RE: [soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- To: "Margie Milam" <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>, "soac-mapo" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 03:33:08 -0400
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.
> -----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 Milam
> Senior Policy Counselor
> -----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
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Hello everyone - sorry for delay in
> 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
> 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
> 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
> Konstantinos Komaitis:i would think that all governmental/public
> institutions should be able to raise objections on behalf of their
> 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
> 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
> 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)
> 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..