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

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

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Berry Cobb" <berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: October 23, 2010 4:55:21 PM CDT
> To: "'vertical integration wg'" <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> 
> 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@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.)
>  
>  
>  

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