Jurisdiction Meeting #14 (19 December @ 19:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
- Yvette Guigneaux
Sub-group Members: Amrita Vasudevan, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Erich Schweighofer, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Griffin Barnett, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Mathieu Weill, Milton Mueller, Nigel Hickson, Paul McGrady, Philip Corwin, Tom Dale, Vinay Kesari, Wale Bakare (20)
Observers/Guests:
Staff: Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Karen Mulberry, Tristina Webster (4)
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
- Welcome
- Questionnaire
- Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary
- Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions
- Question 4
i. Can this question be revised to get broader support?
ii. Should this question be sent separately?
- Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG Plenary
- Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
- How to publish/send out questionnaire
- How to collect responses
- Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps
- AOB
- Adjourn
Notes (including relevant parts of chat):
1. Welcome
Greg Shatan: No changes to SOIs.
2. Questionnaire
a. Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary
b. Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions
Greg Shatan: Unfortunate Parminder is not on call. He had asked for an annex to the preamble to be the full Annex 12.
Milton Mueller: Not in favour of modifying preamble. Propose we simplify vs expand the preamble. Propose we delete everything after the second paragraph.
avri doria: whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit their hoped for outcome. but the answers take time. better we have people willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: We can simplify and include a link to the relevant part of Annex 12
Milton Mueller: People need to understand the questions, Avri
avri doria: inclusion of 12 by reference is ok.
Milton Mueller: And some of them won't even read the questions if they have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook
Kavouss Arasteh: Have no problem with shortened preamble - but simply add hyperlink to Annex 12.
Greg Shatan: So the proposal is to take the first two paras, add the link and then fix the last para.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Makes sense, what Greg just summarized
avri doria: it is less than a page, that is not long.
David McAuley: As the drafter of the preamble not unsympathetic to shortening.
avri doria: take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page.
Milton Mueller: Right Greg
David McAuley (RySG): OK
Greg Shatan: cut Further Background and Specifically it would be short - do we need TO HELP? I think the last para is useful.
Kavouss Arasteh: Last para needs to stay.
avri doria: do not remove that para. please
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on last paragraph - go with those edits Greg
Avri Doria: SPECIFICALLY para is important.
Greg Shatan: really need to condense the first three paras. any objections? (none). Let us move on to the first question.
Kavouss Arasteh: Propose to delete Business and Privacy and as JN proposed in the plenary remove RELATED SERVICES.
Greg Shatan: Any comments? (none)
Greg Shatan: Proposal Have your activities related to domain name services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Kavouss Arasteh: domain name system or servicees? Willing to be corrected.
David McAuley (RySG): DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN services than ICANN deals with
Jeff Neuman: DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not related to ICANN
Milton Muller: We can qualify DNS later. We are interested in any effect of ICANN's jurisdiction on DN Services - you cannot buy DNSystem.
Greg Shatan: "domain name-related services"? to avoid confusion with managed DNS services etc.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: what is DNS services pls?
Milton Mueller: domain name-related services is ok with me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree
Christopher Wilkinson: support keeping Business and Privacy in question 1.
Kavouss Arasteh: Services/Systems is used in other for a – could solve the problem here?
David McAuley: Need to focus it on ICANN related services etc. could be fixed in intro.
Greg Shatan: other comments? (none) 1 for changing, 1 against...any further comments. Temperature check 3 and 3 so no consensus.
Milton Mueller: I am against changing it
Kavouss Arasteh 2: then other people would be against what was in the initial text. Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts again any comments
Greg Shatan: new temperature check
Kavouss Arasteh 2: I object to the initial text
Greg Shatan: will republish the first question to the list. Second question (no comment). third question, comments? (none).
David McAuley (RySG): 2 seems ok
Greg Shatan: Question 4. Much discussion on the list regarding this.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems."
avri doria: looks good
Philip Corwin 2: +1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 to Phil :D
Kavouss Arasteh: issue with Q3.
Greg Shatan: Q3 was added to allow people to submit other people/business/countries experiences if documented.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: I am not convinced by Q3 objectives
avri doria: we are worried about people answering one questionnaire. Now we want to send them two?
Greg Shatan: Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Greg Shatan: This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate suggestion.
Milton Mueller: I am opposed to Q4 in this questionnaire - could be sent independently later (Explaining rationale for this)
Kavouss Arasteh: not convinced on question 3. Worried it has not meaning.
Greg Shatan: needs to be verifiable.
Kavouss Arateh: do not agree.
Erich Schweighofer: Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will ignore it.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder can simply say that the report is verifiable.
Paul McGrady 2: I tend to agree with Kavouss. Q3 has little real value since it is just gathering hears
Avri Doria: Support Q3 for secondary sources. Requires more work in analysis but still very useful.
David McAuley (RySG): Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the work of verification?
Wale Bakare: Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge.
Milton Mueller: those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking opportunities
Kavouss Arasteh: still do not support Q3 - cannot get comments from experiences who are not your own.
Christopher Wilkinson: Understand the concern about Q3 vs validation. But still could be useful. Would prefer not to have hearsay.
Greg Shatan: Need to focus Q3 to get valid information.
Paul McGrady 2: We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that don't fit though.
Wale Bakare: IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could be sourced from as well.
Milton Mueller: of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual reports or information we toss it out.
Avri Doria: needs to be there. This could be the factual basis to lead to other discussions.
Milton Mueller: we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: agree with Avri... as said before Phil Corwin's formulation could work
(many people leaving for other call)
Kavouss Arasteh: need Q4 but can be re-edited.
Greg Shatan: KA are you ok with PC edits.
Erich Schweighofer: I support the revised version.
David McAuley (RySG): I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4.
Milton Meuller: Q4 should be reformulated and not sent at the same time - but if we have to send it the PC version is ok.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Let's go with Phill's version if everyone can live with this
Kavouss Arasteh 3: I do not agreee David with that version
Greg Shatan: I will put these options out on the list. Adjourned
c. Question 4
i. Can this question be revised to get broader support?
ii. Should this question be sent separately?
d. Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG
Plenary
3. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
a. How to publish/send out questionnaire
b. How to collect responses
4. Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps
5. AOB
6. Adjourn
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Yvette Guigneaux:Welcome all to the WS2 Jursidiction Subgroup | Meeting #14 | 19 December 2016 @ 19:00 UTC!
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Brenda, Is is jurisdiction or human rights
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Pls send me adobe connectiopn for the meeting at 20,00 UTC
Brenda Brewer:Jurisdiction
Brenda Brewer:at 19:00 UTC. I don't have any other calls at 20:00 UTC.
Kavouss Arasteh 3:It is not 19,00 UTC but 20,00 UTC
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Pls kindly delete Kavouss Arasteh 2 andf 3 as one kavouss arasteh is sufficient
Brenda Brewer:There you go!
Milton Mueller:One Kavouss is enough, I heartily agree :-)
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:hello all
Nigel Hickson:good evening
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):good evening to all!
David McAuley (RySG):Brenda, I am 4154
Greg Shatan:Hello, all.
David McAuley (RySG):greetings all
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):at 20:00 UTC there is a GNSO PDP call if that is what Kavouss meant
Kavouss Arasteh 2:Jorge, look at title of agenda, it isc said 19,00 UTC
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):now - is 10UTC and this is jurisdiction
avri doria:will leave a few minutes before the end since i need to chair something right after this.
Kavouss Arasteh 2:OK
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):19UTC I meant
Kavouss Arasteh 2:THAT IS RIGHT jorge
Wale Bakare:Hi All
David McAuley (RySG):maybe on phone only?
Wale Bakare:Yes
avri doria:whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit their hoped for outcome.
avri doria:but the answers take time. beter we have people willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:We can simplify and include a link to the relevant part of Annex 12
Milton Mueller:People need to understand the questions, Avri
avri doria:inclusion of 12 by reference is ok.
Milton Mueller:And some of them won't even read the questions if they have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook
Paul McGrady:I hope you feel better soon Kavouss!
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Makes sense, what Greg just summarized
avri doria:it is less than a page, that is not long.
avri doria:take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page.
Milton Mueller:Right Greg
David McAuley (RySG):OK
avri doria:do not remove that para. please
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree on last paragraph
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):go with those edits Greg
David McAuley (RySG):sounds a good plan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup
Greg Shatan:Have your activites related to domain name services been affected by ICANN's jurisdction in any way?
David McAuley (RySG):DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN services than ICANN deals with
Jeff Neuman:DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not related to ICANN
Greg Shatan:"domain name-related services"
Kavouss Arasteh 2:what is DNS services pls?
Wale Bakare:+1 to Milton
Kavouss Arasteh 2:what are those services pls?
Milton Mueller:Oh OK, sorry, I was looking at the notes
Milton Mueller:domain name-related services is ok with me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree
Milton Mueller:I am against changing it
Kavouss Arasteh 2:THEN OTHER PEOPLE WOULD BE AGAINST WHAT WAS IN THE INITIAL TEXT
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check: 30 minutes left in call
Kavouss Arasteh 2:Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts again any comments
Milton Mueller:if you support change, write me a check, says Greg....;-)
Paul McGrady 2:We need an abstain button.
Kavouss Arasteh 2:I object to the ibnitial text
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Step Away can do that
Milton Mueller:or a ZZZZ button
avri doria:step awa is abstain, i thougt
Philip Corwin 2:I was having a technical issue. Reengaged now.
Kavouss Arasteh 2:WHAT IS THE FINAL TEXT FOR THE FIRST QUESTION'
David McAuley (RySG):2 seems ok
Milton Mueller:Q 3 going once, going twice,
avri doria:exactly
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems."
avri doria:looks good
Philip Corwin 2:+1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:+1 to Phil :D
Kavouss Arasteh 2:I AM NOT CONVINCED BY QUESTION 3 OBJECTZIVES
avri doria:we are worried about people answering one questionnaire. Now we want to send them two?
Greg Shatan:Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Kavouss Arasteh 2:Grec
Greg Shatan:This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate suggestion.
Erich Schweighofer:Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will ignore it.
David McAuley (RySG):I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder can simply say that the report is verifiable.
David McAuley (RySG):Kavouss, that is
Paul McGrady 2:I tend to agree with Kavouss. Q3 has little real value since it is just gathering hearsay.
David McAuley (RySG):Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the work of verification?
Wale Bakare:Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge.
Milton Mueller:those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking opportunities
Milton Mueller:Kavouss #2 should take down his hand
Paul McGrady 2:We are going to have a hard enough time sorting fact from opinion without trying to sort out whehter or not a responsive party remembered a third party's experienec/opinion correctly. Unverifiable.
Milton Mueller:On #3 we ask for COPIES and LINKS, not memories
Milton Mueller:I see no problem with it
Jeff Neuman:Do Milton's books count as good secondary sources :)
Milton Mueller:Not much in there about jurisdictional conflicts
Milton Mueller:but if there is a citation with a page number why not?
Erich Schweighofer:We need any hint of disputes, even hearsay can be helpful.
Milton Mueller:You have made your point, Kavouss, please stop
Milton Mueller:we have 10 min left
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Time check: 10 minutes left in the call
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Miton,. you too have made your rethoric idea pls kindly stop
Kavouss Arasteh 3:No one has the right to tell others to STZP
Kavouss Arasteh 3:STOP
Paul McGrady 2:We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that don't fit though.
Milton Mueller:If you are wasting our time, I do
Wale Bakare:IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could be sourced from as well.
Milton Mueller:of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual reports or information we toss it out.
Paul McGrady 2:Thanks Milton.
Kavouss Arasteh 3:mITON, WE ARE THE JUDGE
Milton Mueller:we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Who we are that to toss it outd
Milton Mueller:the issue is multi-faceted and complex
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:agree with Avri... as said before Phil Corwin's formulation could work
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Yes but we need to undwerstand it and not insulting others toi stop
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup I need to be go to my next call ASAP as well
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:I'll have to switch calls as well in 5 minutes
Milton Mueller:I need to leave too. Seems we have made no progress on Q4 due to retroactive interventions on Q3
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye
Kavouss Arasteh 3:Milton , no one is the master at this meeting
Erich Schweighofer:Q4 is important, a shorter version can be helpful.
Milton Mueller:You are, apparently, you've got two hands up and are monopolizing the discussion
Erich Schweighofer:I support the revised version.
David McAuley (RySG):I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:Let's go with Phill's version if everyone can live with this
Kavouss Arasteh 3:I do not agreee David with that version
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2:bye all!
Philip Corwin 2:Thanks to all who supported my formulation. I have to get on another call now. Bye
David McAuley (RySG):happy holidays to the good people in this group.
Wale Bakare:Bye everyone.
Nigel Hickson:All the best to all
Erich Schweighofer:All the best from Vienna
Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:bye all