Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items

["Mike O'Connor" <oconnorstp@xxxxxxxxx>]

thanks Berry!  great post.

this is a great starting point for a discussion on the call tomorrow.  i'll
gladly take it as a substantial addition to the agenda for the call.  so now
our agenda would read...

-- Roberto's summary list

-- Berry's "way forward" draft

-- language introducing the summary of public comments in the report

mikey


On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Berry Cobb
<berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Mikey,
>
>
>
> A proposal I would like for us to discuss at our next session…….
>
>
>
> *Time for RESET & SHAKE the tree!*
>
>
>
> My apologies for missing the last call, but I am now caught up from the
> MP3.  I have concerns about the momentum of terminating this WG and asking
> the GNSO Council to decide next steps when we have to power to control our
> own destiny. Yes, we have not reached consensus WRT to Vertical Integration
> and Cross-Ownership………..yet!   Yes, The ICANN Board now owns the VI decision
> for the first round!  Yes, there is slim chance that any continued WG
> efforts will influence the first round.  Yes, yes, yes!  However, Yes I
> believe we have NOT fully satisfied the objectives defined in the WG’s
> Charter and more specifically, Yes, we have NOT performed the kind of
> analysis this type of issue rightly deserves.  Yes, I also believe
> termination of this PDP will remove the only opportunity for the community
> to remain engaged on this important issue in parallel to the launch of gTLDs
> in the first round and hopefully, one day, resolve this issue before 2ndand 
> other future rounds materialize.  Therefore, I propose that the VI WG
> remain intact, hit the reset button, and shake the tree loose of dead
> leaves.
>
>
>
> Here’s how I got there……
>
>
>
> This is a formally chartered GNSO PDP WG operating independent of the new
> gTLD program, and no matter what directions the ICANN Board has provided or
> asked of us, we owe it to the community and our bylaws to exhaust the PDP to
> a proper conclusion.  Where we stand today does NOT appear to be a proper
> conclusion, nor does it feel like it.
>
>
>
> Now that the Board owns the outcome to Vertical Integration and Cross
> Ownership, they have two choices in their desire to open up the application
> window for the first round.  Choice number one is the fast track to make no
> change at all and only allow for “current state” models of existing
> separation and ownership restrictions to exist.  The second choice creates
> some sort of a liberal change to separation and/or ownership that will
> require the Board to take the most responsible and less risky path of
> engaging competition experts and other “specialist.”
>
>
>
> So what are the VI WG’s outcomes as a result of two choices?
>
> ·         If choice one plays out and only use of existing models are
> allowed, the VI WG if still active, can work alongside in a normal PDP
> “proactive” mode and observe, analyze, “engage experts,” and respond
> alongside to the first round while the WG solves this complex issue for
> subsequent rounds.
>
> ·         Choice two, unfortunately, could mean another possible delay in
> the first round application process and whereby the Board engages its
> “experts.”  I do not believe the Board will decide this issue blindly, if it
> chooses to make changes, as it increases the risk of litigation and such a
> notion is already a threat by some in the community.  Further to the second
> choice, Peter Dengate-Thrush specifically stated at the Brussels RrSG
> meeting that if the Board were forced to make a decision on VI that they
> would engage “experts” to do so.  The VI WG, if still active, could seize
> the opportunity to work alongside the Board’s engaged “experts” while
> keeping the community engaged in the process and perhaps influence the first
> round decision.  This notion of working alongside the “experts” is what has
> lacked in all prior economic and “expert” reports to date.
>
> ·         Or the third outcome which is being discussed mostly now is that
> the VI WG be SHUTDOWN and as a result, we lose any possible chance for
> influence on this important issue and any future PDP efforts will most
> likely be REACTIONARY in nature given our failure to address this issue
> properly today.  YUCK!!!!
>
>
>
> Jothan has mentioned many times the notion “that compliance is one of the
> few topics we all agreed on,” and while I agree, I also want to remind
> everyone that regardless of what proposal(s) were to have gained consensus
> and passed by the WG, the least liberal of proposals or concepts still
> require a transformation in how ICANN Compliance functions and their
> enforcement of the policies.  The same holds true if the Board decides to
> move forward with option number one mentioned above and only implement just
> current state separation and ownership restrictions.  Why you ask?  Ken has
> used the analogy several times of “letting the genie out of the bottle” and
> that once released, it will be impossible to return the genie to the
> bottle.  I like this analogy, but let’s not kid ourselves; the real genie
> out of the bottle is NOT what proposal(s) or model of VI & CO exist, but it
> is the proposed quantity of 500+ new gTLDs.  Further to this point, we do
> not see any regulated or controlled release of gTLD language from ICANN or
> the ICANN Board despite the GNSO Recommendations and subsequent economic
> reports.
>
>
>
> Which choice and outcome do you prefer?  I chose to remain engaged and keep
> the WG active until we resolve this issue and develop solutions that work
> for the industry and community proactively rather than reactively.  Mikey,
> if you chose to accept and continue your mission as Jr. Co-Chair, it’s time
> for you to bust out the PROCESS hat.  Here is starter list of what I think
> it will take for us to get there:
>
>
>
> ·         Acknowledge Initial Report Public Comments and call Initial
> Report phase complete
>
> ·         Communicate to GNSO Council that our Charter has not been met
> and the WG intends to “Reset” (instead of asking for Council to provide next
> steps to the WG)
>
> o   All WG participants will be asked to resubmit their SOI & intent of
> participation with the WG and shed former WG members who no longer chose to
> participate
>
> o   Provide the opportunity for Co-Chair changes (You guys have a done a
> great job so far, so I hope you stay on, but understand about other demands)
>
> ·         Review & perhaps update the charter & establish new objectives
> for the WG
>
> ·         Establish a new project plan & timeline that reflects normalized
> PDP process and pace
>
> ·         *Engage external economist and competition experts to work
> alongside the WG*
>
> ·         Create new poll methodology, beginning with high level concepts
> and drilldown capabilities, and built on a binary yes/no framework
>
> o   Develop baseline, poll at set intervals, and establish poll trend
> methods to consistently document the position of the WG throughout the PDP
>
> ·         Scope the Final Report deliverable
>
> o   Create Model & Harms documentation templates for standardized
> comparison
>
> o   Establish a current state baseline model
>
> o   Create proposed models & convert existing proposals to new standard
> template (i.e.. remove the personalization and complete model details via
> standard template)
>
> o   Finalize terminology & definitions list
>
> o   Create analysis methodology of Models (aka proposals) & Harms,
> Pros/Cons
>
> ·         Analyze Models via economic, fair competition, cost benefit,
> market power, pro/con, and use case lenses.
>
> ·         Conduct threat analysis of the Ry/Rr technical data &
> integration relationships
>
> ·         Analyze compliance and enforcement frameworks and requirements
>
> ·         Analyze international jurisdictions and understand capabilities
> & relationships
>
> ·         Establish desired state, consensus driven, VI Model (s) and
> concepts for Final Report recommendations
>
>
>
> That’s all for now.  I urge members to support the continuation of this WG
> and not let this opportunity slip away for the community to remain engaged.
>
>
>
> I will be happy to answer questions at the call.  Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
> Berry Cobb
>
> Infinity Portals LLC
>
> berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://infinityportals.com
>
> 720.839.5735
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
> On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 6:12 AM
> To: vertical integration wg
> Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
>
>
>
>
>
> hi all,
>
>
>
> here are the things i have for us to discuss on Monday's call...
>
>
>
> -- Roberto's summary list
>
>
>
> -- language (which i'll draft before the meeting, hopefully today or
> tomorrow) introducing the summary of public comments in the report
>
>
>
> my goal is to get a pretty precise direction defined on the call Monday,
> and a final draft approved a week from Monday.
>
>
>
> anything to add?
>
>
>
> mikey
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - - - - - -
>
> phone   651-647-6109
>
> fax                          866-280-2356
>
> web       http://www.haven2.com
>
> handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google,
> etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



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