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

[Jothan Frakes <jothan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Berry,

Great comments.

I wanted to make one slight tweak, which is that regarding compliance....
I have said we have the least dissent on compliance as opposed to most
agreement.

As anal retentive (is that supposed to been hyphenated? ;) ) as that nuance
is, it more accurately reflects where the group heartbeat was.

-jothan

On Oct 23, 2010 2:57 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 2nd and
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@i...