[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 17 September 2014
Dear All, The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled next week on Wednesday 24 September at 19:00 UTC for 1 hour. Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group call held on Wednesday 17 September 2014 at 19:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20140917-en.mp3 On page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At-Large Olevie Kouami - NPOC Greg Shatan-IPC Chuck Gomes - RySG Avri Doria-NCSG Stephanie Perrin - NCUC Alan Greenberg-ALAC Michael Graham - IPC Jonathan Frost - RySG Apologies: Mary Wong ICANN staff: Amy Bivins Marika Konings Karen Lentz Berry Cobb Steve Chan Nathalie Peregrine ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag> https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag Thank you. Kind regards, Nathalie Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 17 September Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation Working Group Meeting of 17 September 2014 Olevie:i've joined Nathalie Peregrine:Stephanie Perrin has joined the AC room Alan Greenberg:hVE TO STEP AWAY FOR A MOMENT Jonathan Frost:Stepping away momentarily also Michael R. Graham:Following is an attempt to conform Avri's "first noticer" rationale with Alan's "final responsibility" concern: "In any case where the [Staff, or GNSO or its representative or IRT determines that the] intention of the GNSO, as interpreted [or applied] by the ICANN Staff, does not correspond to a strict interpretation of the recommendation text itself, the Staff should [be required to] consult with the GNSO for clarification." Michael R. Graham:@Marika: Is it more "understanding" than "interpretation"? Olevie:There is a difference Greg Shatan:Waiting to get in.... Avri Doria:understanding is more subjective that interpretation. i beleive people know when they are deviating from strict interpretation of words on a page. Stephanie Perrin:sorry dropped off for a while, no idea why... Alan Greenberg:bck - sorry got a phone call I had to take. Avri Doria:... subjective than interprettation ... Olevie:interpretation Alan Greenberg:WhAR SECTION ARE WE AT? Marika Konings:II. B Alan Greenberg:What... Alan Greenberg:Thanks Olevie:it's more objective Michael R. Graham:@Avri -- I would agree, except I believe "interpretation" is an application of subjective understanding in a more formatlized way. Avri Doria:alan we are dealing with your objection to my offered rewording. Avri Doria:i did not say constructivist interpetation Michael R. Graham:@Alan -- I'd put "strict interpretation" in the same verbal/rhetorical purgatory and "original intention". Michael R. Graham:"as" not "and" -- sorry Greg Shatan:Don't know what constructivist interpretation is.... Olevie:@Greg : thre is a non-constructivist interpretation Jonathan Frost:+1 on congrats Avri Doria:of course i meant constructionsit. but thowing in privacy into the discussion was brilliant polemics. Karen Lentz:Agreed on congratulations to Alan Michael R. Graham:+1 Avri Doria:i beleive that strict interpretation means doing whatt the words on the paper say. Avri Doria:and that is what i think should be the standard. Olevie:+1 @Avri Avri Doria:and any deviation requires discussion Michael R. Graham:@Avri -- Where there is only a single possible interpretation, I would agree. But (rhetorically) how often does that happen? Greg Shatan:@Olevie ; Don't know what that is either.... Avri Doria:without an additon, yes Olevie:@Greg : Any non-constructivist interpretation is an understanding Avri Doria:if they are accountable, what sort of action can we take. do we ned to take? Avri Doria:holding the staff accountable means we can list it as an issue oin the ATRT every 3 years. Michael R. Graham:@Avri -- LOL Greg Shatan:Unless the policy is implementable as is, there will be a need to interpolate, expand upon and interpret the policy. Olevie:I agree with Greg Avri Doria:and if they need to interpolate they need to check bakk. or we need to be better at policing. Karen Lentz:yes - dialogue could start by either party Avri Doria:doubt is relative Avri Doria:interpolation is objective Greg Shatan:Interpolation is the essence of implementation. Greg Shatan:Extrapolation on the other hand would be an issue.... Stephanie Perrin:how is staff held accountable? Is it in their contracts, or is their a policy somewhere? Pardon my ignorance. Karen Lentz:@Stephanie, the Bylaws provide specify mission and core values for ICANN's operations, as well as providing for certain accountability mechanisms, e.g., reconsideration, ombudsman,independent review Karen Lentz:yes Olevie:The flow is normal Avri Doria:owenership???? Marika Konings:@Avri - as in project owner Avri Doria:pardon the extra e. Avri Doria:i tink words like ownership might be part of the probleem. Avri Doria:thanks Avri Doria:i have multiple mutes set to avoid having another cmment escape my lips. Olevie::-) Karen Lentz:ok with that Greg Shatan:It's all a question of vocabulary. Academisc , business, lawyers, consultants all have natural vocabularies. Greg Shatan:just a side comment.... Avri Doria:they can help with the interpretations? Avri Doria:does J mean all SO SG are equal except some are more equal than others? Avri Doria:there is already SO Avri Doria:in E Avri Doria:J is inapporpaite as well as the additon of contracted parties in the earlier line. Michael R. Graham:I would not add "non-contracted" but would remove the last sentence of J -- which can be said of all members of the ICANN community. Greg Shatan:@Michael: Why keep the first sentence? Avri Doria:it was accidnetal. i said all i have to say in the chat. Michael R. Graham:Compromise -- it does describe their relation to the implementation of policies. But I see your point. Avri Doria:i agree with removing the previous reference that served to prompt this. Olevie:@Avri : you've feed me with your inputs Olevie:Tahnk you Cheryl Langdon-Orr:remove all of j Greg Shatan:+1 to Animal Farm reference Avri Doria:remove j and the earlier reference that Chuck added. Cheryl Langdon-Orr: have to take another call I have 3 back to back today Cheryl Langdon-Orr:got to leave just before top of the hour Michael R. Graham:Agree with Avri. As to reference in D --I agree with Chuck's concerns, but do not believe it necessary to call out contracted parties for membership -- unless we establish a proportional or representational membership of IRTs. Avri Doria:i would be happy to see implementers replace contracted parties. Avri Doria:in d Cheryl Langdon-Orr:have left audio. taking my next call bye Karen Lentz:Thanks Chuck - we did discuss that input and would like to discuss further with the group - hope that can be on next call Greg Shatan:or Stakeholders? Olevie:Bye CLO Olevie:Thanks Avri Doria:bye Olevie:ok Olevie:bye bye Jonathan Frost:thanks Attachment:
smime.p7s |