[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 19 February 2014
Dear All,
Please note that the next Policy and Implementation Working Group
teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday 05th March 2014 at 20:00 UTC
Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group
call held on Wednesday 19 February 2014 at 20:00 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140219-en.mp3
On page:
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#may>
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#feb
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Philip Marano – IPC (also in for Brian Winterfeldt – IPC)
Michael Graham – IPC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
J.Scott Evans – BC
Greg Shatan – IPC
Klaus Stoll - NPOC
Tom Barrett – RrSG
Nic Steinbach – RrSG
Anne Aikman Scalese - IPC
Tom Barrett Encirca - RrSG
Kristina Rosette - IPC
Amr Elsadr –NCUC
Wolf Knoben - ISPCP
Apology:
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Marie-Laure Lemineur – NPOC
Mary Wong
ICANN staff:
Amy Bivins
Marika Konings
Glen De Saint Gery
Terri Agnew
Nathalie Peregrine
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew
For GNSO Secretariat
Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 19 February 2014:
Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation Working Group meeting
of 19 February 2014
Tom Barrett - EnCirca:my internet is spotty. i will be calling in
Nathalie Peregrine:Michael has not activated his AC mic
Nathalie Peregrine:I KNOW!
Greg Shatan:I am on call and in Adobe (obviously....)
Marika Konings:Apologies as well from Mary for today's meeting
Nathalie Peregrine:Noted!
Wolf Knoben:Is policy implementation the right passcode?
Nathalie Peregrine:It is
J. Scott:yes wolf
Nathalie Peregrine:Please mention ICANN if there is an issue
Nathalie Peregrine:I am raising a ticket about this, apologies for the
inconvenience
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back
Alan Greenberg:Good luck on staying.
Wolf Knoben:I was calling the wrong operator
Nathalie Peregrine:I'll cancel that ticket for now :)
Nathalie Peregrine:Amr Elsadr has joined the AC room
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I have had this "not getting through to my Number issues
before " as has Holly I think it has to do with some auto system they use
humans always get through it seems
Amr Elsadr:Sorry for being late. Dialling in now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr:sorry that last was for Nathalie not the WG
Amr Elsadr:"thick" whois IRT.
Alan Greenberg:I think that we have consistantly been using IRTs since PEDNR.
Amr Elsadr:A potential substitute for GNSO Consensus: A position where, only
a small minority disagrees, but most agree after all views on a matter have
been expressed, understood, documented and discussed to the satisfaction of the
participants of a GNSO Working Group.
Michael Graham:I agree with Alan's suggestion re: completion rather than
time. (sorry for not using his exact term that I agree with.
Michael Graham:could agree with Amr revision.
J. Scott:Amr's definition could be a slippery slope. the disagreable parties
are never going be satisfied.
Michael Graham:@JScott concern noted.
Amr Elsadr:@J. Scott: The definition includes "small minority disagrees" and
"all views on a matter have been expressed, understood, documented" in
reference to Avri's previous comment of documenting and reporting minority
statements.
J. Scott:Isn't at length superfluous? Just delete it.
Michael Graham:+1
Amr Elsadr:I'm also fine with just removing at length.
Amr Elsadr:@Michael: +1. It doesn't seem like a bad place to start at the
time being.
Nic Steinbach:from a procedural standpoint - how will the definitions change
after that deadline?
Greg Shatan:On no. 6, "all views" is a little strong -- perhaps a "range of
views" would be better.
Nic Steinbach:instead of change, I should say "evolve"
Michael Graham:agree
Nic Steinbach:question answered. thanks.
Michael Graham:have to leave adobe -- phone off in 15. thanks to all on
definitions subteam and commenters. thanks!
Kristina Rosette:Sorry. Had to drop temporarily. May I suggest that, where
we're adopting a definition that is different from a definition used elsewhere
in ICANN that we flag the fact that we're doing so? for example, definition #6
includes the GNSO Working Group guidelines defiinition, but expands beyond it
to include other material from the WG Guidelines. It would be helpful to note
that somewhere for "legislative history" purposes. Otherwise, it has the
potential to become very confusing in the future.
Marika Konings:@Kristina, we've put the quoted language between " " and added
the following footnote to clarify that this specific part of from the GNSO WG
Guidelines (see footnote nr. 7)
Greg Shatan:Agree with Kristina and as a member of the subteam on the SCI
with Amr. There are formal GNSO Definitions and then there are our own
'working definitions".
Marika Konings:Greg, that same footnote also clarifies that 'In addition to
“consensus” there are also also other designations referring to degrees of
agreement defined in a GNSO context such as: full consensus; and strong support
but significant opposition. For further details, please see section 3.6 of the
GNSO Working Group Guidelines. Also note that consensus may have different
meanings outside of the GNSO context.'
Amr Elsadr:If we do present an update on the working definitions, we might
want to briefly explain why we decided to leave out some of the terms suggested
to be defined during the BA f2f.
Alan Greenberg:@Amr, sure, but I don't think that we need to dwell on it.
Amr Elsadr:@Alan. Absolutely agree. Just a suggestion in case some of the
same folks who made those suggestions are present.
Attachment:
smime.p7s |