[soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- To: soac-mapo <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:31:07 -0700
Here is the chat transcript from today's Rec 6 CWG call.
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 3:50 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
CLO:Not dialled out to yet...
Gisella Gruber-White:We are dialling out to you now
Gisella Gruber-White:Update on Apologies: Siva Muthusamy, Caroine Greer,
Konstantinos Komaitis, Olivier Crepin-Leblond and Avri Doria
CLO:have I dropped off?
Margie Milam:no one is speaking
CLO:no some BG noise => hmmmm
Margie Milam:so i think you are still on
CLO:Odd for all of us to be silent :?
Mary W:I'm on hold to some vaguely Copacabana-esque music
Dave Kissoondoyal:Hi all
Evan Leibovitch:hi there
Mary W:I believe Robin won't be able to join the call (she is travelling);
not sure about Milton.
Milton Mueller:hello, all
Milton Mueller:hey Mary
Gisella Gruber-White:Apologies - Lian Wang is also on the call
Robin Gross:I just joined and can be on for awhile but will have to leave
early. I'm leaving town.
Milton Mueller:it was a drab city, but parts of the old city were nice
Milton Mueller:did the noise get better?
Milton Mueller:i am coming in via Skype - i just muted my mic
Milton Mueller:so if anyone calls on me it will take a few seconds to respond
Robin Gross:I support Jon's recommended change and will change my no vote to
a yes if we make it.
Evan Leibovitch:Chuck: Bertrand has suggested multiple times in the email has
suggested that there may be minor changes to the community objection procedure
CLO:DAG: noun 1a. (usually in the plural) a lump of matted wool and faeces
hanging from the rear end of a sheep; b. such a lump cut from a sheep. ..
Alan Greenberg:re 32.2, based on evan's comment, we should not refer to ag
Milton Mueller:agree with Jon, but as per Mary there may be ambiguityin the
language that needs to be cleared up
Richard Tindal:they may also file a national law objection thru Rec 6 avenue
-- if they think that national law is reflective of international principles
CLO:Clear explanatory notes WILL do that I'd have thopught
Mary W:Richard, Milton: yep, I just want the final report to be clear that a
Rec6 objection MUST be based on int'l law, so the only nat'l law objections
that will be entertained are those that (1) are based on int'l law (i.e. Rec
6), or (2) Community (as explained in the existing AGB).
Milton Mueller:Agree with Margie
Alan Greenberg:Doesn't reg to AG V4 say that there are no proposed changes>
Milton Mueller:but Jon, it could mean, any time a govt has a national law
objection they file it as a community objection
Milton Mueller:helps me, too
CLO:Needs to be 18+ so next Poll and Plee for more polling responces
Milton Mueller:no if you want to eliminate it ok
Milton Mueller:i think it is out of our scope
Richard Tindal:Chuck - I had fat fingers on 5.4 should be 'OK'
Evan Leibovitch:well rested? HAH!
Richard Tindal:Alan - understood
Richard Tindal:and agreed
Mary W:Milton's on Skype
Richard Tindal:cant hear milton
Marika Konings:Milton, your line is breaking up
Alan Greenberg:Milton you are breaking up baddly.
Milton Mueller:its better because i went off mic
Richard Tindal:MM - we cant hear you
Alan Greenberg:If you are talking we cannot hear
Alan Greenberg:still breaking up
Richard Tindal:MM still breaking up
Marika Konings:Milton, if you need a dial-out, please let me know
Alan Greenberg:MM please type it. We cannot understand.
Milton Mueller:Maybe you should dial me, Marika
Marika Konings:OK, will get a dial out
Robin Gross:I have to drop off the call, all. See you oline
Richard Tindal:i agree with Evan
Jon Nevett:Evan +1
Milton Mueller:6.1 is still relevant, Evan
Richard Tindal:Milton - there are probbaly hundreds of providers who are not
Richard Tindal:why single out ICC?
Milton Mueller:i agree 6.4 hsa elements that should be retained re: expertise
Richard Tindal:i think beter to define a guideline on who is suitable
Alan Greenberg:Could also include the caveate that who ever is picked is
perceived as being a reasonable choice.
Evan Leibovitch:working on the 4.5 wording right now
Milton Mueller:it's a minority
Milton Mueller:considered in conjunctiob with 8.2, which has strong support,
we should abandon 8.1
Milton Mueller:exactly, CLO
Milton Mueller:We should eliminate 8.1 and poll on 8.2
Evan Leibovitch:proposed 4.5: "The contracted advisors will be expected to
have specific expertise in interpreting law instrruments of public
international law and relating to human rights and/or civil liberties. The CWG
recommends that the Baord augment this with complementary expertise in other
relevant fields such as linguistics
Milton Mueller:but i thought we had already eliminated "and promotion"
Jon Nevett:Milton is correct -- supplement doesn not mean supplant -- let's
stick with 8.3
Jon Nevett:and eliminate 8.1 & 8.2
Mary W:Works for me, Jon & Milton
Milton Mueller:clo is handling it
Mary W:On 9.1, let's just replace "DRSP" with "experts"
Margie Milam:i just dropped off the call
Mary W:and "its" to "their"
Margie Milam:waiting for operator
Marika Konings:Apologies, I got dropped as well. Dialing back in too
Mary W:How about this rephrasing? "The experts should conduct their analysis
on the basis of the string itself only. They may, if reasonably appropriate for
any particular objection, take into account the intended purpose of the TLD as
stated in the application, in rendering their advice to the Board."
Margie Milam:yeah- I am back!
CLO:Just on mute for a short while
Marika Konings:back again too
Milton Mueller:right, mary
Milton Mueller:where is it?
CLO:Thanks Mary this should go to the list for wider support / discussion
then and we do need to re-poll
Milton Mueller:i like "primarily" with Mary's "intended purpose as stated in
Jon Nevett:I'm concerned about "as stated in the application"
Alan Greenberg:But if the Board can take other issues into account, they
should be allowed to get expert advice on that!
Mary W:The experts should conduct their analysis on the basis of the string
itself only. They may, if reasonably appropriate for any particular objection,
take into account the intended purpose of the TLD as stated in the application,
in rendering their advice to the Board.''
Mary W:oops, sorry, wrong one
Jothan Frakes:mixed up my hour on this, sorry to join late
Jon Nevett:Makes sense
Mary W:The experts should conduct their analysis primarily on the basis of
the string itself only. They may, however, if reasonably appropriate for a
particular objection, take into account additional context as disclosed in the
TLD application, in rendering their advice to the Board."
Milton Mueller:good one, Mary
Jon Nevett:I would change one word
Mary W:go ahead, Jon
Milton Mueller:dp we need to repoll 10.1?
Jon Nevett:"as disclosed in" to "from"
Chuck Gomes:I was disconnected
Milton Mueller:no, I prefer "as disclosed in"
Margie Milam:I agree with Jon's suggestion
Milton Mueller:there is the PDDRSP
Jon Nevett:why -- that leaves control in the hands of the applicant --
Mary W:Yeah, me too. Jon, what else might "from" include?
Milton Mueller:no, the name and affiliations of the applicant are in the
Mary W:In the interests of time, can we offer both as alternate 9.1A and 9.1B?
Milton Mueller:ok with me
Jon Nevett:for example, if the applicant is a convicted of child porn and it
is not disclosed, but comes out later
Jon Nevett:and the string is .childporn
Mary W:How would "from" address that problem? *puzzled*
Jon Nevett:because info from the application would include the name of the
organization applying and its principals
Mary W:Isn't that covered by "disclosed"? Since it's information ON the app?
Jon Nevett:let's say they lied and left one off
Jon Nevett:that could be determined from the app
Jon Nevett:even if not disclosed
Mary W:hmm ... thinking.
Milton Mueller:agree with what Richard is saying. Didn't we cover this in 2.2?
Mary W:How abt "take into account additional context based on information
disclosed in the TLD application"?
Mary W:Make that 'take into account additional context based on information
in the TLD application''
Mary W:Agree with Richard and prefer delete
Evan Leibovitch:suggest we defer I13 until we have more government inout
Richard Tindal:Chuck - agree
Milton Mueller:margie, they can vote against 2.2 (governments)
Milton Mueller:i have to leave
Jon Nevett:I like Mary's new language for 9.1 -- thanks Mary
Mary W:u r welcome! So right now, the revised proposed 9.1 will read: 'The
experts should conduct their analysis primarily on the basis of the string
itself only. They may, however, if reasonably appropriate for a particular
objection, take into account additional context based on information in the TLD
application in rendering their advice to the Board.''
Jon Nevett:shouldn't we treat 13 and 14 the same?
Alan Greenberg:I have to leave now. I suggest that in 15.1 we make it clear
that "Criterion 4" is part of the evaluation of a Community Priority.
Jon Nevett:it's all related to community objections
Alan Greenberg:Bye all...
Jon Nevett:why are we recommending any level of fees for community objections
-- let's stick with Rec 6
Jon Nevett:14.2 only got minimal support
Richard Tindal:Margir - I owe you 11.2 and 14.1, 14.2 language
CLO:THanks all got to rush away now Sorry Good Progress though :-)