[soac-newgtldapsup-wg] JAS Adobe Connect Chat September 2011

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Karla Valente: Welcome all to the September 6 JAS WG Meeting.

Tijani: Hi Karla and all

Seth Greene: Hello, Tijani.

Seth Greene: Version being reviewed today:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/22970578/Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110902+%28RHv1SGv2%29%28clean%29.doc

Karla Valente: hello

Carlton Samuels: Hi all

Carlton Samuels: Welcome

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: awaiting operator

Seth Greene: Actually, correction.  Here the link to the version being reviewed 
today:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/22970578/Draft_Final_Report_JASWG_20110902+%28RHv1SGv2%29%28clean%29.doc

Seth Greene: Tijani's most recent comment/alternative text:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/22970578/Tijani%27s+alternative+pars+65-81+of+20110902+%28RHv1SGv2%29.doc

avri: you can do a document compare

CLO: But that is NIOT hwt 89 a  says  so needs to be fixed  to match more 
closely  what we just discussed

CLO: Not 89  69 a  says

Robert Hoggarth: would welcome wording from evan and avri typed in this chat.  
thanks

Seth Greene: Carlton, would you mind e-mailing Rob and me Sebastien's latest 
comment?  I don't believe we have it.  Thanks.

avri: Possible string for Tijani for 69 B0 last bullet: a)    A gTLD string 
explicitly based on or related to a trademark, especially when used in the 
application for  what is being generally termed a dot-brand TLD.  Consideration 
should be given, however, to a community application that includes a trademark, 
for example in those case where the communities historical or cultural name has 
been trademarked.

avri: that is Tijani's 69 (b) last bullet

avri: BTW; I need to leave on the hour for a work call.  apologies.

Carlton Samuels: So noted, Avri.  Thanks for the help!

Rafik: which page?

Seth Greene: Par. 87, Rafik.

CLO: now at Para 98    Yes?

Evan Leibovitch: Proposal for the "dot brand" criteria:

Evan Leibovitch: a) a gTLD string, that is not a generic word, intended to 
reference a specific commercial entity (comonly refrered to within ICANN as a 
"dot-brand"). Commonity names that may be subject to legal tranemark protection 
do not meet this criteria.

CLO: (@  not 98  sorry typing on thr dark here

CLO: 92  Sigh

Evan Leibovitch: you may prefer the term "resources" over "experts" to ensure 
they are not seen as voting participants

avri: BTW, i am still follwoing the acrobat, and will be avaible again after 
the half hour if neeeded.

Evan Leibovitch: I need to leave the call. Please consider my suggestions above.

CLO: I seem to be muted  ( explains  why what I've been saying  has not been 
noted or responded to I guess)   Soo note OK  to leave the continuity  comment 
AG  made  AND  OK  wioth Evans  suggested  text

CLO: it also explains  why Rob thanked the  "gentelman"

CLO: NO   I droped some  text on the typing  the comment  from AG  needs to be 
forwarded  in later CPmment  DROP  from report

CLO: DROP  frpm  report    ZYEs  do not drop from  'later discussion'

Seth Greene: Michele's comment:  
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/22970578/Michele%27s+comments+re+20110902+%28RHv1SGv2%29.doc

CLO: Micheles  says  => However my disagreement with this needs to be noted 
even if it is only as a minority point of view (however I know other people on 
this list expressed not dissimilar views in the past)

avri: and i agree that it is importnat that all minority opinions be given 
their due.  the legitimacy of the effort demands it.

Alan Greenberg: Avri, I think there is a big difference between noting that 
some WG members did not agree with a rec, and including a rec that was 
generally rejected by the group and effectively withdrawn by the presenter.

CLO: Yup  there IS an inconsistancy here etween Ex Summarry text and main text 
re IPv6  ans  I disagree woth  this text  => b. Deferred IPv6 and DNSSEC 
requirements;

CLO: retype  I disagree with  IPv6 and DNSSEC requirements  text  from Exec 
Sumarry  AD  it is also INCONSISTANT wioth ALAC  Statements  so will get 
trouble  there as well

CLO: main text reads  OK  on that  BTW

Carlton Samuels: @CLO: So if the Ex Summary reflect Paras 50-52  then you wuold 
be good?

Carlton Samuels: Ok. J7ust seen it

CLO: for mme  yes

CLO:  but it is the opposite of that as it reads  npe

CLO: nnow

CLO: NOW

CLO: on the Members list  I prefer appendoix  but can we spell MY name 
correctly please

CLO: it is also common to have an appendix  of  aattendence at meetings  as well

CLO: YES  what AG is saying

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Would ICANN Board members be marked as "observers" ?

CLO: Yes

avri: i think putting all that stuff in appendices is best.

CLO: agree  yes appendices

avri: on IPv6, i think that the difference of opinion does not need to be 
explicit oin the ExSum, but we are divided on that and it should be noted.  i 
for example advocate getting help but do not advocate the request for exemption.

Alan Greenberg: We are 8 minutes over call end. What is plan for next meetings 
and what is expected of WG members?

CLO: NO  to exemption  there is no requirement for the v6 to be native  can be 
tunnelled  etc.,

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: In credits: Rudi van Snick  -> Rudi Vansnick

Alan Greenberg: Agree with CLO

Seth Greene: Carlton, what about IDs for WG members?

CLO: YES  the consstituencies in GNSO  is essential

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: re: IPv6 - the point I made earlier was that the 
ExecSum said "exemption" whilst the statements. This was an old position. Since 
then, statements 51 to 54 have moved on. Statement 54 even looks at an 
alternative to the GAC recommendation that ipv6 requirement be eliminated, by 
saying that instead,  other approaches exist. I suggest that Michele is made 
aware fo this and then to ask whether he is still against those statements. I 
suspect that he did not like the ExecSum

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: For the record, I am against exemption for IPv6. 
Tunelling can get ipv6 anywhere.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: it's just that, and there, I agree with the report, 
local applicants will bneed in kind help to set a tunnel up, set-up IPv6 etc.

avri: is it worth dialing back in?

CLO: Here  and I hope unmuted

Seth Greene: Yes, Avri.  A quick drafting call.

Seth Greene: The same number as the main call.

Gisella Gruber-White: Avri has not yet joined the call

Robert Hoggarth: my line dropped . calling back in

Robert Hoggarth: back!  :-)

avri: will call now, wlaed away when no one answered

Alan Greenberg: sorry, dropped off for a minute

avri: ok, i am back.

Alan Greenberg: Exec summary MUST be consistent with content of text!

CLO: I agree with Avri

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: avri you're ever so faint

CLO: The main sections  are consistat  BTW  it is only the sub sections  that 
may be different in order  but ExSum is specigically focussed On  Full or near  
concensus

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: b.      Deferred IPv6 and DNSSEC requirements; - wrong

avri: Olivier, sorry about the faintness, it is onomatopoetic

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: 47 E. e)        Deferred requirement of DNSSEC

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: 49 f. DNSSEC Consulting

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: Appendix 3 - Non-Financial Support / Non-financial 
support that the WG is proposing includes logistical assistance, technical 
help, legal and application filing support, outreach and publicity efforts 
regarding the New gTLD Program, and deferment of DNSSEC.

Robert Hoggarth: my line dropped

Robert Hoggarth: sorry

Robert Hoggarth: my apologies - phone completely dead

Robert Hoggarth: i'll let seth finish things up with you.  in meantime will 
record DNSSEC as you recommended

Robert Hoggarth: exec summary is his baby

CLO: Avri here is an  text... Evan Leibovitch: a) a gTLD string, that is not a 
generic word, intended to reference a specific commercial entity (comonly 
refrered to within ICANN as a "dot-brand"). Commonity names that may be subject 
to legal tranemark protection do not meet this criteria.the Ev

avri: CLO: thank.  i do not think Evan's languages covers it and may explicitly 
open up issue on the protection of rights of others.

Robert Hoggarth: (observing without phone)  avri, can you suggest your langauge 
again - in writing?

avri: on govt and parastatal.  if the recommendation in the text reconsidered 
and they become allowed, then i would ask that the following be included:  
There is some support for maintianing the WG's orignal prohibition for this 
round.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: volunteers will fund the SARP! They've got the 
priviledge of being on the SARP. Make them may! :-)


Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://gnso.icann.org