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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

While the proposal I was part of is very close to the S&W proposal, I have 
hesitation with every including as an adviser in a process someone who states 
up front: of we course we prefer our proposal over all others (paraphrase).

That makes them as partisan as any of the other proposers.

I have no objection to the Board getting advise from someone who has not been 
part of the process and who has a broad academic/business/cross-cultural/... 
perspective.

a.

On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:21, 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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>