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

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

Begin forwarded message:

> 
> 
>  Mike O'Connor:Here's a link to the "harms" page on the wiki -- 
> https://st.icann.org/vert-integration-pdp/index.cgi?harms
>  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 
> impossible.
>  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 
> after
>  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 
> end
>  Alan Greenberg:It is not just "prevent or cause" but also reduce or 
> exacerbate"
>  Richard Tindal:Alan +1
>  CLO:++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...
>  CLO:INdeed!
>  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...

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