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

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.

Completely agree.


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
> From: "Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 10:09 am
> To: <Gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Dear all,
>   
> 
> I appreciate Tom&#8217;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 &#8211; a
> process that portends the start of a new era of the Internet &#8211; 
> 100&#8217;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 &#8216;outside&#8217; 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 
> Reply-To: "tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx" 
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:48:17
> -0700
> To: "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" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date:
> October 23, 2010
> 4:55:21 PM CDT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To:
> "'vertical
> integration wg'" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subject:
> RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] call for agenda items
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mikey,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A
> proposal I would like for us to discuss at our next session&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..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&#8217;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&#8217;s
> how I got there&#8230;&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 &#8220;current state&#8221; 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 &#8220;specialist.&#8221; 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what
> are the VI WG&#8217;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
> &#8220;proactive&#8221; mode and observe, analyze, &#8220;engage
> experts,&#8221; 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
> &#8220;experts.&#8221;  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 &#8220;experts&#8221; to do so.  The VI WG, if still active,
> could seize the opportunity to work alongside the Board&#8217;s engaged
> &#8220;experts&#8221; while keeping the community engaged in the process and
> perhaps influence the first round decision.  This notion of working
> alongside the &#8220;experts&#8221; is what has lacked in all prior economic
> and &#8220;expert&#8221; 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 &#8220;that compliance is one of the few
> topics we all agreed on,&#8221; 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 &#8220;letting the genie out of the bottle&#8221;
> and that once released, it will be impossible to return the genie to the
> bottle.  I like this analogy, but let&#8217;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&#8217;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 &#8220;Reset&#8221; (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&#8217;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.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>