ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  • To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
  • From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:54:05 -0700


Here is the chat transcript from today's VI working group call.

Best Regards,



Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor

-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 12:30 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration

  Volker Greimann:good evening
  Volker Greimann:quite a development
  Mike O'Connor:interesting times, no?
  Roberto:good evening to EU, good morning to America
  Roberto:@Mikey: as for the famous chinese curse..
  Mike O'Connor:yep, chinese curse indeed.
  Volker Greimann:so, shall we do a final poll tonight, or just discuss our 
closing statements?
  Roberto:@Volker: yeah, maybe polls, but can't predict on what. I think 
there's going to be some action
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Someone please explain that Transformer joke...
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Thanks Mikey, I thought you were talking about the movie 
  Berry Cobb:not yet.  Convergence will change it Alan.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Just dropped off call. dialing back in. Train decided to take 
an extended stop in tunnel
  Roberto:if people in the US have meetings in the daytime, we can have 
confcalls in EU daytime that they can attend in their nighttime :>)
  Volker Greimann:while I share the concern, in the end, they can participate 
on the list
  Berry Cobb:and/or provide back up representation as an alternative.
  avri:hmmm, Jeff's right!.  game over.
  avri:wasn't the consensus in the interim report just on including in the 
report and not consensus on the points themselves?
  Berry Cobb:there also is option c).....board make decision on VI for this 
round, and VI WG continue with PDP to amend guidebook for future rounds.  This 
is a GNSO active PDP that is bound to complete its reasearch etc and develop 
final report to council.
  Gisella Gruber-White:Ruslan Sattarov joined the call
  Gisella Gruber-White:Stephane is back on the call
  Jeff Neuman:No problem, Eric...some claim I am "Absent-minded"
  avri:and EBW is right - we have no processed the comments yet. yet another 
game over.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:did I miss my turn? I got cut off...
  avri:he called on you but you ween't there.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Thanks Avri
  Berry Cobb:one other point WRT to "make determination around these issues as 
necessary".  Peter stated in the RrSG session in Brussels, that the Board will 
engage experts to make any decision on VI.
  Berry Cobb:my read = delay in gTLD.
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:i just dropped off again. dialing back in
  Kathy Kleiman:me too -- who is speaking?
  Paul Diaz:Sebastuen Bacholett
  avri:we know there will be delay.  since the next is not final AG. there is 
another comment round and then the final (if you beleive that)
  Kathy Kleiman:@Paul - tx!
  Berry Cobb:+ jeff n
  Berry Cobb:+1
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:I am back on the call
  Volker Greimann:I like that Idea. We come back saying that no, we do not have 
consensus, but yes, we are still continuing with the work and are expecting our 
final input will be included in the final "DAG"
  avri:hey, they told us what they had decided.  that is mega tranasparency for 
the ICANN Board.  take another decade before they go further than that.
  avri:it would take longer than 8 October to get an answer to any request.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:Plus Plus on Jeff Neuman's sense that theBoard is ... 
  Roberto:I exchanged some emails with Board members
  Volker Greimann:essentially we would be telling the board that we will get it 
done and they should not dare to go above our heads on this ;-)
  Eric Brunner-Williams:question to jeff n: do you think there is an 
accountability and transparency issue here?
  Kathy Kleiman:+1 Jeff E
  Berry Cobb:To Volker's point, the board consistently stated in Brussels that 
they want the WG to decide on VI...not them
  avri:Jeff: becasue if we had actual consnesus anwer, they might listen.
  avri:roberto: true we essentialy took a month off.
  Jeff Neuman:Avri - I agree that if we had consensus, they might listen, but 
they are not ignorant.  They read the report.  They have been advised by Policy 
staff who have been in every meeting here
  Berry Cobb:our only path, is option a, and then continue down PDP path until 
we make our final report....all independent of Board actions.  Ti Jeff N's 
point, if Board were to respect the PDP process, then they would/should wait 
for the outcome of the PDP.
  Jeff Neuman:They KNOW we had no consensus in our initial report
  avri:Jeff: which brings up a good question - do we have any idea what the 
Staff reported on our efforts?
  Jeff Neuman:I would love to see those reports as ell
  avri:Jeff: we also have Board observers who know first hand.
  Jeff Neuman:well
  Berry Cobb:your irght Avri, which begs the question why the board even gave 
us til 10/8.  If the board were oberserving, then they would know we have 
essentially been idle only dealing with harms list waiting for board to respond 
to initial report.
  Berry Cobb:...and no where near consensus
  avri:Though I bet that if we had an interim solution for first round - simlar 
to the semi status quo (15%) with a bit of tweaking for exceptions, they mght 
allow it to go through.  and they did say that they would ammend later wen we 
came up with something.  the question becomes whether we could do even that.
  Gisella Gruber-White:Kristina Rosette has joined the call
  avri:Alwasy good to play by the by-laws
  Berry Cobb:Time to put on your PROCESS hat Mikey.  :-)
  Eric Brunner-Williams:avri -- we didn't, it was, as you may recall, a totally 
arbitrary and meaningless number, and others have made other observations 
objecting to the "stability" or "status quo" meta-proposal
  Volker Greimann:mikey, i support door number 2
  Kristina Rosette:Happy to submit a motion to Council if that's the route we 
want to go.
  Stéphane Van Gelder:If the WG wants to ask the GNSO Council for an exception, 
I can take that message back as Council Liaison. Just let me know...
  avri:Eric: I understand, i was just suggesting what i thought they might 
accept (based on a a tiny bit of conversationswith the powers that be)
  Volker Greimann:I agree with Berry, the board does not WANT to decide that, 
so we should not let them
  avri:Eric: it is not something I would find at all palatable.
  Keith Drazek:Our WG response would be to the GNSO Council, correct? And the 
GNSO Coucil would then respond in writing to the Board, correct?
  Roberto:@Keith: this is my understanding
  Kristina Rosette:@Keith:  yes
  Keith Drazek:So even if we don't respond in the affirmative or negative, the 
GNSO Council could (and likely would) respond to the Board that there is no 
  Keith Drazek:at least at this stage.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:we've not yet considered community comment, we can't 
ignore the community, we can't just use the double secret policy development 
take-down thingie and take down the public comments pages and pretend they 
didn't exist and are therefore completeley considered and responded to
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Keith, the Council will send the response that the WG 
provides. If that is "no consensus", then that's what gets sent.
  avri:I support the Nairobi decsion!
  Stéphane Van Gelder:+1 on what Volker just said
  Keith Drazek:Thanks Stephane. My concern was around the "no response" 
scenario, but perhaps that's not really what's being discussed or proposad.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:as do i
  Volker Greimann:actually, we do have a majority consensus in that we do not 
like /support /can live with the Nairobi position
  Eric Brunner-Williams:0% means new applicants face a green field
  Volker Greimann:if the final repost states just that, the would be a result 
as well. not a very good one, or even the one I would have hoped for, but at 
least one position on which we do have consensus
  Volker Greimann:taking my hand down
  Keith Drazek:mikey, presumably we'd have another poll, correct?
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Eric, who's position are you advocating there? I was told 
Core's position was different...
  Volker Greimann:if i remember all the previous polls, each and every proposal 
had higher approval than Nairobi
  Volker Greimann:AFAIK Eric no longer speaks for CORE
  Eric Brunner-Williams:stephane: amadeu represents core, i submitted a revised 
soi at the end of last month, i no longer represent core
  Stéphane Van Gelder:OK, thanks for that Eric. I missed that in the million 
plus emails on this VI list ;)
  Eric Brunner-Williams:as far as i know, core's position is still closer to 
rack+ than to jn2, with the obvious exception allowing core (registrar) to 
offer regsitry services, and some more relating to market power
  Stéphane Van Gelder:Volker : understood ;)
  avri:rounds of the DAG, or rounds of gTLDs
  Roberto:@avri: rounds of gTLDs, is my undersyanding
  Alan Greenberg:Mikey, some of us also have other responsibilities which 
implies not 100% focus on the adobe screen...
  Jeff Neuman:Agree with Jeff E
  avri:and assuming this round actually happens someday in the future, how long 
do we expect befoe the next?  another decade?
  Kathy Kleiman: +1 Jeff E
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:5-7 years for next round is my estimate
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:but who knows. i have not been right yet in my predictions
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:could be 5 months with my track record for predictions
  Alan Greenberg:Well that should give us some time to think it over!  ;-)
  Roberto:@avri: the board talks about 1K TLDs per year, so there must be 
something happening for future rounds.
  Alan Greenberg:(the 5-7 year option, that is)
  avri:Jeffrey: yes you seem to be an optimist generally.
  Berry Cobb:it puzzels me that a release schedule of the rounds can not be 
developed.  round 1 date X, round 2 +18 months, round 3 +12 months, round 4 +6 
months, etc....
  avri:Berry: we can't even schedule the relase of DAG revsions, how can we 
possiblty schedule rounds?
  Berry Cobb:touche  :-)
  Berry Cobb:your right Jeff E.  That is what also concerns me that the Board 
did not mention one point WRT to throttling the # of TLDs released as per what 
is a recommendation in the latest Economic report.
  avri:BTW, sould we take a clue from the fact that after an hour of talking we 
can't even find consensus on working toward the 8 Oct dearline.  btw, why is it 
we think of asking the Board to revise its deadline, but we are accepting the 
GNSO 8 day motion deadline with any appeal?
  avri:... without any appeal
  Kristina Rosette:@Avri:  I'm happy to introduce a motion if that's what the 
WG wants.
  avri:Eric: i like this greenfield 0% prospect.
  Roberto:Avri: because the 8 day motion is in the rules, while the 8 October 
is arbitrary
  avri:Roberto: thanks
  Volker Greimann:I am not liking the board taking the role as a policy makedr 
in stead of the community one bit
  avri:Volker: but the community failed.  someone has to do it.  and they did 
warn us, though we did not take their warning seriously.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:@avri, i too like the greenfield, but if i were 
representing a contracted party today, and couldn't get the advantage my client 
seeks, and i could keep advantage from all competitors to my client, i'd be in 
favor of greenfield too
  Volker Greimann:eric, cou are talking about seeking advantages
  Kristina Rosette:@Roberto and Avri:  We can request that the rule be 
suspended as for this specific topic as long as we provide an alternate date.  
May not be what everyone wants, but it's an option.
  Berry Cobb:in addition to our final report and just analyzing the comments, 
we need to finish our work on the Harms list.  AND we should redefine our 
proposed models by removing the personalization and applying a template that 
describes each proposal.  AKA properly document this effort.
  Volker Greimann:i think that misses the issue: we are simply seeking to 
remove a striking disadvantage
  Volker Greimann:Mikey: let us at least put in that we do have strong 
consensus against the board making policy in general, and the Nairobi decision 
in particular
  Eric Brunner-Williams:volker, i understand your position
  avri:Volker: but some of us support the Nairobi resoltuion in the absence of 
community consensus.  thee is not full consensus on that.
  Volker Greimann:avri: not full consensus, but a very strong consensus
  Volker Greimann:Eric: effectively, the Nairobi board decision is taking away 
a business model that was perfectly legal and did not cause any problems in the 
past, or in ccTLDs
  avri:Volker: i do not beleive so.  strong support, maybe. but neither 
conensus nor full consensus
  Volker Greimann:avri: if I remember correctly, there were different levels of 
consesnus, some of which did not need unanimous support. I think 75% here do 
not support Nairobi
  Eric Brunner-Williams:volker: i don't disagree, but since consensus wasn't 
reached, you, and every contracted party risk that the board will pick a rule 
that advantages your competitors, but not you.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:for instance, the 15% rule, or a 40% rule or ... 
anything short of your position
  avri:Volker: i dispute your count.  and must point out that it is not 
numerically defined.
  Eric Brunner-Williams:and you go into round 2 with all of your 15% or 40% 
competitors having 5 months or 5 years of advantage developing their market 
(and exhausting yours which hasn't been started)
  Eric Brunner-Williams:so what is the least distruptive outcome you'd like?
  Volker Greimann:My favorite least disruptive outcome would be the policy in 
place at the time before Nairobi. Of course, JN2 or  ORR would be preferred
  Roberto:@Mikey: it needs to arrive to Council on time for the ir meeting 
prior to 8 Oct
  Alan Greenberg:Issuing the final report now implies that we want no input to 
modify the decision that they will make for future rounds....
  Eric Brunner-Williams:agree with alan, the future is important
  Berry Cobb:and further, if this PDP is sunset with a final report of no 
recommendations, then the VI issue is put to rest for future rounds.
  Berry Cobb:We MUST continue our work in this PDP to come to some conclusions.
  Volker Greimann:berry +1
  Alan Greenberg:Useful to zero in on parts that we DID generally agree on!
  avri:Berry: I aggree we shold continue working.  one of the things about 
consensus is that it does not come quickl.Berry: I aggree we shold continue 
working.  one of the things about consensus is that it does not come quickl.
  Keith Drazek:do we know if the Staff developed a briefing memo or overview of 
our interim Report for the Board?
  Keith Drazek:perhaps that work has already been done
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Agree with Jenn N
  Jeffrey Eckhaus:Jeff N
  Keith Drazek:+1 EBW
  Eric Brunner-Williams:we don't agree what merits an exception, so the 
"general statement" can't be implemented
  Volker Greimann:I must agree with Eric. In an ideal scenario, we would not 
need exceptions
  Volker Greimann:without restrictions, no exceptions are needed
  Volker Greimann:JC +1
  avri:i.e. issue with strong supporT?
  avri:touch the report anywhere, it twangs everywhere.
  Volker Greimann:mikey: I disagree. Let us at least put in that a) we have 
strong consensus against Nairobi and b) we strongly believe the policies should 
be consistent between rounds
  avri:Volker: do not NOT have strong consensus against the Nairobi.  and 
without some realdiscussionon to determine a level consensus, it is just not 
the case - just a guess.  repeating it over and over will not make it so.
  Volker Greimann:avri: I think if we put these two qquestions to the poll, we 
will get a strong majority
  Volker Greimann:disagreeing with me over and over does not make it not so 
either ;-)
  Keith Drazek:poll! poll! poll!
  Jeff Neuman:+3 Keith
  Volker Greimann:the provious polls have shown a strong majority against 
nairobi at least
  avri:Volker: just a guess.  i think we would end up divided with a slight 
majority for your guess.  and of course my stmt does not become true by 
repetition. it is just necessary to constantly counter yours.
  Jeff Neuman:We would be providing advice to the governments who provide 
advice to the Board
  avri:i think in voting for 0% people would have to take into account the 
strong advantages of the greenfield argument.
  avri:Which is a now argument that has not been discussed in the past.
  avri:... a new argument ...
  avri:and that take more discussion. not ust a poll.
  avri:Jeff: yes, working though influencing the GAC so they can use their 
influence with the board might be the new way to do PDPs efeectively.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy