[gnso-vi-feb10] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from Vertical Integration
Hi- Here is the chat transcript from today's VI working group call. Best Regards, Margie ___________ Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN ___________ -----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 ... inscruitible 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 consensus. 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.