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