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

[Jeff Eckhaus <eckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

While I like your idea and do agree with you  , I believe the same bias that 
has kept us from coming to consensus would leak into the refinements and the 
S&W proposals would look like the proposals in the Initial Working group.

The one exclusion being the CAM proposal since it is close to the S&W proposal 
and believe was authored by the team with the least economic interest in the 
outcome to this VI decision.


Jeff



From: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca 
<tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: "tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:48:17 -0700
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items

My sense from reading the ICANN report is that they have already begun the 
process of retaining impartial experts to help them with VI/CO by engaging S&W 
to review the WG proposals.

Everyone who submitted proposals should be thinking about how to adjust their 
proposal in light of S&W's comments about the short-comings of their proposals.

S&W's conclusion ....[warning: spoiler alert]  is that their own proposal is 
more pro-competitive for registrants than any of those submitted by this WG.  
Given the choice between proposals from insiders vs outsiders-- outsiders win, 
since it can be argued that they are bias-free and have nothing at stake in the 
outcome.  That excludes (most) everyone that is part of this WG.

 If I were ICANN, I would be leaning towards the S&W proposal as a template for 
round 1.

Why aren't we discussing the S&W proposal to see what refinements we would 
recommend to ICANN?

best regards,

Tom Barrett
EnCirca




Thomas Barrett
EnCirca - President
400 W. Cummings Park, Suite 1725
Woburn, MA 01801 USA
+1.781.942.9975 ext: 11
+1.781.823.8911 (fax)
+1.781.492.1315 (cell)
My Linkedin Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/thomasbarrett



________________________________
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 1:23 PM
To: vertical integration wg
Subject: Fwd: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Berry Cobb" 
<berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: October 23, 2010 4:55:21 PM CDT
To: "'vertical integration wg'" 
<Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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<mailto:berrycobb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://infinityportals.com
720.839.5735
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx<mailto: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.)


________________________________
Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include 
privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. 
Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended 
recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the 
intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and 
then delete it from your system. Thank you.