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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All- 
Here is the adobe chat transcript from Monday's CWG call.

Best Regards,
Margie

-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 4:15 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

  Chuck Gomes:Waiting for call
  Marika Konings:From the proposed GNSO Working Group Guidelines (version 31 
May 2010)Section 3.6 - Standard Methodology for Making DecisionsThe Chair will 
be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following 
designations:·     Full consensus – a position where no minority disagrees·     
Consensus - a position where a small minority disagrees but most agree·     No 
consensus but strong support for a specific position / recommendation but 
significant opposition·     Divergence – no strong support for a specific 
position / recommendation
  Evan Leibovitch:without giving numbers, the doodle poll gives a good idea of 
the breadth of consensus (or not) of each point
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:without giving numbers on each recommendations, it 
would be useful to say that 20 or so people participated in the online poll and 
X in today's call.
  Evan Leibovitch:d is not my first choice but it's acceptable.
  Sébastien:D
  CLO:I support  D
  Chuck Gomes:Chuck was disconnected
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:we get very bad signal, garbled
  Evan Leibovitch:i feel like I'm listening to air traffic control
  Richard Tindal:i hope ATC isnt that bad
  Gisella Gruber-White:Chuck is back on the call
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Can I ask a question,please?
  Evan Leibovitch:"rough" consensus? We've used that term in some meetings when 
support is widespread but not unanimous
  Marika Konings:Evan, please see the top of the chat window for the 
designations for levels of support as defined in the latest version of the GNSO 
Working Grouo Guidelines. 
  Marika Konings:There is unanimous consensus, consensus, no consensus but 
strong support but also significant opposition, and divergence
  Alan Greenberg:Different words are used in two consecutive recommendations. 
It should be clear that they are different. If we can elaborate, so much the 
better.
  Evan Leibovitch:The intention is that an "objection" indicates an intent to 
block, but a "notification" is not an attempt to block, but a notification to 
the applicant and the public that the proposed string is contrary to the 
government's perceived national interest.
  Evan Leibovitch:Is that clear/complete enough, Margie?
  CLO:I Agree with Bertrand here  SO  what do we do with  2.2  / 2.4
  Margie Milam:Evan-  I think thats fine
  CLO:???  Ditch 2.2 and leave in 2.4  ???  for discussion  Not a proposal as 
such
  Evan Leibovitch:brb
  Evan Leibovitch:back
  Margie Milam:Should individual governments have national public interest 
concerns based on specific national laws, such objections should be submitted 
through the Community & National Government Objections  procedure. 
  Mary W:Agree with Richard.
  Richard Tindal:bertrand  - understand what you are saying
  Alan Greenberg:Is the intent thatwe will continue until finished today?
  Richard Tindal:thanks Bertrabnd  Understood   USeful if other GAC persons 
could also comment on that - email or offline
  Richard Tindal:Alan - is correct
  Jon Nevett:Agree with Alan and this is 3.3 quick look procedure
  Richard Tindal:Jon +1
  Mary W:Jon, Richard - b/c it still has to contravene intl'l law
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i agree with evan here
  Richard Tindal:a national law objection may or may not meet global standard
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@ richard : this means that the country would say : 
it is contrary to my national law, which embodies an international principle
  Richard Tindal:yes
  Richard Tindal:All that aside   If a Government goes to the trouble of filing 
an Objection (which will be rare) it deserves a review against the standard - 
which it may or may not pass
  Richard Tindal:Chuck - agree
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@evan : I agree : the words frivoloous / abusive may 
be too strong
  Gisella Gruber-White:Robin Gross joined the call
  Alan Greenberg:Agree with Chuck
  Alan Greenberg:Everyone seems to agree with not using frivolous. Let's go on.
  Jon Nevett:In determining whether an objection passes the quick look test, 
there should be an evaluation of the grounds for the objection to see if they 
are valid.  National law not based on international principles should not be a 
valid ground for an objection.
  Mary W:Liz, Margie, Marika, Gisele - can Milton Mueller be called by the 
operator? +370 5 232 6650 
  Gisella Gruber-White:will do this Mary
  Gisella Gruber-White:Milton Muller has joined us on the call
  Gisella Gruber-White:Milton has disconnected
  Gisella Gruber-White:Apologies for the echo - from Milton's line - we are 
sorting this out
  Gisella Gruber-White:PLEASE state your names when speaking for transcript 
purposes - much appreciated.
  Richard Tindal:Im still getting echo
  Gisella Gruber-White:Yes Richard, from Milton's line - he will go on mute 
once he has spoken
  Gisella Gruber-White:He is in Vilnius
  Alan Greenberg:PLEASE MUTE WHOEVER IS  CAUSING ECHO.
  Evan Leibovitch:ECHO CHAMBER effect on CLO and Richard
  Evan Leibovitch:And Chuck
  Evan Leibovitch:milton's the only one not echoing :-)
  milton:we have to do another poll
  Evan Leibovitch:echo still on
  Alan Greenberg:but he is CAUSING the echo
  Konstantinos Komaitis:evan now we can hear perfectly
  milton:after 3 tries, the muting worked
  milton:sorry
  Gisella Gruber-White:We have MUTED Miilton's line (causing the echo)
  Alan Greenberg:+1
  Evan Leibovitch:not 4.1 ... ALL of section 4 needs a rework
  milton:agree with what Evan said
  Evan Leibovitch:I am prefectly happy to volunteer to work (with other 
preferably) on a rewording of Sec4
  Alan Greenberg:replace DRSP *everywhere* with expert panel
  milton:agree with Alan
  Alan Greenberg:If a Board wants to go it alone - fine!  
  Alan Greenberg:Any Board that wants to reasonably protect itself will likely 
ask for ADVICE, not just random thoughts.
  Margie Milam:Bylaws provision related to 
experts:http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XI-A
  Richard Tindal:Alan - as in a recommendation,  yes?
  CLO:Can Mary put her words  here or to the list as I would feel comfortable 
with such language being added into our Section 4.
  CLO:and it can reference  the link margie  just put oin here...
  Mary W:CLO, I'll try.
  Evan Leibovitch:@Jon: all that is unanimous (4.2) is that the name is wrong.
  milton:Evan is right - those who supported 4.1 always complained about the 
DRSP label
  Evan Leibovitch:sorry, not unanimous.
  Jon Nevett:right -- so my point is change DRSP name in 4.1 and be done with it
  Jon Nevett:4.1 was unanimous 20/20
  Mary W:In addition to the Board's ability to seek external expert advice 
under Article XI.A of the Bylaws, it may appoint a third party entity to 
administer the purely procedural aspects of an objection that has been filed. 
Such a provider shall be appointed under contract for a fixed period of time 
appropriate for the application timetable.
  Evan Leibovitch:I know when I supported it, I was thinking of the one 
critical bit... ultimate decision by the Board.
  CLO:Strong Support
  milton:18 of 21 is "strong support"?? Wow, what is "rough consensus?"
  Konstantinos Komaitis:yes chuck. we are on 5 now
  Evan Leibovitch:BTW, the call was for 90 min. How long are we going to go on? 
I have a hard stop at the top of the hour
  Margie Milam:Milton-  we dont do rough consensus anymore
  CLO:Because the Poll is NOT the whole group  were  running  18+ out of the 20 
as a Consensus  less than as Strong support
  Mary W:End 4.1 with "The third party provider shall not provide expert advice 
nor recommendations regarding the outcome of an objection. As in all other 
areas of ICANN policy, the Board will ultimately decide whether to adopt or 
reject the advice of external experts it consults in relation to an objection."
  milton:strong support for rejection
  Evan Leibovitch:+1 milton
  Konstantinos Komaitis:+1 for milton
  milton:no, that doesnt follow alan
  Jon Nevett:agree with Milton
  Jon Nevett:at least on this point!
  milton:no sound?
  Alan Greenberg:The converse of 5.1 is strong support for a simple majority 
being required to go against advice.
  Margie Milam:no sound 
  Evan Leibovitch:Do we really need to list all the things we DON'T agree on?
  Evan Leibovitch:I'm for just dropping 5.1 
  milton:No Alan, the logic is wrong. An absence of support for a supermajority 
in this case does not necessarily mean support for a simple majority
  milton:many people voted against 5.1 because they didn't think the DRSP 
should be making a recommendation
  milton:give me time 
  Alan Greenberg:ok
  CLO:Yes  and a change of terminology may make a difference to how Poll's Are 
recorded...
  Evan Leibovitch:milton is fine but Chuck just turned into an echo chamber
  milton:got it
  milton:but "advice " may not involve a recommendation
  milton:I don't think the change matters
  Alan Greenberg:In support of brevity, can we assume a global change on DRSP 
and not have to say it each time?
  milton:+1 Alan
  Robin Gross:yes, drop DRSP every place
  milton:th eproblem with 5.1 is that is implies outsourcing the decision 
  milton:that assumption is problematic regardless of whether it is called DRSP 
or something else
  milton:yes
  Robin Gross:yes we should send the whole poll results
  milton:yes
  Konstantinos Komaitis:+1 milton
  milton:thats very fair of you margie but i have read the initial report and 
didnt find any problem
  Evan Leibovitch:@margie: so call it a snapshot and not a report
  milton:i suspect others have or could submit quick comments
  milton:agree with CLO 
  Jon Nevett:I like a snapshot 11 days prior with a report within 3 days of the 
retreat
  Robin Gross:yep
  Konstantinos Komaitis:yeap
  Evan Leibovitch:+ zzzzzzzzzzz
  milton:zzzzz
  milton:no plus, just zzzzz
  CLO:Bye all THANKS  everyone....
  Robin Gross:bye
  Mary W:Bye for now and thx all!