[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today
- To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from the call today
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:22:32 -0500
Begin forwarded message:
> Mike O'Connor:Here's a link to the "harms" page on the wiki --
> Jothan Frakes:hello folks
> Jothan Frakes:happy 28th Margie
> Jothan Frakes:shhhh
> Jothan Frakes:Happy Birthday Margie
> Margie Milam:Thanks!
> Jothan Frakes:Amen Alan
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:editing my email , I think the issue is "where to go next"
> Paul Diaz:Statton Hammock also sent regrets last week
> Kristina Rosette:As did I, I believe.
> Richard Tindal:never underestimate Margie's efficiency!
> CLO:Sorry everyone I'm still in the ATRT teleconference
> CLO:I'll keep up as best I can here
> Ron A:@ Jothan: Trying to understand the logic as to why you want that
> watered down when in fact it is a true statement...?
> Jothan Frakes:My concern is not that it needs watering down so much as
> making it more just a neutral statement
> Ron A:Neutralizing to what end?
> Jothan Frakes:we've seen 'camps' in this group over the course of time, the
> less 'passionate' and more 'factual' the document comes accross, the harder
> each side of any contention can pick holes in it
> Richard Tindal:cant hear Scott
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:I do not believe it any fo the harms are a fact, no matter
> what the language
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:they are allegations
> Jothan Frakes:point proven ron :)
> Jothan Frakes:no disrespect Jeff
> Jothan Frakes:I see your point
> Jothan Frakes:If it was more "this could happen"
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:+1 Avri
> Richard Tindal:Avri - well said
> avri:it is a fact that all of these harms are someones opinion aqnd nothing
> more. so in a sense as long as we are clear that is is just a lanudry list
> of people fears and worries without any notion of pririty or aproval by the
> group, i too am not sure why they need to be toned down.
> Jothan Frakes:nicely said avri
> avri:yes, i agree Jothan, having evocative action makes it less likely to be
> beleived as real.
> Richard Tindal:Jothan - you should suggest some less provocative words
> avri:i mean evocative language.
> avri:i am fine with the evocative language being used.
> avri:it allow the visceral componet of the harm to be clearly seen.
> Jothan Frakes:ok with it as is
> Jothan Frakes:can you paraphrase scott's comments? it was a challenge to
> hear him
> avri:are we sure we can? haven't we pretty much decided that we don't want
> to do a rigorous risk analysis.
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:Avri is asking every question I have
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:must have faster fingers
> Jeffrey Eckhaus:than me
> avri:i..e some people have contended that doing a risk analysis is
> avri:(jeff, i worry less about typos)
> avri:(are there more american football analogies on mondays than on other
> days of the week?)
> Volker Greimann:ron, Jeff +1
> Volker Greimann:the only worth of the list of harms at this point is as a
> basis for discussion
> Volker Greimann:avri -1
> Volker Greimann:my presumption was as Mikey: we build the list to analyze
> it. At least that is what we have been talking about previously
> avri:Ron, this is not analysis, but amplification and ellucidation.
> Volker Greimann:jeff +1
> Ron A:@ Avri: any of the words in your comment work, but this needs to be
> done. I don't split the hairs as finely as you are... ;o)
> Jothan Frakes:+1 jeff
> Volker Greimann:the list of harms has no inherent meaning as it stands
> avri:I guess to me analysis is a pretty serious activity of a certain type.
> And to say we have analysed means something specific. As I said, if the
> proposnets of a harm want to go into more detail and explain better, that is
> ok, but lets not call it analysis. At the end of the day, it iwll still just
> be an upriritized list, just a better and longer one.
> Volker Greimann:Coming out with a list like this and saying: "here is a list
> of all possible harms we could hink of. No, there is no analysis; no there is
> no notion if these are realistic or not; yes, some of them may only be
> possible if Satan skates to work; yes, some of them are just as likely with
> full seperation" would be a waste of our work the past weeks
> Volker Greimann:forgot to add: "and oh, we do not know which is which" to
> the above
> Scott Austin:+1 Volker
> Ron A:@ Alan: Fleshing all of the harms out in layman's terms is what I am
> Volker Greimann:I was thinking of having a wiki page on each harm and
> listing arguments for and against. Point <-> Counterpoint
> Volker Greimann:could be done on the list as well
> Roberto:Maybe it could help, instead of arguing "analysis yes" "analysis
> no", to say what we want to do exactly with the list.
> Volker Greimann:avri: maybe we can call it discussion and fact-finding?
> Alan Greenberg:+1 avri
> Volker Greimann:Mikey, its likely goint to be groups' views, not groups' view
> CLO:+1 to changing the nomenclature
> Brian Cute:In response to the suggestion that we should ask whether a harm
> has or could exist irrespective of vertical separation -- and the conclusion
> that if the answer is "yes" then we can separate vertical separation from the
> analysis of harms -- this is flawed. If vertical separation provides a
> deterrent (albeit imperfect) to some of the harms, than it cannot and should
> not be separated from the harms discussion.
> Volker Greimann:so we need to set the arguments for and against each harm
> opposite each other, maybe even without having to declare a "winner" in the
> Alan Greenberg:It is not just "prevent or cause" but also reduce or
> Richard Tindal:Alan +1
> Volker Greimann:brian: so you are saying if seperation will prevent one in a
> hundred "evildoers" but not the other 99, there should be vertical seperation?
> Eric Brunner-Williams:+1 on avri+ron
> avri:amplification works but i like elucidation (an interpretation that
> removes obstacles to understanding) better.
> Brian Cute:That's not what I'm saying. And the focus of impact should be on
> the registrant more so (although not to the exclusion of) the "evildoer"
> Volker Greimann:to the last speaker: exactly, but at least we will have
> arguments for and against the harms
> Eric Brunner-Williams:@brian: i disagree, the registrants are not the only
> party with interests here
> Volker Greimann:i agree we won't be able to predict accurately the effect,
> but we may point out that the drug will not prevent the symptom
> Brian Cute:@eric. I didn't say registrants exclusively. There are harms to
> consumers and harms to competition to be considered.
> Alan Greenberg:Eric, you are right, but let's not FORGET the registrants...
> avri:it was never the statistical anylyis of likelyhood. it was a
> statistical anaylysis of the perception of likelihood.
> Eric Brunner-Williams:@brian, there is also harm to icann, that is, to the
> rationals for which the new entity was propsoed
> Volker Greimann:in other words: should hard-core antibiotics or experimental
> drugs with severe side-effects be used to cure one case of the common cold?
> Should we shoot with cannons on sparrows nesting in the city to prevent them
> from defecating on the building they inhabit?
> Volker Greimann:mikey +1 : very nice summary of my earlier point
> avri:(i like the image of cannons being fired at sparrows)
> Brian Cute:@eric. OK. thanks for bringin that into focus
> Jothan Frakes:There is some benefit to 'snap the chalk line' and use the
> collective wisdom and experience from the group
> Volker Greimann:sorry, meat frying in the pan, unable to talk ;-)
> Brian Cute:@volker, did you take that down with your cannon?
> avri:the expression that comes to my mind, is throwing good money after bad.
> Volker Greimann:Brian: ^_^ nope, I had someone do that for me. I just picked
> it up, packaged and ready
> Brian Cute::)
> Volker Greimann:I agree, we will likely not reach a conclusion, but listing
> the arguments either way will make this list of harms more meaningful
> Ron A:@ Volker: Agree we should be focused on more meaningful data
> Volker Greimann:and who knows, there may be agreement on some points
> Volker Greimann:We are all likely to agree that a harm entitled: "With VI,
> the world will come to an end" will not get much support
> Ron A:@ Volker: Guten appetite!
> Volker Greimann:my position is long on record as being more the opposite:
> "if we allow VI, nothing much will change". VI is alive and well in the
> colorful and significantly relevant world of ccTLDs
> avri:(Volker, i might end up agreeing with the. Since I beleive that
> agreement on VI, will happen around the same time world comes to an end)
> Kristina Rosette:Anyone willing to engage in reasonably informed speculation
> as to what the output of the Board retreat will be (and when) w/r/t VI?
> Volker Greimann:just remind me: are we allowed (or financially able) to call
> for an independant study on each harm?
> avri:Kristina, anyone who is informed is probably not speculating.
> avri:Volker: right after the council finishes approving properly scientific
> studies on whois, we can start aksing them to approve studies on VI harms.
> (also synchonous with the end of the world)
> Eric Brunner-Williams:norway???
> avri:The Board reteats in nice places.
> Eric Brunner-Williams:oslo?
> avri:I am hoping the retreat will be the end point. They told us it would
> be and I am counting on the Board having told the truth.
> Scott Austin:I agree with Kristina's comment on billable work taking
> priority as well.
> Alan Greenberg:Trondheim, I think.
> Eric Brunner-Williams:harald.
> Jothan Frakes:Odin willing, they'll proceed with the new TLD process
> Volker Greimann:avri, I'd like to believe you, just as I'd like to believe
> the moardmemebers who have gone on record saying they will use the other
> extreme position on VI if this brings us closer to an agreement
> Eric Brunner-Williams:i expect ravens
> avri:Sebastien: I think that is the reason they will try to finish. If they
> don't, everything reopens for the new Board to reconsider. Just imagine.
> avri:Eric: i do not understand ravens.
> Volker Greimann:Thus quoth the raven: Nevermore!
> Ron A:From your lips to God's ears, Avri... A LOT of people are hoping that
> this will be the end.
> Eric Brunner-Williams:odin's two familiars, also they follow the warriors
> (free food)
> Jothan Frakes:thanks all
> Sébastien:Avri. I imagine. But I think some may want to leave the task to
> the new. But I maybe wrong
> avri:I mean i expect that they might ask us to cross a few i's and dot a few
> t's. but i hope the main stuff is decided.
> Mike O'Connor:anything else for the chat, or can i shut down the workspace?
> avri:bye, thanks. and happy birthday Margie!
> Sébastien: Happy Birthday M.
> Mike O'Connor:i'll try to snip out that portion of the MP3 (the "happy
> birthday" song part) and post it somewhere conspicuous. :-)
> Mike O'Connor:this workspaces is about to go dark...
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)