[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012

[Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next call for the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting 
is scheduled on Thursday 20 December 2012 at 20:00 UTC

Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on 
Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday 6 December 2012 at 
20:00UTC.

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121206-en.mp3

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

(transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page)

Attendees:
Ray Fassett – RySG
Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary
J. Scott Evans – IPC Primary
Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary
Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Alternate

Apologies :
Angie Graves – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate
Mary Wong -NCUC
James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate
Jennifer Standiford

ICANN Staff:
Marika Konings
Julia Charvolen

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

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

Kind regards,
Julia Charvolen
For GNSO Secretariat

Adobe Connect chat transcript:
 Julie Hedlund:Welcome Avri
  Julie Hedlund:Hi Anne
  Ron A:Just fell off the call, but was not suggesting you would loss ;o)
  avri:Ron, it is quite alreaight.  It is midnight here  and it sounded that 
way to me, but it amused me.  no worries.  you have to realie i have been doing 
ITU and diplomatic double talk to 2.5 weeks now.
  avri:... for 2.5 weeks now
  avri:Really good question
  Ron A:@ Avri - I feel your pain...
  Ron A:@ Anne: That is my issue
  avri:Yes, it could be easy to just add a line that says a suspeiton must be 
for a fixed length of time.
  avri:but who give notice.  and what is the vote thershold of that motion.
  Ron A:For those who have served on the Council, this may not be an issue, but 
from the outside looking in, it looks like an open loop.
  Ron A:Or better said: loophole
  Marika Konings:No new vote would be required - the motion would contain the 
'timeinterval' for suspension as noted in the footnote at which point the PDP 
would resume
  J. Scott:I think Marika has made a very valid point
  Marika Konings:with the previous instance ('thick' Whois) the PDP was 
restarted (without a vote) before the actual end date of the original suspension
  Marika Konings:as there was Council agreement
  J. Scott:Yes, Wolf-Ulrich.  I was saying "simple majority"
  Ron A:IF the time suspension is included in the motion, THEN I am okay with 
this.
  J. Scott:What if we insert the term "stated" before the wording "time 
interval"
  avri:i need to drop off now.
  Marika Konings:I think that would be a useful clarification
  avri:will stay on adobe
  Ron A:I support J Scott's proposal
  Ray Fassett:agree with J Scott.  Appears to me the issue is making clear that 
a time interval to resume is inherent with the suspension
  Marika Konings:Exactly - no other vote required if timeframe is included in 
the motion
  Marika Konings:it would automatically restart, unless the Council would take 
another vote
  Ray Fassett:I think the time interval should be case by case vs. hard 
scripting
  Marika 
Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf
  Marika Konings:There is also a summary: 
http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf
  Ron A:Thank you, Marika.
  Wolf Knoben:Thanks to all