> 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"
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>