[soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- To: "soac-mapo (soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx)" <soac-mapo@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [soac-mapo] FW: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6
- From: Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:55:04 -0800
Below is the chat transcript from today's Rec-6 CWG call.
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.
Margie Milam:password CWG
richard tindal:good point chuck
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
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
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
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,
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
CLO:+1 to Frank and thus my support of the changes proposed to the last
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: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
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..
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.
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