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

[Antony Van Couvering <avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I too would like to remain on the list, even though English is my first 
language.

On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> 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 
> > Date: Mon, October 25, 2010 4:01 am
> > To: vertical integration wg 
> > 
> > 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 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.)
>