[gnso-igo-ingo] MP3 IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group - Wednesday 12 June 2013

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next IGO-INGO Protections policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group 
call is scheduled for Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 16:00 UTC for 2 hours.

Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development 
Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 
1500 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130612-en.mp3

On page: 
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#feb>jun

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/


Attendees:
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Avri Doria – NCSG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Catherine Gribbin – Red Cross
Stephane Hankins – Red Cross Red Crescent
Wolfgang Kleinwächter – NCSG
David Maher – RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
Judd Lauter – IOC/IOC
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan – IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair – RrSG

Apologies:
Guilaine Fournet - IEC

ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Brian Peck
Erika Randall
Julia Charvolen

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Julia Charvolen
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Chat Transcript 12 June 2013:
  Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 12 JUN 2013 IGO-INGO Meeting.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Wolfgang
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with kudos!!!
  Chuck Gomes:Me too.  Just a few issues to resolve.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Hi all, can only stay for the first hour of the call
  Julia Charvolen:Alan Greenberg joined the meeting
  Julia Charvolen:Jim Bikoff joined the call
  Julia Charvolen:Stehphane Hankins joined the meeting
  Chuck Gomes:Is it possible to get the GC office to commit to a quick 
turn-around on their review?  48 hours?
  Berry Cobb:Yes.  We are shooting for less than 48 hours.
  Berry Cobb:Targeting Friday to publish for comment.
  Chuck Gomes:Thanks Berry.  Have they committed to that?
  Berry Cobb:Yes, we are working directly with them.
  Chuck Gomes:Can we reword this so it is accurate?
  Chuck Gomes:@ comment 6
  Julia Charvolen:David Roache Turner has just joined the call
  Berry Cobb:It should be noted that IGO names and acronyms are not word marks 
as considered in the traditional sense of Trademarks or the TMCH
  Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 to Alan and Greg, that would be a helpful clarification
  Avri Doria:Sounds like we are having detailed legal argumentation
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Not at all Avri.  Semantics
  Avri Doria:LOL
  Julia Charvolen:Catherine Gribbin joined
  Avri Doria:I suggest we leave it as is.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:That would be up to the organizations, I just wanted to 
call attention to the issue
  David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):+1 Greg on going to primary sources 
where possible
  Mary Wong:Hello everyone, sorry I'm late; waiting for operator to connect me 
now.
  Berry Cobb:@DRT, I accidently lowered your hand.  My apologies.
  David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):no problem Berry;  was a vestigial 
hand anyway
  Mary Wong:@DRT, a spooky but funny phrase! :)
  Mary Wong:+1, Greg - one requires proof as an initial step, the second 
presumes that harm exists.
  Mary Wong:Suggest this sentence: "Although the purpose of requiring harm goes 
toward the fact that resources otherwise earmarked for an organization's public 
interest mission are diverted toward dealing with such harms, there were 
divergent views within the WG as to whether such harm needed to first be proved 
or if it could be presumed for each organization for which protection is given."
  Greg Shatan:Mary's language works for me.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree this is a bit unclear.
  Avri Doria:seems run on, but ok.  replaces the semicolon with a period.
  Avri Doria:and drove while.
  Avri Doria:and drop 'while'
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would delete the word "together"
  Mary Wong:"Where the IOC and RCRC can be distinguished from other INGOs on 
the basis of [ etc. etc.] ... it is possible also to distinguish IGOs from 
INGOs in general, since both types of organizations enjoy protections on 
different legal basis."
  Mary Wong:Correction: "While the IOC and RCRC may be distinguished from other 
INGOs on the basis of [ etc. etc.] ... it is possible also to distinguish IGOs 
from INGOs in general, since both types of organizations enjoy protections on 
different legal basis."
  Mary Wong:(what's the plural for "basis"?)
  David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):(bases?)
  Judd Lauter (IOC):yes
  Mary Wong:That's what I thought ... thanks,. okay, then "basis
  Mary Wong:"basis" should read "bases" in my proposal.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We are also missing that IGOs could be 
distinguished from the IOC and RCRC.
  Mary Wong:@Claudia, is that still necessary if we distinguish INGOs (which 
include IOC & RCRC) from IGOs generally?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):This sentence is a general sentence not a 
note about prior criteria.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Incorrect, there was never distinct criteria for the IOC 
and the RCRC separately
  Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 Kiran
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Alan.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:How the organizations satisfy the qualification criteria 
is different.  The criteria is not
  Kiran Malancharuvil:That distinction is so clear.
  Avri Doria:For example this group has members who stronglybeleive that there 
should be no considerations for anyone (the other side of the same for 
everyboddy coin).  the group has people covering the entire spectrum.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Mary.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We could also delete the sentence entirely 
and leave it at that.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):There is quite a bit of detail about the IO's 
positions and legal protections.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Later on in the report.
  Avri Doria:speicifc considerations or considerations, or not for each type of 
organization is the compromise point.
  Avri Doria:speicifc considerations for special protections, or not for each 
type of organization is the compromise point.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Stephane.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:this paragraph is not a huge deal, but the overall issue 
is that separating it out when there are three sets of qualification criteria 
is ridiculous
  Alan Greenberg:Some of us pushed very hard to ensure that from our analysis 
point of view, the 4 classes would be treated separately. I find it bizarre tat 
we are revisiting this while editting a draft report.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Alan.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):NO i was agreeing with Avri.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Her suggestions for the wording.
  Alan Greenberg:Change MAY to SHOULD and drop the 2nd sentence
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):plus one Alan
  Avri Doria:dpo oepopel get hourly rates for doing ICANN stuff?
  Avri Doria:do people  ...
  Kiran Malancharuvil:Do you actually expect people to talk about how they get 
paid?
  Avri Doria:nope.  but they were.
  Avri Doria:i think my question was more of the rhetorical type
  Berry Cobb:I've added to last two
  Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't think you have to present an option to disagree 
with the recommendation
  Kiran Malancharuvil:you don't have to tell people that they can say no
  Mary Wong:As long as we don't specifically list particular views or identify 
a constituency or SG, that should be fine. There are several points in the 
matrix where we point to "some" in the WG having a different view.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 ALAN
  Kiran Malancharuvil:exactly my point
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with the addition.
  Avri Doria:i copied other langaugre that was already in the report
  Chuck Gomes:@ Mary:  It is too late to let other people add language now.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Greg
  Avri Doria:Beleive me in many places i di not either.
  Avri Doria:If all the ones in there are scrubbed. then I will scrub this one.
  Chuck Gomes:Let's finalize this today.  No more time.
  Mary Wong:@Chuck, I know and I agree, so in the interests of expediency let's 
go with Greg's suggestion - scrub all.
  Kiran Malancharuvil:I support scrubbing all.  This is not an opportunity to 
make arguments.
  David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):+1 Greg
  Alan Greenberg:If we have left other personal (contrary) opinions to the 
option being presented, they should have been caught and eliminated as well.
  Chuck Gomes:Can we scrub on this call?  If not, I oppose scrubbing.
  Avri Doria:no there are opinion references throughout the document  I have a 
red pen i need to put to detailed use for scrubbing.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Right, Chuck.  I had suggested we get rid of 
characterizations last week.
  Mason Cole:Need to leave the call.  Apologies
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We left some in.  We can flip back and forth 
each week I'm afraid.
  Avri Doria:so no opinions of the group at all?
  Greg Shatan:I agree with Alan on this point.
  Avri Doria:we could take out half the content.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Completely agree with Chuck.
  Avri Doria:are you also approving taking out the previous sentence?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would leave the sentence in.  And move on.
  Alan Greenberg:I yield. Let's get the report out and those who disagree can 
object to the way it was fdone in the PC.
  Greg Shatan:I think the QC after RCRC should be deleted (minor edit)
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg
  Berry Cobb:Deleted
  Avri Doria:i trust Chair+Staff review
  Avri Doria:i am confused about the general counsel pass as well.
  Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 we agree with publishing following staff review
  Kiran Malancharuvil:how long is GC going to take?
  Kiran Malancharuvil:they took forever on the request for input
  Avri Doria:i appreciate the trransparency that indicates it will be reviewed 
by consel.
  Avri Doria:it is an initial report.
  Avri Doria:we expect the community viewpoint
  Chuck Gomes:@Stephane: The next steps are described in the report.
  Alan Greenberg:We are hopeful that the comments received will be so inciteful 
that the heavens will open and we will agree on a way forward.
  Avri Doria:Alan, you describe the Bliss
  Greg Shatan:I hope they are insightful, rather than inciteful!
  Alan Greenberg:Touche.
  Avri Doria:BREAK
  Mary Wong:@Greg, LOL
  Avri Doria:Oh, you are so right.
  Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 Chuck
  Alan Greenberg:Fine with break, but only if we know ahead of time what the 
comment period is.
  Greg Shatan:Phantom hand
  Chuck Gomes:21 + 7 for reply to accommodate the Durban meeting
  Chuck Gomes:@Alan:  We should have all been keeping our respective 
communities all along.