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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've been  missing in action from last few VI calls  due to other work
load(s) taking over my life, but I'd like to register a +1 on what Ron has
stated in his message below...

Cheryl Langdon-Orr
(CLO)



On 3 November 2010 02:09, Ron Andruff <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  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 <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<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.
>