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

[Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/2/10 1:21 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>  > 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.
+1

Exactly what part of the bottom-up, consensus-driven, 
multi-stakeholder universe to S&W hail from?
Why bother to have a GNSO if policy is made externally? For the 
decorative effect?
Eric

> Tim
>
>  > -------- Original Message --------
>  > Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] Tom's thoughts on S&W
>  > From: "Ron Andruff"
>  > Date: Tue, November 02, 2010 10:09 am
>  > To:
>  >
>  >
>  > 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
>  > 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…….
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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.)
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > 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.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >