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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Here is the chat transcript from today's Rec 6 CWG call.

Best Regards,

Margie



-----Original Message-----
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?
  CLO:sudden silence
  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:oops!
  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 
"v4".
  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
  Milton Mueller:"rider" 
  Milton Mueller::-)
  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
  Milton Mueller:+56
  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:yes
  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
  Milton Mueller:+31-6-1914-0236
  Marika Konings:OK, will get a dial out
  Robin Gross:I have to drop off the call, all.  See you oline
  Robin Gross:online
  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 
qualified
  Milton Mueller:ok
  Richard Tindal:why single out ICC?
  Milton Mueller:i agree 6.4 hsa elements that should be retained re: expertise 
needed
  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:yes
  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::0
  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
  Evan Leibovitch:"
  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:chuck
  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
  Margie Milam:redialing
  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 
teh application"
  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!
  Milton Mueller:yes
  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 
application
  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 :-)