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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Below 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: Thursday, January 06, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

  Dave Kissoondoyal:hello all..happy new year
  Gisella Gruber-White:Mark Carell has joined the call
  avri:will diel in once i find the info.
  avri:dial in
  Margie Milam:866-692-5726
  Margie Milam:password CWG
  avri:thanks
  richard tindal:good point chuck
  richard tindal:chucks
  CLO:My question was  where we are (in any part of this document) saying we 
did zNOT have full consensus  do we indicate if we were likely to or not 
(because of what we said in the original report)  But it was not specific to 
this sectipon per se  the outcome seems to be no  so be it...
  richard tindal:Bertrand - the CWG recommendadtion does not change what is in 
the AG with respect to process role of the Provider
  CLO:a reason  this  issue  IN the type of expert advice  that the Board MAY 
want clarification from  is also because one limitation to Mediation is that it 
is sometimes difficult to find licensed mediators. I think that in order to 
avoid this and to ensure that mediation is an effective alternative we would 
have to either estimate the number of objections or ensure there is a 
sufficient number of mediators on call.
  Gisella Gruber-White:For those who have skype on, please mute volume.
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:to Richard : actually I feel it does, if the CWG says 
: "the Board may contract appropriate expert resources....". Isn't this 
diferent from the very formal DRSP mechanism envisaged by the AG. 
  richard tindal:i dont believe it is
  richard tindal:at leat my vote for that CWG statement did not in any way mean 
to alter the currernt AG process
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:to Richard : there must be somathing I don't 
understand then.
  richard tindal:the Board may contract appropriate expert resources =  the 
board may contract ICC to perform DRSP role as specified in AG
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:I see better where you are.
  Alan Greenberg:Bertrand, I think that the salient issue is that to uphold an 
objection, the Board must act. The rest of the process is important to some of 
us, but there was no consensus.
  richard tindal:Alan +1
  Alan Greenberg:Absent of a strong position taken by the CWG, the Board and 
staff can set things up as they see best.
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:OK I see better the two levels. The Board will 
nonetheless have to decide whether a single DRSP is choen or ad hoc panels set 
up. 
  Alan Greenberg:Yup.
  richard tindal:good point Bertrand
  richard tindal:we should  reorganize language to make that very clear
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:+1 for Olivier
  CLO:so let's edit the text  to take into account what Bertrand suggested   
and layer  or reorganize a tad
  Evan Leibovitch:hello all.
  CLO:Then with Alan's edits  I do not think we need to re pol as asked in the 
purople highlighted part
  CLO:purple
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:I suggest a search on Google which will yield 
hundreds, if not thousands of documents using the term "incitement and 
instigation" when it comes to racial hatred. There appears to be laws which use 
this term, for example German Law wrt to Incitement and Incitation of Racial 
Hatred based on Nazism. etc. etc.
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:...and I am not a lawyer, but this is just a 
suggestion to clear the confusion & the time we're taking on this subject
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:to Olivier, I was doing the search as we speak as well
  richard tindal:CLO + 1
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:"incitement or promotion of" has about 3 400 
references and "incitement and instigation" has about 2 500 references. 
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:If you do the search you'll find a whole lot of very 
nasty stuff including racial discrimination, terrorism, racial hatred, rioting, 
etc.
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i can make these comments on the changes if necessary
  avri:unfortuantely i can't unmute.
  CLO:perhaps  put some proposed text here  KK
  Konstantinos Komaitis:the language can read: incitement and instigation are 
two terms that are widely used in international law and the CWG has provides a 
definitional approach on these terms in previous communication. The key issue 
however is the bar that we want to set: using incitement and instigation raises 
the bar substantially, whilst incitement to and promotion of provides a much 
lower standard.
  CLO:+1 to Frank  and thus my support of the changes  proposed to the last 
sentance
  Gisella Gruber-White:Evan - your line was beeping so has been muted. Please 
let me know on skype when you wish to talk
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:I would support that, yes
  Robin Gross:that sounded good, Jon.
  richard tindal:I think Board is aware of that
  richard tindal:Frank +1
  richard tindal:If there's more than one sensitive string this round I'll buy 
a round at next ICANN meeting --- so GAC and ALAC can toss a coin on who objects
  Chuck Gomes 3:Very well done Jon
  Konstantinos Komaitis:indeed very well done jon
  Krista Papac:Agreed.  Very well done JN!
  Jon N:Thanks all!
  Robin Gross:Good work, Jon.  Not easy!
  avri:+1
  avri:so it is meanigless?
  avri:GNSO seems to reject everything done in cross constituency groups so I 
am not sure it means too much.
  avri:actually nor reject, just not endorse
  richard tindal:Robin + 1
  CLO:yes  we outside of GNSO  have noted that too
  Robin Gross:Yes, we are recommending a change to the DAG on the IO.
  CLO:Yes Bertrand  YOU  understand correctly
  richard tindal:I agree that IO action should be triggered by a transparent 
request - but lets all keep in mind that the standard for successful objection 
remains unchanged
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:but the group has to be careful that the IO can also 
make objections on the basis of community criteria. should this discussion also 
apply to community objections by the IO ?
  bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:always the pragmatic, richard
  Konstantinos Komaitis:+ for Robin....i totally agree
  Dave Kissoondoyal:Sorry I have to quit since i have to attend ALAC WT D 
call.. i wil consult the meeting notes later.. 
  Dave Kissoondoyal:bye
  Robin Gross:the point is that the name chosen was the LEAST supported.
  avri:Becasue we think they are importnat and we were asked.
  Frank March:farewell, everyone; once again good discussions.
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Thanks
  Konstantinos Komaitis:thanks jon and everyone...great discussion
  CLO:Bye  next call started 15 mins ago :-(
  CLO:good  work  THANKS  ALL
  Robin Gross:thanks, again, Jon!  Bye all!
  CLO:Special thanls to Jon