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

[Margie Milam <Margie.Milam@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All-

Please find below the chat transcript from yesterday's CWG-Rec6 call.

Best regards,

Margie
_____________

Margie Milam
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN
_____________


-----Original Message-----
From: margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:margie.milam@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 1:36 PM
To: Margie Milam
Subject: Adobe Acrobat Connect Pro - Chat Transcript from CWG-Rec6

  liang:thanks
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Hello everyone - sorry for delay in connecting.
  Stuart Lawley:Section 2.3 the date of the GAc letter was 4th August not 5th 
August as stated in the draft
  CLO:well spotted @Stuart
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:apologies for joining late (caught in an other 
conference call) ....
  Margie Milam:Thanks Stuart
  Margie Milam:I'll change that
  Jon Nevett:Agree with Chuck
  Jon Nevett:Why does it need a formal endorsement?
  Margie Milam:I'll do it
  CLO:Just as a suggestion  I would put the purpose of the group ( verbatim) 
from the ToR 'up front'  in the report as part of an Executive Summary...
  Margie Milam:@clo- good suggestion-  I'll try to pull up language from the 
TOR into the Exec Summary
  Konstantinos Komaitis:yes chuck..i think we need to make a distinction and 
try to see what falls under which objection
  CLO:Happy to add the 15th thread
  CLO:Yes  the informastion (when we get it) from Kurt must be  referenced/ 
integrated...
  CLO:+1 Bertrand
  Jamie Wagner:My first reaction is to wellcome this 15th thread
  richard Tindal:Bertrand - Agree.  Community Objection is avery useful tool
  Jamie Wagner:It seems to me that Bertrand is referring the "use" of the 
community objection process to acommodate a local or national objection. Am I 
right?
  richard Tindal:Yes
  Jamie Wagner:tks
  Carlton Samuels:Stay out!
  Jon Nevett:Richard +1
  Stuart Lawley:@richard +1
  Carlton Samuels:Richard +1
  Stuart Lawley:@ bertrand- a fine line, but I agree
  CLO:I agree @Frank lets be SPECIFIC  on this matter of COntnet Issues
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i also agree with Frank's proposition
  Carlton Samuels:Clarify then: the whole afair rests on the semantic value of 
the string...which extends to a sense of the content...an a priori decision, 
no? 
  Jamie Wagner:we should make a thorough distinction between content and 
context (just one letter, but...:-)
  Konstantinos Komaitis:frank raised the issue of content in relation to ICANN 
not the DRSP
  Carlton Samuels:ah yes, Jamie..content allied to context!
  Jamie Wagner:I think the right word is not context, but intent
  Jamie Wagner:stated intent
  Carlton Samuels:an extreme example...and to use an explosive one..what if a 
'known' anti-racist group appropriated the string "nazi' for use in anti-nazi 
messaging...
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Context vs. Content: I understand Bertrand's point. 
ICANN will need to definitely stay out of "content", but how does it make sure 
that "context" as given by applicants will actually match the content's 
context, once the Web sites are up and running, after the launch of the gTLD?
  Jamie Wagner:that´s a matter of compliance - different problem
  Stuart Lawley:@ carlton and the opposite example , would it MATTER who 
applied for .kkk? the internation Klansman association or krispy kreme kooks?
  richard Tindal:its information for DRSP to make a contextual decision
  Stuart Lawley:@ richard -that needs to be made clear, I think the group has 
mixed ideas about this
  CLO:Yes @Richard
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:A formulation could be : "the DRSP should conduct its 
analysis on the basis of the string in itself. It could, if needed, use as 
additional context the intended purpose of the TLD as stated in the application"
  richard Tindal:I believe the DAG already says that - but lets clarify and put 
statement in our report as needed
  Stuart Lawley:acronyms will give make this call a nightmare
  Stuart Lawley:of "stated purpose" , particulalry for non-community applicants 
with no restrictions
  Carlton Samuels:On outsourcing @Philip +1
  Carlton Samuels:But we must ensure "outsourcing' does not mean setting the 
DRSP as the decision-maker!
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:The Board needs to be able to do that.
  richard Tindal:I think Board always has ultimate decision - for this issue 
and others in the DAG
  CLO:Yes this loops back to the need for Majority decisions
  Jamie Wagner:I go for Bertrand's formulation proposal on last topic
  Jon Nevett:outsourcing for advice/recommendation is ok; outsourcing the 
decision is not ok
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:+1, jon
  Carlton Samuels:@Jon +1
  Konstantinos Komaitis:+1 @jon
  Jamie Wagner:+1 @jon
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:+1 @jon
  Krista Papac:+1 @ jon
  CLO:perhaps some language  with reference to this thread thast states the CWG 
specific concern that we (ICANN) must strive to preserve the principal of 
Universal Availability with blocking exceptions (where they occur) happening at 
the most distal (local Gov't) level... 
  Carlton Samuels:In fact confirming pariah status to those states that might 
block a whole TLD
  CLO:Yes  what Bertrand  captured earlier will give us something to work with 
here
  Carlton Samuels:come to think, might come out like the whole nuclear weapons 
thing
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@Carlton : "In fact confirming pariah status to those 
states that might block a whole TLD, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW" (sovereignty 
comes with responsibility)
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:+1 Bertrand. Make then stand out. 
  Carlton Samuels:Oh yes, I agree.
  Carlton Samuels:But let us not blithely ignore the usual response of the guys 
redlined....whose law?
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@bertrand: i think this last point encapsulates the 
whole idea. sovereignty does not give the right to nations to do whatever they 
want especially when there are issues of international concern as the one we 
are dicussing right now

  Carlton Samuels:Unfortunately, that sometimes is about power..and the 
exercise thereof....ask the Antiguans re internet gambling, for example!
  Konstantinos Komaitis:@carlton: you are very correct, i am just referring 
again to the way compliance in international law is operating
  Stuart Lawley:@ chuck. that is correct
  Stuart Lawley:@ richard- also correct
  Stuart Lawley:YEs- two step
  Stuart Lawley:initial filing fee, then a down payment of estimated charges
  Konstantinos Komaitis:i would think that all governmental/public institutions 
should be able to raise objections on behalf of their government...
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:Do any governments have the possibility to file an 
objection, or only governments represented at the GAC?
  Carlton Samuels:But do you give weights to the complaint based on the 
objector status?
  richard Tindal:anyone can Object
  CLO:It would have to be ANY Gov't  as defined by GAC as "Govt"  I'd have 
thought
  Carlton Samuels:Will we have objector classes that would change the threshold 
of concern?
  richard Tindal:for this type of Objection anyone can file
  Olivier Crépin-Leblond:but would government objections have special status?
  Carlton Samuels:@Olivier..indeed!
  Stuart Lawley:@ bertrand, would have to be very careful here not to breach 
btlaws against non-discriminatory treatment
  richard Tindal:currently in the DAG it doesnt matter who the objector is -- 
rather its the merit of their argument
  Stuart Lawley:one rule for one, a different riule for another, unless 
specifically explained upfront, very dangerous
  Jamie Wagner:it seems that preserving the current spirit not to differentiate 
objectors
  Jamie Wagner:is a good way to go
  Carlton Samuels:Case in point..I recall a guy from the Polisario Front - from 
North Africa - trolling the halls at my 1st ICANN meeting....and getting very 
sympathetic responses to their situation...
  Stuart Lawley:@richard, yes ICANN funds IO fees
  Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE:@ richard, interesting idea to have the Independent 
objector be triggered by a GAC (or even ALAC) request
  CLO:Yup
  richard Tindal:I am also OK with GAC or ALAC being able to file Objection 
directly with no fee
  CLO:Thanks@Richard....  BTW  this has been another ^Excellent Meeting^  on 
this important matter  we ARE progressing ( amaizingly) well...
  Jon Nevett:or SSAC
  CLO:AC's    yep
  Jamie Wagner:I was disconnected, but think the call is almost over 
  Jamie Wagner:and I have some work to do in this half hour before Council call
  Jamie Wagner:probably won't be able to join friday's call
  CLO:Thanks all..