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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with much of what Avri has said, and please do not remove me
from this list either. So I suggest we first find out where the Board
comes down on this issue. That will help us decide if there is any point
in continuing under the existing charter, or if we want to ask Council
to revise it or perhaps restart under a new charter altogether.  


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 4:01 am
> To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> First, I may miss the meeting today.  Please do not take that as dis-interest 
> and please do not drum me off the list because of that apparent dis-interest. 
>  In fact please do not remove anyone from the list unless they actually quit 
> or their address bounces.  If this PDP continues, it should continue.  If we 
> want something new, then we should close this PDP effort down and start a new 
> one at some point in the future.  As a middle point, we can make some 
> suggestions on how to change the charter if we think that may help. On the 
> co-chairs, I think we should keep the ones we have unless they are tired of 
> it all (or too busy) and want to be replaced.
> 
> I think that if people can come to the task fresh and ready to compromise, we 
> may have a chance in a phase II.  But if people continue in entrenched 
> positions, we will just be continuing the head banging (into walls and/or 
> each other, not with the music).
> 
> I think that after the Board makes it decision, and we see whether they were 
> bluffing or not about (virtual) 0%, we may be able to find the will to work 
> toward compromise.  I have believed since the beginning that the will to 
> compromise was all we needed to find a solution.  I still believe that.  Then 
> again some conflicts go on for centuries because the will to compromise does 
> not exist in everyone, in the same quantity, at the same time.
> 
> I do think working with experts is a good thing.  But unless we have the will 
> to compromise, if party X's experts disagree with party Y's experts, we will 
> be back to the point we are at now.
> 
> I do think we need to respond to the public comments in detail and I still 
> believe that it will difficult to give a unified view of the response, unless 
> it is a fairly contentless answer. Hence my continuing suggestion that each 
> of the proposals be ready to respond as to how their proposal deals with the 
> objection.  This could even be seen as a step toward phase II work.
> 
> On compliance, I do not think we have agreement.  Yes we all agree that it is 
> a topic we need to cover.  But some seem feel quite strongly that ICANN could 
> never do compliance - they never have and never will, and any solution that 
> depends on it is doomed to failure.  On the other hand some feel that ICANN 
> can do compliance and that control should be strict and frequent, while 
> others seem to feel that compliance is too expensive for the Rys and should 
> be sparing and infrequent. I am also not sure we have agreement on what 
> compliance should cover.
> 
> Finally, I do not understand why we would need new SOI/DOI unless our 
> original SOI/DOI have changed.  I mean I will do it, if I have to, I just 
> don't see what it achieves.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> On 24 Oct 2010, at 14:58, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
> > 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 
> > 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 control!
>  led 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.)