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

[Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find below the Adobe Connect chat transcript from today's meeting.

With best regards,

Marika

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

Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

  Marika Konings:CWG-Rec6 Meeting - 6 September 2010
  Sivasubramanian M:Among the gTLDs and ccTLDs approved already, is there any 
that is objectionable by one or more of the criteria
  avri:yeah, i am skyping in an the connection is dodgy.
  Robin Gross:still on the phone waiting for conference center to let me in the 
call - long wait
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:Like Robin, waiting to join ...
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:7 September ?
  Sivasubramanian M:? And, from among the applications in process, is there a 
string that might qualify to be objectioble?
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:I thought this is 6th September - Glen ?
  Dave Kissoondoyal:7 september is right for me though - I am UTC + 4
  avri:46% repsonse
  Alan:Here now.  Sorry to be late.
  avri:so this really is predominantly a poll of the GNSO participants?
  CLO:ANY Reason WHY I'm not dilaed into this CALL????
  CLO:What is the Dial IN for AUstralia then
  Stuart Lawley:AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           
1-800-657-260
  Mary W:Hello Glen & everyone, I just joined the call - sorry for being late :(
  CLO:I'm also sorry to be late
  Mary W:Agree with Bertrand
  CLO:YES  do away with the term would fit with  ALAC / At-Large view
  CLO: Public Interest Objections  would replace MAPO
  Stuart Lawley:agreed
  Mary W:Need to think about that - altho not as alarming at first blush as 
MAPO, it's still very (potentially) broad
  CLO:I think where Bertrand is heading is useful to consider and explore...
  Robin Gross:"public interest" is way too broad.  Not objective either - 
doesn't work.
  Jothan Frakes:Public Interest is soooooo fuzzy a term
  Robin Gross:we all think we are acting the in the "public interest" - that 
gets us no where
  CLO:+1 Richard
  Mary W:Agree 100% with Richard
  Konstantinos Komaitis:+1 Richard
  Dave Kissoondoyal:Local and national interests objections
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:But it would require the objectors (including 
governments) to formulate the objections in terms of public interest. it would 
also fit with the general responsibility of ICANN in the AoC
  CLO:The nomenclature would need care in choice  but that is an option to 
discuss
  Robin Gross:I object to Public Interest
  Sivasubramanian M:If "public interest objections" is too general, perhaps we 
can refer to this as "cross cultural propriety of strings"
  Stuart Lawley:well said Mary
  Richard Tindal:Mary - that makes sense
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@robin : "public interest objections" would be the 
general title, the paragraphs underneath would have to clarify the grounds for 
such objections. does this answer a bit your concerns.
  CLO:That is how I understood it @ Bertrand
  Alan:+1
  CLO:@Marilyn  YES  good reference points  I would support adding them
  Stuart Lawley:agred but such a penl would cost $100,000 IMHo, believe me 
these guys arent cheap
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:there is always a delicate balance when listing 
explicit texts, not to ssem to imply that other texts (or even non formalized 
international principles) are not relevant. a formulation saying "such as 
treaties A, B, C
  Robin Gross:@BLC: title is too fuzzy - leaves enormous room for broading.  
title should be as specific as para underneath it, in my view.
  Dave Kissoondoyal:I do not object but some of the treaties are not ratified 
by some of the countries
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@Bertrand: you are right - that is exactly how it is 
supposed to be. we can't possibily provide an exhaustive list of treaties or 
international law instruments
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@ dave : this is a delicate point, for sure ...
  Konstantinos Komaitis:but we need to make this very explicit...
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:If I remember correctly, the report submitted to the 
ICANN staff by international law experts, recommended to give a large leeway to 
the panel of experts, rather than exhaustively or too precisely listing 
specific criteria. In any case, we will discuss later (under "ooutsourcing") 
whether whatever panel is just expert advice or providing a binding decision.
  CLO:Yes  Reference list is  NOT ZLimited To as a list
  CLO:Not Limited to
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:just examples
  Richard Tindal:yes - examples    That's what current DAG says
  Konstantinos Komaitis:and we can possibily add some.
  Richard Tindal:KK - yes
  Robin Gross:don't like the title "public Interest objections"
  Richard Tindal:Chuck  -I think u said it well
  Mary W:I'm fine with it as long as we come back to it after fuller discussion 
on the standards (per my earlier suggestion)
  Konstantinos Komaitis:I am not fine with public interest as well....i think 
it is a slippery slope and we will face the same problems as with MAPO....i 
would suggest we skip it and then go back to it once we have discussed the 
standards.
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@ Mary and Konstantinos : you are right : we should 
come back to it after discussing the grounds in more detail
  Robin Gross:which document, chuck?
  Richard Tindal:DAG4
  Jothan Frakes:Public Interest = totally subjective or at least mostly 
subjective....   not objective
  Robin Gross:I completely agree, Jothan.  "public interest objections" really 
means "any objection I think is not in the public interest" or "anything I want 
to object to"  - much broader than GNSO recommended.  Much broader than what is 
in DAG4 now.  I don't see how it gets us anywhere, given its subjectivity.
  Richard Tindal:I think bertrand has just captured the central challenge of 
this group
  Stuart Lawley:yes he has
  CLO:indeed
  Jothan Frakes:bertrands example really only highlights that whichever of 
those two or more factions is in power and has representation via GAC
  Jothan Frakes:would have their subjectivity to be voiced
  CLO:Voicing the concern is different to action on it of course
  Jothan Frakes:not saying it is not a helpful suggestion
  Jothan Frakes:but it potentially fails my .PIZZA test
  Robin Gross:I don't think the group has agreed to call this category "public 
interest objections", Chuck.
  Richard Tindal:Jothan  -bertrand is not talking about unintentional offence - 
e.g. PIZZA
  Jothan Frakes:suer, but change the string ... there might be countries that 
do not like .DEMOCRACY
  Jothan Frakes:I agree with bertrand, I am only concerned with the 
subjecftivity with "public interest"
  Richard Tindal:Agee  -hence at end of day some group will have to make 
subjective decision and I think 'redeeming value' is a component that should be 
in the standard
  Robin Gross:I don't understand what you are asking, Chuck.
  avri:But what should be the effect of this single governement objection?
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@avri: this is the million dollar question i guess
  Jothan Frakes:I think that if there was a supermajority of other governments 
or groups that are able to vote or determine the GLOBAL substance
  Robin Gross:if the govt can ground their objection in international law, they 
can bring it forward
  Jothan Frakes:I don't think we should reccomend something that does not allow 
these objections to be voiced
  Stuart Lawley:we shouldnt get ahead of ourselves, no single govt is likely to 
pay the $40,000+ objection fees
  Robin Gross:to answer this question, Avri.
  avri:In a world where everyone has freedom of expression, a gov't should also 
have the freedom to express itself.  the problem is ICAN needing to take some 
particlar action based on this objection.
  Jothan Frakes:good point Stuart
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@ robin : the end result could be just for the 
government to block that specific string.
  Robin Gross:BLC: that is their choice.
  avri:Stuart for some gov't 40KUSD is less than petty cash.
  Robin Gross:We don't hold the net hostage with this threat, in my view.
  Alan:The counter to what Evan (about raising a flag to the applicant) is an 
application that is being made that DELIBERATELY is designed to be inflamatory.
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@Robin : what I am trying to introduce is that in 
order for governments in general to feel more confortable with the process we 
are discussing it is good for them to have an avenue to voice their national 
public interst concerns.
  avri:Alan: how do you determine that is is DELIBERATE? wouldn't anyone who 
was offended be likely to accuse the applicant of being DELIBERATE?
  Robin Gross:Thanks for the reality, check!  :-)
  Robin Gross:Olivia, Thanks for the reality, check!  :-)
  Sivasubramanian M:It need not always be a question of whether or not  a 
string contravenes international law.   When a national Governmment or an 
ethnic group raises a collective objection to a string that may not even be 
illegal by legal standards, by virtue of the fact that this has been a 
collective objection of an ethnic group, a national government or a linguistic 
group, the objectiion must be respected and considered
  avri:Bertrand: the problem with gov'ts being able to voice is that they will 
also expect some action.  or else they will argue it is a sham.
  Robin Gross:@Siva, ethnic group objections are brought under the "community" 
category of objections.  We don't need to broaden MAPO to include it.
  Mary W:@Bertrand, that was partly what I was trying to elaborate on - that 
nat'l govts can raise an objection but it doesn't enter full-blown dispute 
resolution (which would lead to yes or no to the applied-for string) UNTIL 
there's a Quick Look expert determination that the national objection IS, 
indeed, something that raises a substantive issue of public international law
  Robin Gross:Govts have neveer been excluded from allowing govts to bring MAPO 
objections
  Robin Gross:the issue is: what is standard?
  CLO:No Objection
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@mary: yes, but here is the question: public 
international law does not operate on an authoritative basis always: it is 
circumvented depending on the interest at stake.
  Sivasubramanian M:@Robin, So, is this group concerned only with possible 
objections only from a government?
  Konstantinos Komaitis:at the end of the day, national governments will block 
what they don't like. but they have to be heard and make their case and the 
impact.
  Stuart Lawley:@kk+1
  Robin Gross:Siva, the DAG4 says ANYONE can object.  There have been no 
limitations on who has standing- although personally I would limit it to govts 
for MAPO objections.
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@kk +1
  Jothan Frakes:+1 Konstantinos
  Sivasubramanian M:That the objections should come only from Governments is 
against the spirit of Internet Governance
  Robin Gross:We aren't willing to cover "sensitivities".
  Robin Gross:We need to keep the standard "objective."
  avri:Robin: On principle I am concerend about creating a right of objection 
that restrictied to Governments.
  Robin Gross:The std needs to be grounded in international law.
  Robin Gross:Avri, I don't think this issue is even on the table.
  Stuart Lawley:no
  Robin Gross:I don't hear any noise.
  Sivasubramanian M:IN the Icann contxt, communities have a significant role to 
play in IDN TLDs, in the case of some ccTLDs,  IDN strings of one language can 
be offensive to another community because the same string could mean something 
offensive to the other community, so why shouldn't communities / ethnic groups 
object and why shouldn't their objections be attended to, on the same level as 
objections from a Government?
  Robin Gross:Siva, they should, it's a different objection called "community" 
objections.
  Mary W:International law means treaties (hard law) & customary (soft) law - 
it would at least give a legitimate, clear(ish) framework for this kind of 
objection - far less subjective, vague or problematic than "MAPO" or 
"sensitivites"
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@mary: that is correct and totally agree.
  Robin Gross:+1 Mary
  Stuart Lawley:Richard has hit it on the head, as far as I see it
  Dave Kissoondoyal:I do understand the GAC concerns.. Take for example.. In 
India, the cow is nationally considered as sacred and any string going against 
this virtue of the cow can give rise to objections by the govt of India as it 
consider it against its public interests.
  Jothan Frakes:Good point Richard
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:@ robin : restricting objections to governments in 
this process would probably not be a very good idea (not really in the 
multi-stakeholder spirit). But they should be able to raise concerns (as per 
KK) : this is the difference between internationally objectionable and the GAC 
notion (in the Principles of March 2007) of respecting "sensitivities".
  avri:high for disapproval, low for approval.
  Jaime Wagner:I've been disconnected but anyway should leave the call - bye
  Mary W:Take care Jaime - c u soon
  Sivasubramanian M:@ Robin, classifying objections as Government objections 
and Cpmmunity objections imply some prioritization.. Why should there be a 
distinction between a government objection and a community obje tion?  In some 
cases, objections from acommunity or an ethnic group could actually be larger 
than a government's objections.... For example an objection from all of the 
African community against an objection from one African Government
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@sivasubramanian: it is not discrimination or 
prioritisation: they are just two different objections
  Stuart Lawley:@siva- the standing for a community objection is VERY high in 
DAG4
  Robin Gross:I agree with Avri.  We need a high thresold for denying a string.
  Tony Kirsch:avri - absolutely 100% agree. the application process is the 
check for the board's approval
  Stuart Lawley:approve=standard level, reject on these ground=high threhold
  Richard Tindal:Me too.  To deny should be 2/3rds or more vote
  Stuart Lawley:on these grounds
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@avri +1
  Stuart Lawley:no
  Robin Gross:2/3 or 3/4 should vote to deny before it can be denied.
  Robin Gross:of board vote, that is
  Stuart Lawley:@robin +1
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@robin +1
  Sivasubramanian M:@ Stuart, that is good, it is good to accord so much 
respect to a community's opionion, but my point is that thee needs to be no 
discrimination or prioritization of an objection from a Govt, and one from the 
community, neither positively nor negatively... In the multi stakeholder 
process,  a community is on par with a government. This is what I was tryign to 
say
  Richard Tindal:bertrand - +1
  Stuart Lawley:bertrand +1
  Jothan Frakes:bertrand +1
  CLO:+!
  CLO:and  yes ALAC  did once discuss our role as possible IO so we have 
thought on these lines...
  avri:is one country enough?  2, 3.  how many countries have to act together 
to force this kind of vote.  very uncomfortable with the idea.
  Alan:high threshhold to go against DRPS/Advice.
  Alan:Meant to add ??
  avri:This allows a few gov't voice to change the issue from a question of 
barring to a question of allowing.
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:If a country is going to object to a string, then how 
is it possible that its GAC representative will not object? If a country 
objects, and its GAC representative also objects, how can theBoard overrule 
that without being put at the core of the dispute?
  avri:Aln, that might be a way to word it.
  avri:sorry Alan ...
  Alan:Olivier, one GAC member opinion does not make a GAC position.
  avri:So Alan, it would not be triggered by a gov't voice but only by the 
DRSP? or by the GAC as a whole?  by the ALAC as a whole?
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:My point Alan, is that we are opening the door of the 
GAC and of ICANN to bring intense political debates internal to a country, into 
the heart of ICANN. I shout mission creep.
  Robin Gross 2:This shifts a burden to prove a string benefits the public 
interest.  I think we want a rule that assumes if a string has gone all the way 
through this process and spent this money, just lobbying the board will kill it.
  Robin Gross 2:sorry, I mean, we don't want a situation of lobbyin the board 
on every string.  we need a presumption of ALLOWING a string.
  Stuart Lawley:@ robin Phew!
  Stuart Lawley:had me worroed for a while
  Robin Gross 2:no high thresold to allow.
  Alan:Yes, but details need to be refined. What if DRSP and GAC come doen on 
opposite sides?  [As much as I like seeing ALAC in this list, I don't think 
that we will have that same weight - unless we have a situation where end users 
are REALLY uniform in their opinion).
  Alan:That was replying to avri - a long way up in the chat.
  Robin Gross 2:@Stuart, typing too fast to make sense.
  Sivasubramanian M:Disallowing a string is a negative decison. Considering
  Sivasubramanian M:Considering the possibility that there could be lobbying to 
kill a certain string, it shoudl be defined that it requires a 2/3rd majority 
to kill a string
  Robin Gross 2:I agree with Avri's suggestion.
  Stuart Lawley: but that would leave applicatiosn hung up indefinitely
  Stuart Lawley:a supermajority either way
  Stuart Lawley:doesnt work
  Stuart Lawley:IMHO
  Alan:You can't have a high threshhold for either approval or rejection - what 
happens if the Board is split evenly??
  Stuart Lawley:if its an 8-7 split cant get approved or rejected
  Robin Gross 2:every objection presents a "controversy"
  Sivasubramanian M:My call dropped
  Robin Gross 2:Rec 6 doesn't get special standing to deny
  avri:but what is wrong with approving a contriversial string by a ?  it is 
not a GNSO principle that all strings must be non controversial.
  Stuart Lawley:becuase strings  will get hung up inopergatory
  Stuart Lawley:pergatory
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@stuart: +1
  Alan:I think that we need to rely on external (DRSP) advice to a large extent.
  Sivasubramanian M:Would the operator call me again?  I got disconnected.
  Robin Gross 2:Community objections are just as "controversial" as MAPO ones.  
 Rec 6 objections shouldn't be given more weight and allowed to deny more 
easily.
  Robin Gross 2:just because of this idea of "controversial" - every objection 
is a controversy!
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@robin: that is correct. there is no objectivity on 
what is controversial...
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i am afraid our discussions are entering the dangerous 
territory of controling what goes into the Root
  Alan:KK, that is what we have been talking about from the start!
  Sivasubramanian M:@ KK   In the I
  Sivasubramanian M:C
  Sivasubramanian M:@ KK  IN the ICANN process, quite a lot is left undefined ( 
because ICANN is barely 12 years old )   So what is wrong if some of our 
discussions take up to the Root?
  Alan:@Bertrand - perhaps aa DRSP is not allowed to sit on the fence - they 
must rule yes or no. Then Board can accept or reject.
  Robin Gross 2:I agree with Alan.  Board needs clear guidance.
  CLO:Makes sense Bertrand
  Alan:@Bertrand - what if GAC and DRSP disagree??
  Sivasubramanian M:@ Marka... Please ask the operator to connect me again.
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:if GAc and DRSP disagree, we have to discuss the 
options
  Robin Gross 2:2/3 or 3/4 vote to deny
  Sivasubramanian M:+1 Robin
  Alan:Robin, if Board needs clear guidance (as you agree), shouldn't high 
threshold be needed to go against celar advice?
  CLO:Excellent  progress in the call  thanks to all for the work here AND 
online before the call (and that will continue now) I certainly look forward to 
more progress in tomorrows call as well
  Bertrand de La Chapelle:thanks for all contributions, really useful call
  Mary W:Yes, thx 2 all - and enjoy what's left of Labor Day, US-based 
colleagues!
  Alan:Thanks all.
  Robin Gross 2:Alan, in theory, yes.  Under California nonprofit corporate 
law, no.
  Jothan Frakes:good call
  Konstantinos Komaitis:thanks everyone. i think this was excellent.
  Dave Kissoondoyal:Bye for now
  Robin Gross 2:Thanks all!
  avri:thanks and bye.

------ End of Forwarded Message