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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the chat transcript of yesterday's meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

==============

Adobe Connect Chat Transcript - 30 August 2010

  Stuart Lawley- ICM:agreed, IMHo there needs to be a pretty high threshold
  miltonmueller:BdlC: we are discssing objections, not debating them!!!!
  miltonmueller:pardon, _listing_ objections
  Robin Gross:I have an objection to 3.1.2.3 - standing should not be "anyone" 
- that is too broad.  only govt should have stdg to bring objection.  If we 
covered this number when I was looking for it, I'm objecting now.  Thanks.
  CLO:the tipping point for that threshold will be ab "inferesting" challenge 
as well @stuart
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:.gay will be an interesting test case indeed to 
explore, among others,
  Mary Wong:Bertrand, that's why my concern wasn't with the ICC as such, but to 
ask for more guidance as to how their ICE plans to select and administer 
disputes
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@CLO, thats the $64,000 question
  Evan Leibovitch:I mention it (.gay) because it is not extreme or 
hypothetical, and indeed there is a planned application.
  Jothan Frakes:@Bertrand, Evan, I Agree.
  miltonmueller:certainly there are "sensitivities" around .gay
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:its the "sensitivity" much more than the "illegality" 
thats is going to be the difficuly here
  Andrei Kolesnikov:bravo
  miltonmueller::-)
  Evan Leibovitch:At-Large has a different POV on the IO position which is not 
completly negative.
  miltonmueller:"sensitivity" - is it the GAC's way of asking for complete 
discretion to object to anything someone doesn't like, for any reason?
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@MM-probably
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:to MM : not really
  miltonmueller:agree with Evan's "outsourcing" argument
  CLO:YES
  Andrei Kolesnikov:outsource to ITU???
  Jothan Frakes:fair point evan
  CLO:part of our Statements all along
  Robin Gross:I agree with Evan.
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:me too
  Robin Gross:.abortion incites lawless violence in according to some countries
  Robin Gross:but is a constitutionally protected right in another country
  CLO:@ Avri  +1
  jon N:Robin, but would that be contrary to "generally accepted legal norms?"
  jon N:Mary +1
  Andrei Kolesnikov:"children" are different age cross countries. thats the 
really sad part
  Robin Gross:jon, I gues the expert panelists will tell us ;-)
  Konstantinos Komaitis:mary is correct in that. my reading was the same
  jon N::-)
  CLO:Yes we need to look at 3.4.3
  paul stahura:i see the ssues as 1) criteria?, 2) who decides ("outsource" or 
not?) 3) who can bring it IO/everyone/GAC or a combo there of?
  Evan Leibovitch:One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Many 
times in the past censorship has been used under the pretence of "ïncitement".
  CLO:Muted ?
  Robin Gross:the policies we risk passing would not allow Nelson Mandela to 
have a gtld
  avri:Robin what gTLD would he be refused?
  miltonmueller:.anc was an illegal "terrorist" organization according to the 
old South Adrican govt
  Robin Gross:he was classified as a "terrorist" by the US govt. and he 
advocates for revolution (back in the day)
  Robin Gross:revolution is violent lawless action.  so we can't allow a 
.revolution under these rules under discussion.
  jon N:But would .ANC be rejected -- I don't think so under "generally 
accepted legal norms"
  jon N:nor would .revolution -- we need to make that clear if it isn't clear 
in the proposed standard
  Robin Gross:they wouldn't have gotten that far.  the background checks would 
have determined them "terrorists" depending on what year it is.
  miltonmueller:Jon: it certainly would be if we were responding to any and 
every national govts "sensitivities"
  avri:there are non violent non-lawless revoltions - like a revoltuion in 
fashion
  Alan Greenberg:.revolution also refers to physical motion, commonly used for 
CDs, merry-go-rounds and automobile wheels...
  miltonmueller:jon,we can't rely on your subjective notions of what would or 
wouldn't be censored under these standards, I am afraid
  jon N:Agreed, let's be sure that we aren't in that situation, Milton
  Robin Gross:China is sensitive about Tibet and the Dalai Lama.  So I guess 
Dalai Lama can't have a tld because it offends Chinese govt sensitities.
  Jothan Frakes:Alan, Avri, that is a circular reference
  miltonmueller:we ARE in that situation, Jon ;-)
  Evan Leibovitch:@Jon.... .anc might not be objected to but .endapartheid 
might.
  miltonmueller:Jothan, urrgh
  Jothan Frakes:terrible.pun
  paul stahura:i dont think we are talking about "any and every national 
government" deciding.  bring and objection, maybe, but not deciding (ie i think 
no one government will have a veto over any tld)
  jon N:that might be your subjectivity Milton :-)
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:We should discuss a little bit the term 
"sensitivities" so there is no misunderstanding
  miltonmueller:require a supermajority of the Board before any TLD is vetoed 
on MAPO or "sensitivity" grounds and we've made a big step forward
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:thats not how GAc see it
  Evan Leibovitch:@paul: re-read rhe GAC statement. It is _possible_ to 
interpret it in a way that suggests that anything objectionable to anyone can 
get objected to.
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:.xxx for eample
  paul stahura:Robin - not true.  China can bring an objection, but if the 
objected-to-string does not pass the criteria bar, then the deciders (whoever) 
will  allow that string to enter the root
  miltonmueller:Yes, I am afraid Evan and Stuart are right
  miltonmueller:Agree with Antony
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@MM : would it be a supermajority to refuse a string 
or/and to overrule an objection ?
  Robin Gross:why on Earth would ICANN want to put itself in the middle of 
having to do this dirty work for others?
  jon N:Great -- let's talk about ideas like that -- perhaps the GAC should 
play a role too
  miltonmueller:No, an objection should trigger a board vote, and only a very 
large majority - e.g., 75% - should be able to veto
  CLO:We need to specifically engage with GAC and our communities  on this and 
not limit the discussion to hear and now as well
  richard tindal:Super majority sounds sensible to me
  paul stahura:antony - re string alone or in combination with who is applying 
- it depends on what the criteria ends up being
  richard tindal:Frank - that was useful
  Tony Kirsch:excellent point frank
  Robin Gross:The Dalai Lama should not have to mount a defense to the Chinese 
govt's objection.  The objection should not be allowed in the first place.
  miltonmueller:Frank, I just saw your hand raised. did you learn how to do it?
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@AVC and Paul, the "string only" is NOT where the GAC are 
coming from, i think that is clear
  Frank March 2:we all leaern in time, milton!  some more slowly than others
  miltonmueller:@Frank its ok, these interfaces require some getting used to
  paul stahura:then the end-point criteria will be easier to formulate.  i'm 
good with that, personally (just string, nothing else).  but if that is true, 
then the fact that the dali lama put in an app has nothing to do with whether 
the string servives an objection
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@stuart : there can be problems with "strings only", 
but also cases when it's the combination of the string and who applies
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:.xxx?
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:for example
  Antony Van Couvering:If we are looking at the string itself, and not the 
content within it, then the string (in certain hands, as Bertrand points out) 
must be in and of itself objectionable.  In other words, its very existence 
must be intolerable.
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@stuart : not what I had in mind; example would be 
.nsdap (the nazi party); I suppose there would be a difference if the string is 
being proposed by a neo-nazi illegal entity in a european country or the 
community of academics studying the third reich period
  miltonmueller:Bertrand:
  Jothan Frakes:There were some who looked at the wildcard objection as a way 
to block competitors
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@antony: but again, how can we decide until we see the 
content? this is so against procedural justice
  miltonmueller:that's what we are concerned about. You link a TLD to people, 
organizations and content. That makes the act of TLD censorship a much broader 
issue of content regulation. An unacceptable expansion of icann's mission
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@AVC- i hear you anthony and AGREE but dont think that is 
where the GAc are coming from
  miltonmueller:nazi orgs are already illegal in Germany and France, you have 
all the tools you need to stop it
  Antony Van Couvering:@Konstantinos - the name itself is content.  And that's 
the content that we need to concern ourselves with
  CLO:Removal of the words manafestly unfounded helps IMO
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@antony: not really - the name is just a name. unless 
you asssociate it with something more concrete means nothing at all....
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:but back to our example of .GAY, for sure"sensitive" in 
many quarters
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:but clealry not an "offensive" WORD
  Dave Kissoondoyal:How about strings considered by some to be sacrilegious or 
blasphemous?
  richard tindal:Milton - agree
  CLO:manIfestly unfounded I mean  remove tnat and the purpose of the "quick 
Look to ascertain risk of complaint bei g frivolous/and or obusive objections 
=>  which does as  @MM is pointing out need to be delat with
  paul stahura:i agree with milton re frivolous objections - maybe we do that 
by changing bar on standing of who can object
  Antony Van Couvering:@Konstantinos -- not at all.  We can all think of simple 
words that are in and of themselves offensive.  If they don't meet that 
standard, they shouldn't be blocked. If the content *under* a particular TLD is 
offensive, that's a different question, and one that governments deal with all 
the time
  Robin Gross:I also agree with Milton on this.
  Jothan Frakes:is this then a spectrum...   'Worrisome', 'Sensitive'     these 
are different than 'illegal'
  richard tindal:yes  -i think it is a spectrum
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@antony: we are not talking about offensive but 
incitement...
  miltonmueller:@CLO: not a bad idea, raising the bar for objections
  Antony Van Couvering:@konstantinos - in that case, the name *in itself* must 
be inciting
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@antony: but that is against criminal law and how it 
defines incitement
  miltonmueller:agree with Evan. The Board should TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for any 
such decisions
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i also second evan
  Antony Van Couvering:Evan is correct.  It's known as a "punt"
  miltonmueller:A Board supermajority to veto a TLD would be a better idea
  richard tindal:Milton - agree
  CLO:ALAC discussed that *IF* there was a bar ir needed to be quite high  but 
this was discussion not formulated into our multi-regional requirement for 
support  to become our statement
  Robin Gross:exactly, the US legal definition of incitement allows a gtld that 
says "killthexxxx)
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@milton : I tend to agree
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@robin: and european for that matter
  avri:yeah, send the issues to the board!
  Robin Gross:so if we are going further than the law allows, we stepping on 
free expression - we can't do that either
  richard tindal:Evan - I think part of the reason for 'outsourcing' was based 
on desire for consistency of judgments
  CLO:The use of Independant third parties  is not an issue  HOW one would 
manage this task  with the issues/ problems we had with  legal norms etc., was
  jon N:what about the 3rd party doing the first review with an appeal to the 
Board
  miltonmueller:no. no outsourcing
  miltonmueller:btw, i have had some indications that the US govt doesn't like 
the outsourcing idea either (though perhaps for different reasons)
  kurt:See, http://www.iccwbo.org/court/ or 
http://www.iccwbo.org/court/arbitration/id5256/index.html
  kurt:Why ICC Arbitration?ReputableICC arbitration is respected worldwide. It 
is supervised by the ICC Court and administered by the Court's Secretariat. The 
Court — which numbers business specialists as well as international lawyers — 
was created in 1923 and tracks the progress of each case and reviews the awards 
in order to facilitate their enforcement ever since. GlobalEvery part of the 
world is represented in the ICC Court and Secretariat. No other arbitration 
institution can match ICC's global reach.    •    In the year 2009, ICC 
arbitration took place in 53 countries and involved arbitrators of 73 different 
nationalities.    •    The Court's membership is drawn from 90 countries. Click 
here to view the list of the members.    •    The Court and Secretariat can 
call upon ICC national committees in some 92 countries for assistance in 
finding the best arbitrators.    •    The Secretariat has a staff of more than 
50 of over 20 different nationalities, speaking all the world's main languages.
  paul stahura:i agree with bertrand - the board has to vote to put a tld in 
the root, if they dont do that the tld does not go in, therefore they already 
have a "veto". and i agree with chuck - the board is involved.  i dont think 
its on total auto-pilot once the app window closes, or is it?
  kurt:ICC was selected for their expertise - access to panelists outside the 
ICC - and breadth
  miltonmueller:Kurt: freedom of expression and "morality and public order" are 
not forms of commercial arbitration. these arguments are basically irrelevant
  kurt:the panelists would not be commercial arbiters
  richard tindal:+1 Bertrand
  Evan Leibovitch:@kurt: but the ICC also has its own worldview that can't help 
but guide its choice of jurists.
  Evan Leibovitch:I have been at polar opposites of ICC at WSIS.
  miltonmueller:@paul stahura: if what you say is right then there is no need 
for an ICC panel (or any other external)
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:actually, we must remember that the Board has to make 
a POSITIVE decision to put something in the root
  kurt:they are retired justices, from courts hearing cases bases on 
international norms or international law
  jon N:not a bad thing to get an expert opinion on "generally accepted legal 
norms" before it goes to the Board in case of an objection
  CLO:@Jon  yes that would be smart / required
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:this is dangerous ground for ICANN IMHO- applicants need 
clear criteria UNLESS it is stated at the outset that the Board has a Veto over 
criteria
  Robin Gross:Jurists who come from and are trained by business interests tend 
to be conservative in perspective.  I hope they don't decide the limits of my 
free expression.
  miltonmueller:@bertrand: but if they are using their position to censor a 
tld, they need to have a supermajority to veto it. Only then can we be 
confident that the tld is so objectionable and contrary to international norms
  paul stahura:milton - are you saying the icann board is better at deciding 
that, than a number of retired judges?
  richard tindal:Interesting thought Chuck    Assume a 'normal' board vote is 
simple majority.   Can anyone confirm if that is correct
  miltonmueller:@paul, yes. because there ARE no internationally applicable 
standards for censorship, if ICANN is going to censor based on its own, 
organically developed rules, it should take direct responsibility for its 
actions
  CLO:@Amy / @Dann can you confirm what the majority od=s for a board vote ?
  miltonmueller:Right, Antony - supermajority is to DENY, not to APPROVE
  Evan Leibovitch:Of course, the cost of an ICC judgement would be significant, 
and part of a way to cause an applicant to exhaust their funds -- even before 
the issue gets to the Board.
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:I tended to believe that the Board would have to take 
a formal decision for every TLD to be put in the root; am I wrong ?
  Jothan Frakes:to my awareness that is correct Bertrand
  richard tindal:Bertrand  -that's what DAG currently says
  richard tindal:by simple majority presumably
  paul stahura:who says they are not taking responibility for their actions? 
that would be true only if they had nothing to do with wheter or not a string 
gets in the root once the app window closes.  i dont think tht is the case.
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:But this is not what the current speaker is saying, 
or did I understand wrong ?
  CLO:and so to reject one on a objections base would need what level of Board 
vote
  miltonmueller:they have to take responsibility for censoring a tld on 
"sensitivity" or MAPO grounds
  paul stahura:i think the answer to chucks Q is "yes"
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:so do I
  Jothan Frakes:me too
  kurt:That wasn't me>
  richard tindal:was our Kurt impersonator
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:I think it was me :-)
  Antony Van Couvering:Because if the board is just going to make a choice, 
then what's the point of this whole approval process?
  Jothan Frakes:we were looking to the idn fast track process of approval (the 
one that isn't subject to this mapo nonsense and perpetual delay, btw) as a 
guide for what the gTLD process would be with respect to board action
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:need to llok at difference between 2000 and 2004 round
  Robin Gross:I agree with Milton.  If ICANN can't censor a tld based on 
international legal standards (because those stds would allow the tld) but they 
want to censor it any way, ICANN needs to take that responsibility.
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:2000- beauty parade- 2004-objective criteria- which it 
appears is the intent behind DAGs
  miltonmueller:ICC arbitration is outsourcing, not external "advice"
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@frank - Agreed
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@anthony : the board will not make a choice out of 
nowhere; what is likely to happen is mere formal endorsement for things that 
have cleared everything (like the IDN ccTLD process); but in certain cases it 
may have to make the final call, especially in such cases with "sensitivities"
  paul stahura:i agree with frank on that "outsoucing" issue.  the board cannot 
contract out their responsibility
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:it doersnt get ICANN out of any leagl liability IMHO
  Antony Van Couvering:Wasn't one of the impetuses of the current gTLD round to 
get rid of the beauty contest problem that occurred in previous rounds?  I 
think that the strong presumption is that the Board is not going to go against 
the results of the gTLD evaluation process.
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@AVC - absolutely
  paul stahura:@stuart - agree, though I am not a lawyer
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:i am getting close to being one ;-)
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:this goes back to my question of whether the panel is 
binding or not
  paul stahura:antony - yes - it has to be determinisitc as possible
  Antony Van Couvering:Of course they reserve to themselves the right to do 
anything.  But to just pick and choose, ingnoring the evaluation process, would 
make a mockery of these three years of discussion
  paul stahura:antony - agree 100%
  Antony Van Couvering:If there is a panel, its decisions should be advisory
  avri:and only after community comment
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@anthony : I think you are right
  CLO:@MM  that proposal would be in keeping with sentiments  expressed by ALAC 
and At-Larfe in our discussions in LA & Mexico
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:@ MM, I agree , perhaps a re-jig of the process at the 
VERY OUTSET- Board review first off and reject using SUPERMAJORITY- save 
applicants for sensitive string a lot of time and money
  Antony Van Couvering:And the Board should decide -- by a supermajority, as 
Milton suggests -- to deny a TLD.  It should be able to take an advisory 
panel's advice however.
  richard tindal:Milton - well said
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@milton: nicely put
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:àstuart : this is why I made the comment regarding 
having this evaluation as early as possible in the whole process
  richard tindal:also 'repugnant' is not a bad standard
  paul stahura:iantony - its the same as the other 3 objections, isnt it?
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:Yes a 15-20 international Board should be able to make 
these calls on "sensitivity"
  Antony Van Couvering:Agree with Richard - we don't have time to do this once 
a week
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:by way of 75% supermajority
  CLO:it also means that they only need to "act" in the rejection choice and 
not be swamped by an approve all mechanism
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:OK with two calls a week
  paul stahura:we have much work to do - 2 calls/week could speed it up.  i 
thnk this call was relatively productive
  CLO:can't see how we can do the work WITHOUT 2 calls per week
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@CLO : +1 :-)
  CLO:and avoid the plethora of OTHER calls we have
  Jothan Frakes:+1 on second call
  Antony Van Couvering:+1 Bertrand
  miltonmueller:so let them block it, B
  miltonmueller:we already do have many situations, where there is blocking, B
  Antony Van Couvering:Bertrand, I wrote a note to the list about this, I would 
welcome your comments there
  Robin Gross:the blocking doesn't change
  Evan Leibovitch:We already do not have universal resolvability.
  Antony Van Couvering:(just sent)
  miltonmueller:tens of thousands of second-level domains are blocked
  Evan Leibovitch:even at the TLD level
  miltonmueller:so, Bertrand, you are just saying that we block a TLD for 
everyone, instead of the tiny number of countries who want to block it
  Konstantinos Komaitis:exactly and if we include MAPO the way we do then we 
definitely won't have universal resolvability
  Antony Van Couvering:MM- they are typically blocked because of the content 
under that second-level TLD
  Antony Van Couvering:I agree with bertrand on this
  richard tindal:I agree with Bertrand.  Neither of two exreme cases is 
politically workable.  lets find middle ground
  Jothan Frakes:+1 bertrand
  Robin Gross:some are blocked because of the name of the string.
  CLO:+1
  CLO:to @bertrand
  paul stahura:+1 bertrand
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:but why cant ICANN Board at the start of the process just 
have a "sniff" test
  Antony Van Couvering:Robin -- I said "typically" -- I agree with you
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:everyone undesratnds it there
  jon N:if it's a tiny number of countries, it shouldn't be considered a 
"generally accepted legal norm"
  Jothan Frakes:some are blocked because of ad-hock commercial interests 
operating alternative root TLDs that collide with a new one from the ICANN root
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@stuart: i agree with you....icann needs to get involved
  Evan Leibovitch:ICANN has no jurisdiction to require any government to 
provide transparent rationale behind domain blocking.
  Jothan Frakes:within a given country due to impatience
  Stuart Lawley- ICM:otherwise this willbe intractible
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:I just tried to frame the problem we want to handle 
here
  miltonmueller:@ Antony, TLDs will be blocked or objected to for the sam 
reasons
  miltonmueller:Bertrand, if you can write down what you just said and send it 
in an email?
  CLO:YES  can do
  CLO:Chair  the call next week
  Antony Van Couvering:Chuck you can use Skype -- I have done so
  CLO:Thank you all
  Konstantinos Komaitis:thanks you all
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@MM : I intended to do so. But understand this is not 
a general GAC position
  Robin Gross:thanks!
  Mary Wong 2:Bye everyone - till next time! :)
  richard tindal:nice job Chuck
  Jothan Frakes:thx everyone
  Andrei Kolesnikov:thanks, it was good
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:I mean as far as I know, but it could be

------ End of Forwarded Message