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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In reviewing the chat from our Wednesday meeting, I noted the following 
question: " Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Do any governments have the possibility to 
file an objection, or only governments represented at the GAC?"

I notice that several participants responded to this question but I thought I 
would also respond after the fact in case the answers were not clear to all: To 
my knowledge, there is no requirement in the GNSO Final Report nor in AGv4 that 
a government has to be a member of the GAC to file a complaint.

Chuck

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Margie Milam
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 3:37 PM
> To: soac-mapo
> Subject: [soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript
> from CWG-Rec6
> 
> 
> 
> Dear All-
> 
> Please find below the chat transcript from yesterday's CWG-Rec6 call.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Margie
> _____________
> 
> Margie Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> ICANN
> _____________
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:36 PM
> To: Margie Milam
> Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
> 
>   liang:thanks
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Hello everyone - sorry for delay in
> connecting.
>   Stuart Lawley:Section 2.3 the date of the GAc letter was 4th August
> not 5th August as stated in the draft
>   CLO:well spotted @Stuart
>   Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:apologies for joining late (caught in an
> other conference call) ....
>   Margie Milam:Thanks Stuart
>   Margie Milam:I'll change that
>   Jon Nevett:Agree with Chuck
>   Jon Nevett:Why does it need a formal endorsement?
>   Margie Milam:I'll do it
>   CLO:Just as a suggestion  I would put the purpose of the group (
> verbatim) from the ToR 'up front'  in the report as part of an
> Executive Summary...
>   Margie Milam:@clo- good suggestion-  I'll try to pull up language
> from the TOR into the Exec Summary
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:yes chuck..i think we need to make a
> distinction and try to see what falls under which objection
>   CLO:Happy to add the 15th thread
>   CLO:Yes  the informastion (when we get it) from Kurt must be
> referenced/ integrated...
>   CLO:+1 Bertrand
>   Jamie Wagner:My first reaction is to wellcome this 15th thread
>   richard Tindal:Bertrand - Agree.  Community Objection is avery useful
> tool
>   Jamie Wagner:It seems to me that Bertrand is referring the "use" of
> the community objection process to acommodate a local or national
> objection. Am I right?
>   richard Tindal:Yes
>   Jamie Wagner:tks
>   Carlton Samuels:Stay out!
>   Jon Nevett:Richard +1
>   Stuart Lawley:@richard +1
>   Carlton Samuels:Richard +1
>   Stuart Lawley:@ bertrand- a fine line, but I agree
>   CLO:I agree @Frank lets be SPECIFIC  on this matter of COntnet Issues
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:i also agree with Frank's proposition
>   Carlton Samuels:Clarify then: the whole afair rests on the semantic
> value of the string...which extends to a sense of the content...an a
> priori decision, no?
>   Jamie Wagner:we should make a thorough distinction between content
> and context (just one letter, but...:-)
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:frank raised the issue of content in relation
> to ICANN not the DRSP
>   Carlton Samuels:ah yes, Jamie..content allied to context!
>   Jamie Wagner:I think the right word is not context, but intent
>   Jamie Wagner:stated intent
>   Carlton Samuels:an extreme example...and to use an explosive
> one..what if a 'known' anti-racist group appropriated the string "nazi'
> for use in anti-nazi messaging...
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Context vs. Content: I understand Bertrand's
> point. ICANN will need to definitely stay out of "content", but how
> does it make sure that "context" as given by applicants will actually
> match the content's context, once the Web sites are up and running,
> after the launch of the gTLD?
>   Jamie Wagner:that´s a matter of compliance - different problem
>   Stuart Lawley:@ carlton and the opposite example , would it MATTER
> who applied for .kkk? the internation Klansman association or krispy
> kreme kooks?
>   richard Tindal:its information for DRSP to make a contextual decision
>   Stuart Lawley:@ richard -that needs to be made clear, I think the
> group has mixed ideas about this
>   CLO:Yes @Richard
>   Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:A formulation could be : "the DRSP should
> conduct its analysis on the basis of the string in itself. It could, if
> needed, use as additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as
> stated in the application"
>   richard Tindal:I believe the DAG already says that - but lets clarify
> and put statement in our report as needed
>   Stuart Lawley:acronyms will give make this call a nightmare
>   Stuart Lawley:of "stated purpose" , particulalry for non-community
> applicants with no restrictions
>   Carlton Samuels:On outsourcing @Philip +1
>   Carlton Samuels:But we must ensure "outsourcing' does not mean
> setting the DRSP as the decision-maker!
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:The Board needs to be able to do that.
>   richard Tindal:I think Board always has ultimate decision - for this
> issue and others in the DAG
>   CLO:Yes this loops back to the need for Majority decisions
>   Jamie Wagner:I go for Bertrand's formulation proposal on last topic
>   Jon Nevett:outsourcing for advice/recommendation is ok; outsourcing
> the decision is not ok
>   Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:+1, jon
>   Carlton Samuels:@Jon +1
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:+1 @jon
>   Jamie Wagner:+1 @jon
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:+1 @jon
>   Krista Papac:+1 @ jon
>   CLO:perhaps some language  with reference to this thread thast states
> the CWG specific concern that we (ICANN) must strive to preserve the
> principal of Universal Availability with blocking exceptions (where
> they occur) happening at the most distal (local Gov't) level...
>   Carlton Samuels:In fact confirming pariah status to those states that
> might block a whole TLD
>   CLO:Yes  what Bertrand  captured earlier will give us something to
> work with here
>   Carlton Samuels:come to think, might come out like the whole nuclear
> weapons thing
>   Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@Carlton : "In fact confirming pariah status
> to those states that might block a whole TLD, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF
> LAW" (sovereignty comes with responsibility)
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:+1 Bertrand. Make then stand out.
>   Carlton Samuels:Oh yes, I agree.
>   Carlton Samuels:But let us not blithely ignore the usual response of
> the guys redlined....whose law?
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:@bertrand: i think this last point encapsulates
> the whole idea. sovereignty does not give the right to nations to do
> whatever they want especially when there are issues of international
> concern as the one we are dicussing right now
> 
> 
>   Carlton Samuels:Unfortunately, that sometimes is about power..and the
> exercise thereof....ask the Antiguans re internet gambling, for
> example!
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:@carlton: you are very correct, i am just
> referring again to the way compliance in international law is operating
>   Stuart Lawley:@ chuck. that is correct
>   Stuart Lawley:@ richard- also correct
>   Stuart Lawley:YEs- two step
>   Stuart Lawley:initial filing fee, then a down payment of estimated
> charges
>   Konstantinos Komaitis:i would think that all governmental/public
> institutions should be able to raise objections on behalf of their
> government...
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Do any governments have the possibility to
> file an objection, or only governments represented at the GAC?
>   Carlton Samuels:But do you give weights to the complaint based on the
> objector status?
>   richard Tindal:anyone can Object
>   CLO:It would have to be ANY Gov't  as defined by GAC as "Govt"  I'd
> have thought
>   Carlton Samuels:Will we have objector classes that would change the
> threshold of concern?
>   richard Tindal:for this type of Objection anyone can file
>   Olivier Crépin-Leblond:but would government objections have special
> status?
>   Carlton Samuels:@Olivier..indeed!
>   Stuart Lawley:@ bertrand, would have to be very careful here not to
> breach btlaws against non-discriminatory treatment
>   richard Tindal:currently in the DAG it doesnt matter who the objector
> is -- rather its the merit of their argument
>   Stuart Lawley:one rule for one, a different riule for another, unless
> specifically explained upfront, very dangerous
>   Jamie Wagner:it seems that preserving the current spirit not to
> differentiate objectors
>   Jamie Wagner:is a good way to go
>   Carlton Samuels:Case in point..I recall a guy from the Polisario
> Front - from North Africa - trolling the halls at my 1st ICANN
> meeting....and getting very sympathetic responses to their situation...
>   Stuart Lawley:@richard, yes ICANN funds IO fees
>   Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@ richard, interesting idea to have the
> Independent objector be triggered by a GAC (or even ALAC) request
>   CLO:Yup
>   richard Tindal:I am also OK with GAC or ALAC being able to file
> Objection directly with no fee
>   CLO:Thanks@Richard....  BTW  this has been another ^Excellent
> Meeting^  on this important matter  we ARE progressing ( amaizingly)
> well...
>   Jon Nevett:or SSAC
>   CLO:AC's    yep
>   Jamie Wagner:I was disconnected, but think the call is almost over
>   Jamie Wagner:and I have some work to do in this half hour before
> Council call
>   Jamie Wagner:probably won't be able to join friday's call
>   CLO:Thanks all..