RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

 

I appreciate Tom's analysis of the current situation, but I take issue with
the notion that he and Jeff promote, i.e. that everyone in the VI WG had a
bias or vested interest.  I believe that there are many members of this WG
that stood on one side or another because of principles.  I, for one,
supported the RACK+ proposal because in my mind it provided safer measures
when ICANN embarks on a monumental, yet untested process - a process that
portends the start of a new era of the Internet - 100's of new gTLDs.  I
submit that there are many others in the WG who also stood on principle
rather than bias and therefore reject the wholesale comment.

 

With regard to the Board turning to S&W (or any other 'outside' consultants)
to determine the VI fate for the first round of new gTLDs that would indeed
be a big mistake.  Those who are not part of the ICANN community, by
definition, cannot have any depth of understanding for the uniqueness of
what this body is, what it does, or how it works.   To apply standard market
power equations to a one-of-a-kind entity is equivalent to pounding a square
peg into a round hole, in my view.

 

Kind regards,

 

RA

 

Ronald N. Andruff

RNA Partners, Inc.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:28 PM
To: tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx; Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items

 

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>
Reply-To: "tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx" <tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:48:17 -0700
To: "Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx" <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]
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>

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> 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.