[gnso-vi-feb10] chat transcript from today's call

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

hi all,

here's the transcript of the chat from today's call.

mikey


> Roberto:Hi, all
>  Mike O'Connor:Hi Roberto...
>  Roberto:Waiting for the call...
>  Margie Milam:They are dialing out to you Roberto now
>  Roberto:thx
>  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 
> posposal. 
>  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 
> now.
>  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:;-)
>  Sébastien:;)
>  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 
> Newsletter 
>  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 
> "compiled". 
>  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 
> board.
>  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 
> adopted"
>  Kristina Rosette:@Roberto:  Good b/c I'm definitely NOT giving ICANN legal 
> advice. 
>  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 
> either
>  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 
> consensus
>  ken stubbs:amen brother !
>  ken stubbs:lets have an "AMEN" for Mikey & Roberto 
>  Ron A:+1 Roberto
>  Ron A:AMEN!
>  Phil Buckingham:+1 Roberto 
>  Sébastien:thanks
>  ken stubbs:say goodbye dick
>  ken stubbs:goodbye dan
>  Mike O'Connor:goodbye dick

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