to the list.
>  Jothan Frakes:but both are fruit
>  Ron A:+1 Roberto
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 roberto
>  Jothan Frakes:and Ron, I certainly want to get more input from the community
>  CLO:Works for my @Roberto  and I think we can filter the noise out (if/when 
> it happens)
>  Berry Cobb:I support the divide and conquer approach.  Before we start it, 
> we MUST have a template to guide the divided research.    It will be 
> important for each one of the harms to follow a like approach.  We developed 
> our proposals without a template, and it made it much more difficult to 
> compare.
>  Jothan Frakes:and I think it is a stellar idea... I am caught up in the how 
> and I think that Roberto may have suggested a path 
>  Berry Cobb:Lastly, I think its important that the harm, be linked in some 
> way to how one of the proposals could correct, mitigate or prevent the harm.
>  Alan Greenberg:+++++1 Ken
>  Jothan Frakes:+1 ken
>  CLO:@Berry  to some extent some of the proposals 'started'  to head in that 
> direction  so  Yes I think it could work...   and  ++1 Ken
>  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Ken
>  Jothan Frakes:there are those out there who would always exemplify the 
> second syllable of fiduciary
>  Alan Greenberg:Mikey, is it obvious that we WILL get a report from the Board 
> out of the retreat? My guess would be no.
>  Paul Diaz:agree with Alan, we shouldn't assume there will be clear guidance 
> from the Board post their late-Sept mtg
>  Berry Cobb:our goal is like any other PDP, regardless of board retreat.
>  Jothan Frakes:true, berry
>  Berry Cobb:develop recomentdations and publish final report for council to 
> act upon
>  Jothan Frakes:although institutional confidence in the new TLD program would 
> certainly benefit from some positive news
>  ken stubbs:yep mikey..
>  Jothan Frakes:AMEN ALAN
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 Alan
>  Berry Cobb:I invite everyone to listen to EN_Part 2 of Rr Consitiuency call 
> in BRU.  Peter states what happens if the WG cannot make a recommendation.
>  Ron A:Can you paraphrase that, Berry?
>  Berry Cobb:Says that is WG cannot make a recommendation, and the board has 
> to act.  That most likely experts, economist, etc would have to be engaged to 
> come to a resolution.
>  Berry Cobb:paraphrase of course.
>  ken stubbs:i want to see and end of globaal warming but am a bit more 
> realistic..
>  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Ken bringing in politics and religion into the call. Any 
> other taboo topics :-)
>  Ron A:The board looking to 'experts' outside of the community would be a 
> serious transgression of the 'bottom up' principle
>  ken stubbs:i will bet that there will be more than that with respect to mapo 
> coming out of the retreat ..
>  Berry Cobb:@ Ron A, If it materialized, I figure they will integrate the use 
> of experts with the WG.  but I only specualte here.
>  Jothan Frakes:Thanks all
>  CLO:Thanks all -  Bye (for now)
>  ken stubbs:adios
>  Alan Greenberg:Another 2.5 hours...

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