[soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Attached is the chat transcript from today's call.

Best regards,

Margie


-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 8:19 AM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

  avri:hi,  i can't join the call, but i can probably follow the adobe.
  avri:though i may be moving from one meeting room to another in the middle.
  CLO:reat  thanks Avri  we'll do our bewst to type away here...
  CLO:reat = Great
  avri:thanks.  but just looking at the document and following whatever chat is 
going on should do.
  Dave Kissoondoyal:Hello everybody
  liang:there are some problems with my handphone:(
  Mary W:Good morning/afternoon/evening/whatever time it is, everyone
  Konstantinos Komaitis:good morning everybody - apologies for being late
  Richard Tindal:I have no objection to that
  Milton:agree with Richard about other objections
  Milton:Alan is right
  Richard Tindal:Advisory Commitees is correct
  Milton:ACs are defined, ag's are not
  Stuart Lawley:i Agree with Richard, a GAC/ALAC objection should go through 
IO, as the IO will have the $$$ and drafting skills to follow the objection 
through
  Philip:I believe I said that earlier !
  Stuart Lawley:After all the DSRP will need to be paid, so the IO (via ICANN) 
will pay the fees for GAC/ALAC
  Richard Tindal:Bertrand - is that situation IO would have to make a judgment 
whether or not to pursue the claim
  Alan Greenberg:@Olivier: demanding unanimity from the GAC (or ANYONE) 
effectively says that tool has no value.
  Richard Tindal:on the other hand, you're not in chat so forget that
  Stuart Lawley:the DSRP will need to be paid in all cases, so i think ALL such 
objections will need to go through Io IMHO
  Stuart Lawley:so individual governemnets COULD encourage the IO to object but 
the IO would need to make a judgement call, whereas a GAC consensus objection 
they would be obliged to file
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@milton - i agree. the process of governmental 
objections should be clear...
  Richard Tindal:Milton - implicit in that is that IO could decide not to 
proceed with individual Govt claim,  correct?
  Philip:agree butwe are detractingfrom clariy right now
  Milton:Richard\, yes
  Richard Tindal:that works
  Richard Tindal:Full GAC triggers obligatory action from IO
  Milton:Yes, Evan
  avri:that was a question i had.  could the IO say no to an AC objection?
  Richard Tindal:Single of few Govt triggers IO review and decision whether or 
not to file
  Stuart Lawley:@Richard- I am with you on that
  Milton:if the ACs' objections are part of the new TLD implementation, we CAN 
tell the ACs what criteria they must meet 
  Mary W:Milton, Richard - so individual govts have 2 go thru the Community 
Objection process for nat'l law objections, and only go thru the Ordre Publique 
objections when it raises international law principles. Right?
  Philip:Empowering the IO to reject means de factor they become the DRSP - bad 
idea
  Milton:@Philip : ??
  Richard Tindal:Mary - Individual Govts could request IO action on Ordre 
Punblic - but if IO doesnt believe the claim meets the standard IO is not 
obligated to proceed
  avri:Phillip: Ok.  i was just wondering.  So the IO is really just a 
processor of the AC's objection on OP based objections
  Milton:Yes, Mary.
  Mary W:Thx, juz wanted to confirm that's the case 
  Alan Greenberg:+1
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i agree with bertrand here 
  Evan Leibovitch:+1
  Richard Tindal:Community Objection is only useful when the string invokes 
some group   There can potentially be strings that are seen to breach 
princiuples of law but dont identify a group
  Evan Leibovitch:just got cut off!
  Milton:get back on, Evan
  CLO:getting you back Evan
  Evan Leibovitch:that hasn't happened to me before. 
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:I'm finally connected on the Adobe. I agree with 
richard's proposal of a list of alternatives
  Evan Leibovitch:back now
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:As long as "Ordre Public" is spelt with a "c" and not 
"que" :-)
  Philip:got to go now - the BC  beckons
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i stand corrected Olivier - that is my poor French :)
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:common error, judging from the millions of hits on 
google.
  Milton:Evan: NO, because "public policy" can mean anything and everything
  Mary W:Evan et al, the MAPO objection process IS abt public international 
law, NOT abt letting anyone air objections based on sensitivities.
  Milton:Mary: +1
  Milton:We must rely on "legalism" we have nothing else to go on
  CLO:Should eb Prinipals of International Law
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i would scrap off 'general' 
  Konstantinos Komaitis:yes milton
  Krista Papac:apologies for joining the call late
  Richard Tindal:Frank - are you able to comment on what Bertrand just said?
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@richard and @frank : if what I tried to say was 
clear enough ...:-)
  Richard Tindal:it was clear
  Milton:Chuck: we dont need it
  Konstantinos Komaitis:as a compromise: why don't we cross-reference it with 
the community objection?
  Mary W:Richard, that's true.
  Richard Tindal:on this issue - lets spell out some options
  Evan Leibovitch:is the exact wording of this item 4 listed in margie's 
document?
  Milton:Alan, Bertrand, should you lower your hand?
  Milton:@Evan, must make it clear that "objection" does not mean "request for 
Board to veto"
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:I am even thinking that the four major objections 
(legal rights, principles of international law, geographic and community) could 
actually be considered the four legs of a general set of "public interst 
objections". 
  Milton:I will never accept "public interest objections" as a term
  Evan Leibovitch:@milton: agree. as I said, only a small subset of objections 
should be able to pass a quick look vetting
  Mary W:How about "A determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be 
contrary to specific principles of international law as reflected in relevant 
international treaties"?
  Richard Tindal:Bertrand - one of GACs concerns is 'culturally' objectionable 
strings
  Milton:@Evan, no i dont mean that the objections are weeded out through quick 
look - i mean that it is made clear to the objector that the objection channel 
(national) does not lead to a veto under any circumstances
  CLO:I'm being called away => sorry I'll have to leave the call now  @Frank 
can you watch the chat in the room please  and prompt Chuck if there is 
something we need to note for the recording  and  as I may not get to dial back 
in... I'll catch you aklk again online and on Monday's call...
  Milton:where are we on the string vs. string+applicant+use issue? This 
relates to "incitement"
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@ richard, thanks for your better memory : I think 
the "cultural" aspect can be covered somehow (maybe not entirely) by the 
community objection. the only difference is that the community objection says 
"detriment" when cultural sensitivities would rather use "offensive to the 
community" which is likely too strong and open for Milton and Robin. 
  Milton:i didn't see much of a big difference between what mary and what KK 
said about incitement
  Mary W:Milton, Konstantinos is proposing replacing "incitement" with a 
different word, while I'm ok with using "incitement". I'm suggesting, instead, 
that the 2nd word, "promotion", be removed entirely.
  Richard Tindal:Bertrand - Agree.  where Community may not be adequate is 
where term is repugnant but does not invoke some specific group (community)
  Richard Tindal:I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that GAC intent is for 
'cultural'  to cover that scenario
  Margie Milam:Bertrandt-  is it in Recommendation 4.1---
  Margie Milam:no thats not in--  will include it in string only section
  Jon Nevett:I agree with Philip on this one -- I don't think that we should 
comment on the DRSP at all
  Alan Greenberg:Do we really need to recommend the DRSP?  Presumably it will 
be subject to a contract and could change over time/
  Evan Leibovitch:BTW. I don't know about others, but I have a hard stop at the 
top of the hour. There is another AC/SO group that starts immediately.
  Richard Tindal:ICANN has, I believe, solicited bids on DRSPs and may already 
have contracts
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i would also have an objection on the community DRSP - 
the iCC should not be used for either type of objections
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@bertrand: we need a perminent body: we need to ensure 
consistency especially for these types of disputes.
  Dave Kissoondoyal:I think that whichever body chosen should not have any 
commercial gains at all
  Jon Nevett:talking about qualities we think are important are ok, but not the 
specific providers
  Richard Tindal:Jon +1
  Margie Milam:Please refer to Recommendation 4.1 for this discussion
  Milton:4.1 has brackets around [make a recommendation] vs [provide expert 
advice]. I could support "advice" but i want two things: a) the Board 
ultimately decides to veto a TLD based on these objections, and b) a veto 
decision must be a supermajority
  Milton:chuck, see my comment above
  Milton:"advice" is acceptable to me, "recommendation or decision" is not
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@milton: +1
  Milton:Monday is first day of IGF
  Jon Nevett:i see "advice" and "recommendation" as a distinction without a 
difference -- I agree "decision" should not be used.
  Milton:I see the distinction. Advice does not require the DRSP to say whether 
to veto or not - it can just say, "here are the relevant considerations and 
precedents"
  Milton:+1 Evan
  Milton:that makes a lot more sense
  Jon Nevett:we recommend that the Board not veto and we advise that the Board 
not veto is no different to me, so I guess we should agree to disagree on that 
one.
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@evan: +1
  Mary W:On 4.1: can we say (for the square brackets part) ''charged with 
administering the procedural aspects of objection proceedings, as provided for 
in AGBv4, including recommending relevant Experts to determine the outcome of 
an objection. It is understood that the DRSP will not be providing any 
recommendations or advice to the Board regarding the outcome of an objection 
proceeding.''?
  Milton:The issue is, does theBoard "overturn" the recommendation of the DRSP 
to veto using a 3/4 majority, or does the board take the DRSP recommendation 
into advisement and then have a supermajority vote ON ITS OWN to veto or not
  Milton:May, yes, that's what I am looking for.
  Milton:Mary, not May
  Mary W:Margie, can u insert my proposed language as an option into Rec. 4.1?
  Milton:Jon, the difference is that a DRSP is not accountable to anyone for 
its decision. Indeed, it gets paid for handling disputes, and thus has a vested 
interest in encouraging entities to file disputes by making them successful 
more often than they ought to be
  Jon Nevett:Milton, you place greater weight in the word "recommendation" than 
I do.  I don't think that recommendations can be overturned.  With that said, I 
don't think that we disagree on the intent -- just the wording.
  Milton:Look at Rec 14.1, Jon
  Milton:14.1 is defined as the Board "approving or rejecting decisions by the 
DRSP"
  Margie Milam:@Mary-  yes i have your  language for 4.1 to insert there
  Milton:I strongly object to 14.1. That outsources the decision completely, 
and allows the Board to hide behind a DRSP with a vested interest in vetoing 
applications
  Evan Leibovitch:I gotta go. I'm co-chairing a different AC/SO group.
  Evan Leibovitch:how long will this call be lasting?
  Milton:eternity
  Milton::-)
  Konstantinos Komaitis::)
  Milton:So, Jon Nevett, Richard: 14.1 explicitly uses the word "decisions" wrt 
the DRSP and uses it as a synonym for "recommendations". Do you understand my 
concerns better now? 
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:This is probably an oversight
  Jon Nevett:yes -- I agree that the wording should be changed to advice or 
using the word recommendation properly :-) 
  Milton:good, thanks
  Milton:14.1 was strongly coloring my reading of 4.1
  Richard Tindal:yes  DRSP recommends
  Milton:So wording of 14 should be chagned to: Threshold for Board decisions 
to reject an application based on objections"
  Milton:i.e. the Label or heading of 14
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:But I wonder whether the need of a supermajority board 
approval to decide against the DRSP decisions weakens the wording of Rec. 4.1 
saying "As in all other areas of ICANN policy the Board will ultimately decide 
whether to adopt or reject the recommendation of the DRSP". Does the 
requirement for a supermajority run the risk of biasing the decision?
  Margie Milam:I'll try to reorder the recommendations and have 14.1 and 4.1 be 
close together so you can read them together and make the wording changes 
suggested by Milton
  Milton:Not at all
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Thanks Margie
  Milton:The idea is that if something is really so repugnant on an 
international basis to not be allowed to exist, a supermajority is required. 
There are all kinds of supermajority requirements on board voting
  Alan Greenberg:Also another meeting has started which avri is involved with.
  avri:except that she isn't in that one yet.
  Alan Greenberg:ok  ;-)
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:+ age was also mentioned
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:looks that this is going in a right direction
  avri:i included it in a later version
  Milton:thanks
  Richard Tindal:presumably age was not found by ICANNs expert advisors to have 
sufficient 'universal' coverage
  Milton:gotta go
  Richard Tindal:Sounds good Margie
  Konstantinos Komaitis:sounds good margie
  Richard Tindal:excellent job Chuck
  Dave Kissoondoyal:Thanks a lot
  Dave Kissoondoyal:bye
  liang:3ks