[gnso-igo-ingo] MP3 IGO-INGO Working Group - Wednesday 30 October 2013

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next IGO-INGO Protections policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group 
call is scheduled on Wednesday, 06 November 2013 at 1600 UTC.

Please find the MP3 recording of the IGO-INGO Protections Policy Development 
Process (PDP) Working Group teleconference held on Wednesday,30 October  2013 
at 1600 UTC at:


http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20131030-en.mp3


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

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
Elizabeth Finberg – RySG
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
Stephane Hankins – Red Cross Red Crescent
David Heasley – IPC/IOC
Judd Lauter – IOC/IOC
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan – IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
Val Sherman – IPC/IOC

Apology:
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
David Maher - RySG
Christopher Rassi – Red Cross Red Crescent

ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Mary Wong
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 30 October 2013:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 30 Oct 2013 IGO-INGO Conference Call.
  Avri Doria:hello
  Greg Shatan:Hello, all.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Hi.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I'm afraid I may have to leave early today.  
But I'll stay as along as I can.
  Berry Cobb:Val Sherman, can you provide your affiliation?
  Alan Greenberg:On now.
  Val Sherman:Silverberg, Goldman, and Bikoff LLP
  Berry Cobb:Thank you Val...IOC.  Appreciate it.
  Avri Doria:exactly, rephrase the question to make sense.
  Greg Shatan:“In fact, the consensus position of the Working Group was 
“Consensus Against” this particular recommendation.  However, the approved 
levels of consensus for PDP Working Groups does not include “Consensus 
Against,” so the Working Group felt that it was not able to formally state that 
the position of the Working Group was “Consensus Against.”  Because the inverse 
of this recommendation was not formally submitted for a consensus call, the 
Working Group felt that it could not, as a matter of procedure, state the 
proposition in the negative, and then state that the position of the Working 
Group was “Consensus” for the negative of the recommendation set forth above.  
In Working Groups with fewer recommendations than those before this Group, it 
is highly likely that this situation can be avoided altogether.  However, due 
to the number of recommendations being considered by the Group, the Group 
adopted a “matrix” approach to setting forth the recommendations under 
consideration.  It would have b
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Alan has a very fair point on enunciating our 
lack of support on this recommendation.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Or whatever we would call it.
  Greg Shatan:It would have been unwieldy and confusing to set forth the 
negative of each recommendation in the matrix merely to guard against the 
possibility of a “Consensus Against” result.  Therefore, the Group finds itself 
with a “Hobson’s Choice” between showing the level of consensus as “consensus 
against” (which does not appear to be formally available as a consensus level) 
and showing the level of consensus as “Divergence” (which mischaracterizes the 
position of the group).  As  the Group did not feel it had the authority to 
take the first choice, it has ended up by default with the consensus level of 
“Divergence.”  The Working Group instructs the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board 
to consider this recommendation to be not supported by the Working Group, in 
spite of this formal statement of “Divergence” which the Group felt constrained 
to use.  The Working Group further recommends that (a) the “Consensus 
Vocabulary” be expanded to include “Consensus Against” and (b) unless and until
  Greg Shatan:that occurs, future Working Groups put safeguards in place in 
their consensus process to avoid this unfortunate result.”
  Greg Shatan:I should have listed Alan's suggestion as an option.  It is 
certainly a good possibility and would reflect our conclusion as a group..
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Chuck.  Although I think it is a 
different situation when we have true divergence.  Whereas when we have 
opposition.
  Chuck Gomes 2:I cannot lower my hand.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If that's the case, we should have shown the 
recommendation for ISO-IEC criteria as divergence.
  Avri Doria:i prefer indicating consensus against over dropping things.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Divergence cannot mean both no strong opinion 
AND opposition.
  Alan Greenberg:Inverting the recommendation does not change the rules. It is 
a semantic technique to be able to clearly present the results of the consensus 
call.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Alan
  Greg Shatan:Another +1.
  Alan Greenberg:It *would* have been discrimainatory to phrase the original 
question with the negative. It is not so to alter the wording based on the 
result.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Again, +1 Alan
  Greg Shatan:Another plus 1
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If the definition for "divergence" included 
"opposition" we would not object.  It does not.
  Greg Shatan:We cannot blend divergence recommendations and consensus against 
recommendations in the same package.  It hides the truth.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Greg
  Greg Shatan:Even if you are constrained to call both of them divergence.
  Mary Wong:@Greg, that's why we are thinking a separate table/column for this 
specific rec might make things clearer.
  Mary Wong:@Chuck, right - so there would be different groupings, one for 
Consensus, one for Strong Support, one for Divergence etc.. Does that answer 
your question?
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):! Well-said
  Mary Wong:And we can have a separate group/table/column for this particular 
recommendation, explaining why in it.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Greg
  Greg Shatan:We need two sections for Divergence:  One for authentic 
Divergence, and one for "Divergence" where there is strong opposition/consensus 
against.  Blending them into one doesn't work.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would strongly suggest that we do not try 
to complicate this matter too much.  This is one discrete issue where 
divergence means opposition.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Alan.  I would rather see a 
"not".  It's simple and it's accurate.
  Greg Shatan:"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful 
tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The 
question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different 
things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - 
that's all."
  Greg Shatan:Agree with Chuck (and this is in my email...)
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Right.
  Avri Doria:Of course minority views can be postive statement that are not 
necessarily oppostional to somethng that was decided.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Whatever scalpel we use to cut out this 
confusion, we should make the smallest cut possible.  Time is of the essence.
  Avri Doria:it beleive it is a minority view if it is relevant and only a 
minority holds that view
  Chuck Gomes:In our report the Exec. Summ. probably will not contain the 
recommendations because they are too long.
  Chuck Gomes:We may want to put the recommendations immediately after the 
Exec. Summ.
  Elizabeth Finberg:+1 to Chucks suggestions
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Almost months ago, we had suggested puting in 
a "NOT".  We felt, like Alan, that this would be the simplest way to accurately 
express our views.  This was not taken up.  If we do not go that way, then we 
would prefer to take this non-recommendation out.  This particular case is 
rather singular in that it had overwhelming opposition
  Greg Shatan:Another plus one for Chuck.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):And that opposition does need to be 
expressed.  For the reason Alan and others support.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+ Chuck, Greg
  Avri Doria:aren;t implementation teams almost SOP now, and do they need 
specific council approval?
  Avri Doria:i would not think so.  the WG just sets it up.
  Avri Doria:i guess it informs that council but i can find no grounds o=under 
whcih the council could say no.
  Mary Wong:@Avri, my point was that it should be specifically called out for 
the Council.
  Mary Wong:So if it was in the WG report that would be very helpful.
  Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I apologize - I must leave.  Thank you as 
always for the robust discussion and plan for concrete steps.
  Avri Doria:what would have been the situation with regard to one of these 
names being transfered?
  Chuck Gomes:They could be transferred.
  Avri Doria:to anyone?
  Chuck Gomes:I think so.
  Avri Doria:i tink selling thse names should be forbidden as well!
  Chuck Gomes:Avri's issues should be dealt with by the Implementation Review 
Team.
  Avri Doria:i think so as long as we have the right recommendations.
  Avri Doria:we are not talking about companies
  Avri Doria:and lots of discussion of usign locking mechanisms
  Avri Doria:i think that both my case and lan's narrower restriction can be 
done with locking mechanisms.
  Greg Shatan:Alan - trrue, and good point.  As IPC rep I should have 
recognized that.
  Avri Doria:i think either a single report or a part A, B report is a good idea
  Avri Doria:if you already did the check of the person listing once, that 
shouldbe enough.
  Avri Doria:htere may be only a few that look like acronym.s. lllooking at the 
list now
  Mary Wong:Thanks everyone.