RE: [soac-mapo] Chat from today's call attached for your reference

["Vanda UOL" <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Liz, very useful – I could not participate but Alan & CLO are more
than able to fulfill any absence of ALAC person.

 Best,

 

 Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend

 Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8

Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253

Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464

 

 

 

From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 6:42 PM
To: soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [soac-mapo] Chat from today's call attached for your reference

 

All, following is the chat from today’s call.  I’ll be sending out a clean
version of the draft Charter Terms of Reference shortly.

 

Best, Liz

 

CLO: Hi all

richard tindal: Hello

avri: hi

richard tindal: whats the election outcome in Oz?   still hung?

paul stahura: hello

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Hi everybody

CLO: Hello all

CLO: Yes @Richard  still Hung

ken stubbs: hello all

dirk krischenowski 2: hello from berlin

Jothan Frakes: hello everyone and I appreciate we can talk about this s**t

Jothan Frakes: (sort)

Alan Greenberg: We seem to have some sort of music and dishwashing in the
background.

Jothan Frakes: of stuff

Robin Gross: correction: I'm not chair of NCSG

avri: Robin: i think she was saying that you are of the NCSG and chair of
the NCUC

CLO: I'll  mention here if either Evan or Carlton want to get to the
speaking list

ken stubbs: what was the last historical precedent ?

Alan Greenberg: ALAC tomorrow for most of us...

CLO: we in the antipodes are ahead of you all ;-)

Alan Greenberg: Goes without saying that most of us may be members of
something but are here at the moment on our own behalf only.

CLO: indeed Alan

Gisella Gruber-White: Apologies from: Michele Neylon, Caroline Greer and
Heather Dryden

CLO: Evan  wishes to speak

avri: we have joint SSac and GNSO , CCSNO and GNEO, ALAC and GNSO all going
on now.

avri: in other cross community groups, we have gotten all the relevant SOAC
to act as chartering organizations and to agree to the charter/ToR.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: support for including a reference to an ALAC
position

CLO: We can make sure these BG docs  get linked to the Confluence Wiki page
as well (ref to Evan's point)

avri: do we have this page yet?

Robin Gross: NCUC made some statements on Rec6 (minority reports) that we
should add to the reference materials on the issue.

avri: yes, and it will be important to deal with the fact that GAC and ALAC
advice are not in agreement.

Carlton Samuels: Yes indeed!

Jothan Frakes: +1 marilyn

ken stubbs: +1

Carlton Samuels: +1 to Marilyn's principle

CLO: Page is set up  but need the ToR's to finalise state to put up  then
good to go

Bertrand de La Chapelle: but the joint ALAC-GAC sessions on that topic in
Mexico, Nairobi (smaller group) and most importantly in Brussels showed very
interesting interaction and maybe less misunderstanding that could be
anticipated. Let's hope....

Jothan Frakes: so let's say hypothetically that we worked out the logistics
of how we're represented in the first 45 minutes, what is the likelihood we
might talk some substance?

ken stubbs: +1 council comment

CLO: I'll ask  Glen to send the list email details to IT for list
subscribers to log into this page

Alan Greenberg: Both GAC and ALAC are generally against current wording, but
not necessarily in agreement with where we should go next.

Jothan Frakes: Liz that sounded like it captured the benefit of Marilyn's
suggestion

Bertrand de La Chapelle: you may be right, alan. Let's see how we
collectively handle it.

avri: Alan: yes they seem to both want it changed, but seem to have a very
different set of changes in mind.

Jothan Frakes: off topic:  Liz is awesome

Carlton Samuels: the thinking was 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', not
a bosom pal

Jothan Frakes: deserves some kudos for some last minute heroism leading into
this call in getting this document together

Carlton Samuels: we ALAC are looking for allies that are firstly opposed on
the principle but the priority of the premises for opposition may differ

avri: yes, iwas the new gtld - that is what they were called in that report

Alan Greenberg: There should be a reference to the GNSO policy document and
the specific principle/rec. in a footnote.

avri: we just need a reference to explain that

richard tindal: yes,  by all means lets footnote the actual principle or
recommendation

Jon N: wow -- only 3 years ago!

Bertrand de La Chapelle: support Marilyn's idea. We could say for instance
''as noted in recommendation 4 of Reference document 1 above'')

avri: Jon 3 and counting

Jothan Frakes: lol Jon.   New TLD years work exactly opposite of how Dog
years do

Bill Drake: Preserving doesn't work

Alan Greenberg: Universal resolvability is not an ICANN principle, but the
concept of using blocking to address issues has generally been something
that we do NOT advocate or even mention.

Alan Greenberg: that should have been blocking of ''names''

richard tindal: Bertrands proposal is sensible

CLO: I'm comfortable with that approach of @Bertrand 

Robin Gross: no international standards

Bill Drake: agreed

Gisella Gruber-White: Please state your names before speaking for transcript
purposes - especially with the large number of participants - thank you!

Mary W: Rec 6 does NOT necessarily assume there are such universal
standards, only that - to the extent there are (and some of us do not think
there are) - that strings not contravene them. In other words, Rec 6 is
pretty open-ended and does not rest on an assumption that there is, or can
be, a definition for MAPO.

paul stahura: i agree with changing ''recommend'' to ''consider''

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Consider is good. could it be ''consider possible
alternative formulations than universal principles of morality and public
order''

Alan Greenberg: Technically, according to the ICANN Bylaws, I am not a GNSO
Councillor, so perhaps I could be forgiven. Not did I have a vote at the
time it was approved.

Mary W: I agree with Avri 100%

Bill Drake: Me too but even illegal can be dicey

Robin Gross: at least ''illegal'' would be objective

Mary W: It's at least more precise (for the most part) and less subjective,
Bill.

Robin Gross: we need objective standards 

Stuart Lawley- ICM: I agree with Avri but the GAc is coming from a whole
different direction on this

Bill Drake: Legal in country x?

Robin Gross: sensitivities is too broad, too vague - too subjective

Robin Gross: Bill, Legal in the country that applies in the situation

Mary W: It was from the GAC

Bill Drake: So if Pakistani courts rule .drawmohammed to be illegal because
it's sensitive, what's the difference?

Mary W: And then the Danish courts rule that it's sensitive but NOT illegal
...

Alan Greenberg: There was a huge discussion in the GNSO at the time about
illegal and eventually it as decided that it was unworkable.

Robin Gross: it is no different than the current law and practice - if it is
illegal, registrars won't do it. 

avri: Tat was why we came up with the MaPO compromise.

richard tindal: I think Bertrand’s idea has potential

Robin Gross: I disagree the GNSO decided it was ''unworkable'' to allow
national law to govern.  

Bertrand de La Chapelle: it would be : ''2. Consider possible alternative
formulations to the term ''international principles of morality and public
order'' used in the DAG''

richard tindal: Good for me

Bertrand de La Chapelle: mary's proposal is elegant

Mary W: Ooh I feel good :)

Stéphane Van Gelder: On excellent form as usual Mary, well done ;)

Jothan Frakes: Nice one Mary

Mary W: Awww u guys ... thx

Robin Gross: At-Large & NCUC have objected to Rec 6 from the beginning also.

Robin Gross: I also believe the statement be there to show ICANN will adhere
to principles of international law - not only bylaws.

Stéphane Van Gelder: Robin, NCUC is part of the GNSO Council is it not? The
GNSO recommendations were adopted by a supermajority vote of the Council...

avri: Stéphane - are you saying that once a vote is taken in the GNSO, no
one can disagree with it and bring up the issues they had with it?  ie. that
the GNSO must have a unified front attitude.  

Robin Gross: can I get in queue please?

Stuart Lawley- ICM: the statement is in ICANNS articles of incorporation NOt
its bylaws

Stéphane Van Gelder: No. I am reacting to the comment, from a GNSO
constituency, that ''we were against this all along''...

Alan Greenberg: And they were!  Just a statement of fact.

Bertrand de La Chapelle: Stuart is right. I said it in the commentary : it
is Article 4 of the Articles of Incorporation

Alan Greenberg: Not a Bylaw!!  Bylaws can be changes by us alone, Articles
of Incorporation have more rigidity.

Robin Gross: but Stephane, we were against this along!

Robin Gross: we lost, but we were against it all along!

avri: sorry i got that wrong - bylaws vs. Articles.  i think my point still
holds.  and we mention very rarely that we plan to live up to them.

Bill Drake: It's worth saying this, in some intergovernmental settings
there've been questions raised as to whether ICANN complies with
international law. 

Stéphane Van Gelder: OK, thanks Robin, I did not realize the NCUC was
against it all along.

Robin Gross: Thanks, Stephane, then I guess I didn't do a good job of making
folks aware of it?  :-)

avri: Stéphen some not only voted against the new gTLD recommendations, but
also filed a minority report.

Stuart Lawley- ICM: @Bill: the IRP definitely ruled that icann was subject
to international law

avri: i mean Stéphane . apologies

Stéphane Van Gelder: Avri, was there one from the NCUC on Rec6?

avri: a minority statement?  yes

Stéphane Van Gelder: no prob Bertrand ;)

Robin Gross: Stephane, NCUC Statement on Rec 6:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc48
210873

Stéphane Van Gelder: Thanks to you both, Avri and Robin

Bertrand de La Chapelle: @Bill : I encourage you  - if you have not done it
- to read the relevant part of the IRP auditions. Very interesting debate.

Robin Gross: and an earlier NCUC statement against Rec 6:
http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/20/domain-names-are-bigger-than-trademarks-i
canns-new-consumer-protection-role/

richard tindal: nice job Chuck

richard tindal: and all

Stéphane Van Gelder: I have read the first statement and I stand corrected,
the NCUC was indeed very clear in its opposition.

Robin Gross: sorry, the last link was on trademarks, not mapo

Bertrand de La Chapelle: nice job

Jothan Frakes: thank you everyone

Mary W: See you all soon and thanks!

Robin Gross: thank you all - good start

Stéphane Van Gelder: Thanks to all, well done the co-chairs!

CLO: If we can have the edits FINALISED for the ToR's  OK for the ALAC
meeting at 1400 UTC please  that would be VERY helful for our Agenda

CLO: Thanks everyone

Liz Gasster: yes, please send link to ALAC statement and I can do now

Liz Gasster: send out again at least...

CLO: I'v e sent that as an AI to our staff  chat

avri: Stéphane btw, i was not part of the NCUC at that time, though i do
recall as i was chairing at the time

CLO: Matthias should pick that up  but  just insert a placeholder for now
Liz

Liz Gasster: ok

 

Liz Gasster

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN