/
12 June 2013 Meeting

12 June 2013 Meeting

Owned by Berry Cobb
Jun 12, 2013

When: Wednesday, TBD 2013. 16:00 UTC / This is a 120 Minute Session.

Adobe Connect Link:  http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130612-en.mp3

On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#jun

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees:
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Avri Doria – NCSG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Catherine Gribbin – Red Cross
Stephane Hankins – Red Cross Red Crescent
Wolfgang Kleinwächter – NCSG
David Maher – RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil – IPC
Judd Lauter – IOC/IOC
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan – IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair – RrSG
Apologies:
Guilaine Fournet - IEC

ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Brian Peck
Erika Randall
Julia Charvolen

Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – TBD 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):

1. Roll Call / SOI Update
2. Review Initial Report
3. Discussion of Next Steps
4. Confirm next meeting (TBD 2013 @ 16:00 (120 MIN))


Action Items
1. None

 

Adobe Chat Transcript 12 June 2013:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 12 JUN 2013 IGO-INGO Meeting.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Wolfgang
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with kudos!!!
Chuck Gomes:Me too. Just a few issues to resolve.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Hi all, can only stay for the first hour of the call
Julia Charvolen:Alan Greenberg joined the meeting
Julia Charvolen:Jim Bikoff joined the call
Julia Charvolen:Stehphane Hankins joined the meeting
Chuck Gomes:Is it possible to get the GC office to commit to a quick turn-around on their review? 48 hours?
Berry Cobb:Yes. We are shooting for less than 48 hours.
Berry Cobb:Targeting Friday to publish for comment.
Chuck Gomes:Thanks Berry. Have they committed to that?
Berry Cobb:Yes, we are working directly with them.
Chuck Gomes:Can we reword this so it is accurate?
Chuck Gomes:@ comment 6
Julia Charvolen:David Roache Turner has just joined the call
Berry Cobb:It should be noted that IGO names and acronyms are not word marks as considered in the traditional sense of Trademarks or the TMCH
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 to Alan and Greg, that would be a helpful clarification
Avri Doria:Sounds like we are having detailed legal argumentation
Kiran Malancharuvil:Not at all Avri. Semantics
Avri Doria:LOL
Julia Charvolen:Catherine Gribbin joined
Avri Doria:I suggest we leave it as is.
Kiran Malancharuvil:That would be up to the organizations, I just wanted to call attention to the issue
David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):+1 Greg on going to primary sources where possible
Mary Wong:Hello everyone, sorry I'm late; waiting for operator to connect me now.
Berry Cobb:@DRT, I accidently lowered your hand. My apologies.
David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):no problem Berry; was a vestigial hand anyway
Mary Wong:@DRT, a spooky but funny phrase! :)
Mary Wong:+1, Greg - one requires proof as an initial step, the second presumes that harm exists.
Mary Wong:Suggest this sentence: "Although the purpose of requiring harm goes toward the fact that resources otherwise earmarked for an organization's public interest mission are diverted toward dealing with such harms, there were divergent views within the WG as to whether such harm needed to first be proved or if it could be presumed for each organization for which protection is given."
Greg Shatan:Mary's language works for me.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree this is a bit unclear.
Avri Doria:seems run on, but ok. replaces the semicolon with a period.
Avri Doria:and drove while.
Avri Doria:and drop 'while'
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would delete the word "together"
Mary Wong:"Where the IOC and RCRC can be distinguished from other INGOs on the basis of [ etc. etc.] ... it is possible also to distinguish IGOs from INGOs in general, since both types of organizations enjoy protections on different legal basis."
Mary Wong:Correction: "While the IOC and RCRC may be distinguished from other INGOs on the basis of [ etc. etc.] ... it is possible also to distinguish IGOs from INGOs in general, since both types of organizations enjoy protections on different legal basis."
Mary Wong:(what's the plural for "basis"?)
David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):(bases?)
Judd Lauter (IOC):yes
Mary Wong:That's what I thought ... thanks,. okay, then "basis
Mary Wong:"basis" should read "bases" in my proposal.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We are also missing that IGOs could be distinguished from the IOC and RCRC.
Mary Wong:@Claudia, is that still necessary if we distinguish INGOs (which include IOC & RCRC) from IGOs generally?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):This sentence is a general sentence not a note about prior criteria.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Incorrect, there was never distinct criteria for the IOC and the RCRC separately
Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 Kiran
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Alan.
Kiran Malancharuvil:How the organizations satisfy the qualification criteria is different. The criteria is not
Kiran Malancharuvil:That distinction is so clear.
Avri Doria:For example this group has members who stronglybeleive that there should be no considerations for anyone (the other side of the same for everyboddy coin). the group has people covering the entire spectrum.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Mary.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We could also delete the sentence entirely and leave it at that.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):There is quite a bit of detail about the IO's positions and legal protections.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Later on in the report.
Avri Doria:speicifc considerations or considerations, or not for each type of organization is the compromise point.
Avri Doria:speicifc considerations for special protections, or not for each type of organization is the compromise point.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Stephane.
Kiran Malancharuvil:this paragraph is not a huge deal, but the overall issue is that separating it out when there are three sets of qualification criteria is ridiculous
Alan Greenberg:Some of us pushed very hard to ensure that from our analysis point of view, the 4 classes would be treated separately. I find it bizarre tat we are revisiting this while editting a draft report.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Alan.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):NO i was agreeing with Avri.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Her suggestions for the wording.
Alan Greenberg:Change MAY to SHOULD and drop the 2nd sentence
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):plus one Alan
Avri Doria:dpo oepopel get hourly rates for doing ICANN stuff?
Avri Doria:do people ...
Kiran Malancharuvil:Do you actually expect people to talk about how they get paid?
Avri Doria:nope. but they were.
Avri Doria:i think my question was more of the rhetorical type
Berry Cobb:I've added to last two
Kiran Malancharuvil:I don't think you have to present an option to disagree with the recommendation
Kiran Malancharuvil:you don't have to tell people that they can say no
Mary Wong:As long as we don't specifically list particular views or identify a constituency or SG, that should be fine. There are several points in the matrix where we point to "some" in the WG having a different view.
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 ALAN
Kiran Malancharuvil:exactly my point
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with the addition.
Avri Doria:i copied other langaugre that was already in the report
Chuck Gomes:@ Mary: It is too late to let other people add language now.
Kiran Malancharuvil:+1 Greg
Avri Doria:Beleive me in many places i di not either.
Avri Doria:If all the ones in there are scrubbed. then I will scrub this one.
Chuck Gomes:Let's finalize this today. No more time.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, I know and I agree, so in the interests of expediency let's go with Greg's suggestion - scrub all.
Kiran Malancharuvil:I support scrubbing all. This is not an opportunity to make arguments.
David Roache-Turner / Joanne Teng (WIPO):+1 Greg
Alan Greenberg:If we have left other personal (contrary) opinions to the option being presented, they should have been caught and eliminated as well.
Chuck Gomes:Can we scrub on this call? If not, I oppose scrubbing.
Avri Doria:no there are opinion references throughout the document I have a red pen i need to put to detailed use for scrubbing.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Right, Chuck. I had suggested we get rid of characterizations last week.
Mason Cole:Need to leave the call. Apologies
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):We left some in. We can flip back and forth each week I'm afraid.
Avri Doria:so no opinions of the group at all?
Greg Shatan:I agree with Alan on this point.
Avri Doria:we could take out half the content.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Completely agree with Chuck.
Avri Doria:are you also approving taking out the previous sentence?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would leave the sentence in. And move on.
Alan Greenberg:I yield. Let's get the report out and those who disagree can object to the way it was fdone in the PC.
Greg Shatan:I think the QC after RCRC should be deleted (minor edit)
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg
Berry Cobb:Deleted
Avri Doria:i trust Chair+Staff review
Avri Doria:i am confused about the general counsel pass as well.
Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 we agree with publishing following staff review
Kiran Malancharuvil:how long is GC going to take?
Kiran Malancharuvil:they took forever on the request for input
Avri Doria:i appreciate the trransparency that indicates it will be reviewed by consel.
Avri Doria:it is an initial report.
Avri Doria:we expect the community viewpoint
Chuck Gomes:@Stephane: The next steps are described in the report.
Alan Greenberg:We are hopeful that the comments received will be so inciteful that the heavens will open and we will agree on a way forward.
Avri Doria:Alan, you describe the Bliss
Greg Shatan:I hope they are insightful, rather than inciteful!
Alan Greenberg:Touche.
Avri Doria:BREAK
Mary Wong:@Greg, LOL
Avri Doria:Oh, you are so right.
Judd Lauter (IOC):+1 Chuck
Alan Greenberg:Fine with break, but only if we know ahead of time what the comment period is.
Greg Shatan:Phantom hand
Chuck Gomes:21 + 7 for reply to accommodate the Durban meeting
Chuck Gomes:@Alan: We should have all been keeping our respective communities all along.