[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's call
- To: vertical integration wg <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's call
- From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:36:37 -0500
here's the transcript of the chat from today's call.
> Roberto:Hi, all
> Mike O'Connor:Hi Roberto...
> Roberto:Waiting for the call...
> Margie Milam:They are dialing out to you Roberto now
> Sivasubramanian M:Hello All
> Keith Drazek:present and accounted for
> Keith Drazek:apparently the operators were expecting the participation
> volume of the last few weeks, before threats of de-listing were on the table
> Paul Diaz:http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22oct10-en.htm
> Phil Buckingham:Ken - Good idea .
> Gisella Gruber-White:Kristina Rosette has joined the call
> Gisella Gruber-White:Brian Cute has joined the call
> Sivasubramanian M:One way forward is to move to a phase where all of us
> together would draft a single document collaboratively. We can agree,
> idsagree point by point, revise language line by line, and come up with a
> unified proposal with a new name, not darwn from the name of any prior
> Sébastien:I support Siva vision here
> Sébastien:2 WG show some good way to go to try to find concensus (MAPO or
> Rec 6 and JAS of help for neded applications)
> Sivasubramanian M:Thanks Sebastien, if Mike iniiaties this exercise by
> setting up a collbaorative space ( wiki ?) with an outline initiatl document,
> this could progress
> Roberto:Ken, would you agree on saying that "vertical separation might
> hinder some applications"? What I am trying to get at is that we can allow
> some cases of integration without harming the general case
> Ron A:Yes, Mikey, Richard T suggested "will"
> Ron A:'may' is what i meant
> Roberto:@Ron, I agree with "may", that was what I meant anyway
> Roberto:Ooops - line dropped apparently
> ken stubbs:which "status quo" are we referring to here ?
> Phil Buckingham:Definately , status quo / VS WILL hinders applicants (
> like myself). I totally agree with Richard's comment . If we can sort out
> exceptions - like SRSU model then status quo MAY hinder me as an apllicant
> ken stubbs:i wonder if the board reallys see the compliance issue for what
> its implications are..
> Brian Cute:how about "whatever the rules established for the new TLDs, we
> need mechanisms and adequate resources to enforce them?
> Jothan Frakes:I have to drop off the call, apologies
> Keith Drazek:+1 brian
> Keith Drazek:+1 alan
> Roberto:@Ken, I think we have consensus on compliance - can you suggest a
> stronger statement?
> Brian Cute:+1 Ron
> Berry Cobb:Just one note....those open Reqs for Compliance are for current
> state operations. As I understand not related or funded via new gTLDs
> Alan Greenberg:Compliance has been down several people for quite some time
> Berry Cobb:It also seems to me that if Compliance is so key, and we dont
> have the resources and structure to enforce it.....then why arent we
> supporting a delay to GLDs?
> Berry Cobb:The realy genie out of the bottle is the # of new TLDs....not the
> business models that operate them
> Ron A:@ Barry: David Giza had said that he had anticipated embedding 2-3
> people from his staff within the new gTLD implementation team... So not sure
> if it is staff for embedding or normal day to day work
> Ron A:that is needed
> Kristina Rosette:I'm here. I know you've all missed me. A lot.
> Berry Cobb:@ Ron: as I understand there is a serarate line item in the new
> gTLD budget for it. So if these 2 new reqs are for new gTLDs, where is ICANN
> getting the funding for it?
> Ron A:Good question Barry
> Jon N 2:Right now, there is nothing to comply with -- until New TLD
> applicants sign the new agreement -- therefore, it is not necessary to budget
> for compliance in the 2010 budget or the implementation budget. Of course,
> the 2012 budget will require a great deal of compliance, but that should come
> out of fees for that year and not the application fees.
> Roberto:Ken & Mikey, I have not been approached either
> Berry Cobb:Thanks JN2. Then that tells me the two open Reqs for complaince
> are for current operations.
> Volker Greimann:hello everyone, sorry I am late
> Volker Greimann:did I miss much?
> Keith Drazek:volker, we reached consensus! sorry you missed it!
> Keith Drazek:;-)
> Mike O'Connor:Volker, i was waiting for you before conducting the poll
> Volker Greimann:you are too kind, mikey
> Jon N 2:i agree with Ken that planning is important, but we as a community
> should not be paying for it now
> Phil Buckingham:Compliance is a function/ cost dependent on the level of
> applications . Cart before the horse ? The compliance function needs to be
> place when .dot whatever starts operations ie 2012 . So it is not important
> cost wise for ICANN in FY 11. Check out Oct 2010 Contractual Compliance
> Volker Greimann:did we talk about bullet point 3 yet?
> Ron A:@ Phil: Do you have a link to the newsletter?
> Volker Greimann:thanks mikey.
> Volker Greimann:I would like to suggest replacing "identified" with
> Volker Greimann:Identify for me carries a connotation of something that is
> actually there.
> Ron A:@ Volker: The harms that were ID'ed are there, no?
> Phil Buckingham:Ron - yes - I ll email it to the Group ( after call ).
> Sivasubramanian M:Parital Integration also implies some form of control,
> some form of interference, which is not good
> Ron A:Thanks, Phil
> Volker Greimann:I think identify has as a term gives them more of a claim of
> being valid problems, instead of what they are: a list of potential harms
> that may or may not be there
> Volker Greimann:by putting compiled instead of idientified, we are making
> less of a statement about this undiscussed list
> Keith Drazek:how about "potential harms"
> Volker Greimann:"compiled a list of potential harms"
> Ron A:@ Keith: I recall the effort was to establish a list of real harms
> more that potentials
> Berry Cobb:Then we shouldnt add this bullet at all. we have not done
> nothing except compile them. outside of stating that we compiled them,
> anything else is up to intereptation.
> Kristina Rosette:How about: We have compiled a list of potential harms that
> may be associated with either complete separation or complete integration. We
> have not finalized the list, we have not focused on potential harms
> associated with partial integration or separation, and we do not have
> consensus on the list we do have.
> Berry Cobb:stating the compliation does not offer up any new message to the
> Brian Cute:+1 Kristina
> Keith Drazek:+1 Kristina
> Ron A:+ 1 Kristina
> Phil Buckingham:Kristina +1
> Volker Greimann:kristina +1
> Brian Cute:better
> Keith Drazek:Kristina is a +4 Wordsmith...so far
> Keith Drazek:+5!
> Sivasubramanian M:@Mike The language should positively speak of the
> prorgress of this working group. We are working on a complex set of issues,
> we are proceeding , progressing week after week. We are in the discussion
> phase and at this phase we are not to be espected to have reached cobnsensus
> on the issues. We have made progress and it is a good degree of progress.
> Volker Greimann:she is writing on a "+5 keyboard of eloquence"
> Keith Drazek:lol
> Kristina Rosette:and I'm charging you all by the word. :-)
> Keith Drazek:gotta drop!
> Ron A:Spoken like a true lawyer ;o)
> Roberto:@Kristina: legal advice is not in the budget either
> Volker Greimann:4th point: add "in case a restrictive regime on VI should be
> Kristina Rosette:@Roberto: Good b/c I'm definitely NOT giving ICANN legal
> Brian Cute:gave up imperiously i hope...
> ken stubbs:+1 sive..
> ken stubbs:I have seen the ITU tae 6 months debating one word in a resolution
> Keith Drazek:Typing in my personal capacity, should we make the statement
> more direct? Something like, "This Working Group has not and will not reach
> consensus on recommending strict vertical separation or full vertical
> integration. It remains to be seen whether consensus can can be reached on a
> compromise recommendation."
> Jon N 2:not sure I like that last sentence -- I'm sure that the advocates on
> either side wouldn't like to have their positions called extreme; it seems
> too optimistic -- we tried to reach consensus on something in the middle of
> the two "extremes" already -- why do we think that we may be able to arrive
> at a middle ground position now?
> Sivasubramanian M:Saying that we will reach a consensus in between is a
> leading comment
> Sivasubramanian M:I don;t agree on the statement that we will have a
> consensus in between, so we don't have consensus on the statement indicating
> interim consensus
> Sivasubramanian M:Please avoid making a leading statement that consensus on
> vertical separation or vertical intergration will not happen, so there needs
> to be a compromise
> Roberto:@Siva: nobody is saying that we *will have a consensus in between*,
> but that we "might"
> Kristina Rosette:I'm really not liking "extreme". Although, given that I've
> been called a zealot w/r/t the IRT, I suppose adding "extremist" could be
> considered the logical next step.
> Sivasubramanian M:But Roberto, it still sounds as a leading statement
> Sivasubramanian M:@MIke, the language still sounds defensive
> Keith Drazek:re-posting in case it got missed (instead of ignored) ;-)
> ''This Working Group has not and is will not reach consensus on recommending
> strict vertical separation or full vertical integration. It remains to be
> seen whether consensus can can be reached on a compromise recommendation.''
> Roberto:Just for curiosity, is there anybody thinking that we might reach
> consensus on full vertical integration? The fact that we do not have
> consensus on separation is a fact, given the statements we had after Nairobi
> Keith Drazek:now to critique my own language....I don't think we're likely
> to reach consensus on a compromise either, since we've been trying for months
> with no glimmer of success
> Jon N 2:the question is whether we can reach consensus on a sentence
> explaining that we haven't reached consensus
> Keith Drazek:+1 jon
> Berry Cobb:This is becoming an exercise of futility. The only new statement
> to the board is "Compliance is Key". they know all the rest. So what does
> this buy us?
> Roberto:I don't know if we ever reach consensus, but if we do it will be on
> some in-between, where the in-between can be also a list of cases in which
> one or the other (VI or VS) will work better
> Kristina Rosette:Just the bullets? I think we should have the wrap-up
> sentence so as to make really clear where we are (and are not)
> Ron A:I agree with KR, "extreme" is troubling
> Phil Buckingham:In all this - surely the Group needs to establish from the
> Board a timescale . So "would the Board provide the WG a timetable "
> Ron A:Mikey: Can you delete the word "extreme" please
> Brian Cute:+1 Ron
> Roberto:There is no consensus on either full vertical integration or full
> vertical separation
> Kristina Rosette:how about "full" or "complete" before VI and VS in the 2nd
> bullet? could avoid confusion. +1 Roberto
> Kristina Rosette:yes. like it.
> Sivasubramanian M:@ Roberto There is no consensus on partial integration
> ken stubbs:lets chg the name of the WG to "SLOG"
> Roberto:Siva: we are not obliged to list all the things on which there is no
> ken stubbs:amen brother !
> ken stubbs:lets have an "AMEN" for Mikey & Roberto
> Ron A:+1 Roberto
> Ron A:AMEN!
> Phil Buckingham:+1 Roberto
> ken stubbs:say goodbye dick
> ken stubbs:goodbye dan
> Mike O'Connor:goodbye dick
- - - - - - - - -
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)