Jurisdiction Meeting #55 (14 February 2018 @ 19:00 UTC)
- Brenda Brewer
Attendees:
Sub-group Members: Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Wilson, David McAuley, Farzeneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Herb Waye, KAvouss Arasteh, Rita Houkayem, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Tatiano Tropina, Thiago Jardim, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Observers/Guests: Taylor R.W. Bentley, Thomas Rickert
ICANN Org: Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Patrick Dodson
Apologies:
** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **
Transcript
Recording
Agenda
Raw Captioning Notes
Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way.
Decisions:
- Continue second reading of comments starting at comment 9.01 on next call
Action Items:
- GS to produce two footnote options regarding the REASONABLE BEST EFFORT discussion for the list.
Requests:
- (none)
Next Meeting:
- Wednesday 21 February 1300 UTC
Documents Presented
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (2/14/2018 10:39) Good day all and welcome to WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #55 on 14 February 2018 @ 19:00 UTC!
Brenda Brewer: (10:39) When not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6). To unmute, *6. This call is recorded.
Brenda Brewer: (10:39) Reminder to all, for captioning and transcription, please state your name before speaking and speak slowly. Thank you!
Kavouss Arasteh: (10:47) Hi Brenda
Marie Fresch: (10:47) Thank you for making me a host
Brenda Brewer: (10:48) Hi Kavouss!!
Marie Fresch: (10:51) Who is rappateur today?
Brenda Brewer: (10:53) Greg Shatan is Rapporteur today
Marie Fresch: (10:53) Thank you. I will make that change,
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (10:56) Hello all
Farzaneh Badii: (10:57) Hi
Greg Shatan: (10:59) Hi, everybody.
Thomas Rickert: (11:00) Hi all!
Tatiana Tropina: (11:02) Hi all
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:06) working on it
Patrick Dodson: (11:06) We will post that shortly
Farzaneh Badii: (11:07) transcribers ... it's OFAC
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:08) Reminder all its a 90 minute call
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:08) There is some echo
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:10) there is some echo which makes the voice unaudible in a clear manner
Steve DelBianco: (11:11) +1 Kavouss. Difficult to understnad Farzi
Thomas Rickert: (11:12) Hi Farzaneh, we discussed this during the plenary - the question of what to prioritize and roadmap / timeline is nothing for us to do in the CCWG. This should be discussed between the Board and the Community.
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:14) audio very bad
Thomas Rickert: (11:14) Question for Farzaneh: So you are not talking about prioritizing in general, but making this a priority in the jurisdiction recommendations?
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:15) Farzaneh - need to lower the level of your mike if you are using Adobe input
David McAuley 2: (11:15) on mute?
Farzaneh Badii: (11:15) just prioritizing looking into an obtaining OFAC general license
Thomas Rickert: (11:16) Prioritizing this amongst the jurisdiction recs and not against the recs of other subteams, right?
Farzaneh Badii: (11:17) that line sounds like just prioritize the study ... but ok
Tatiana Tropina: (11:18) I agree with Farz that we might just strengthen the priorities part
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:18) We need a concrete suggestion
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:19) where we have to emphasize the prioritization
David McAuley 2: (11:19) Ialso agree with Kavouss, at this point we need specific language suggestions
David McAuley 2: (11:19) also agree, that is
Farzaneh Badii: (11:19) let me call in
Steve DelBianco: (11:20) could staff give users the ability to increase size of the Adobe display?
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:20) If we could reiterate the priritization without repeating ,that could be done
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:20) uncertain we ccan do that Stevel
Thiago Jardim: (11:21) Let me ask for some clarification really quickly. Why is the recommendation language on page 20 different to that on page 5/6 relating to the same OFAC general license issue?
Thiago Jardim: (11:21) In particular, on page 20 a certain sentence reads: "If unsuccessful, ICANN wouldneed to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions..."
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:22) Reminder to everyone that we only have two meetings left after this meeting before the Jurisdicition recommendations are due to the plenary
Thiago Jardim: (11:22) On page 5/6, the "equivalent" reads "If unsuccessful, ICANN needs to findother ways to remove “friction” from transactions between ICANN...
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:23) Perhaps we could say, ICANN should proceed with seeking one or more general lisence with TOP priority
David McAuley 2: (11:23) hard to hear
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:24) very faint
Farzaneh Badii: (11:24) all NCSG members sound low today ...
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:24) Too low
Thiago Jardim: (11:24) To respond myself to the point I just raised, I would ask the language on page 20 to be drafted to reflect the language on page 5/6, since we did agree to that language on page 5/6 before.
Tatiana Tropina: (11:24) Is my sound that bad?
David McAuley 2: (11:24) pretty low
Tatiana Tropina: (11:24) I am very sorry
David McAuley 2: (11:25) but I think we got it @Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) Just say this recommendation is a priority - then we are fine that language stays the same
Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) I am sorry for my audio, I never got issues before :(
Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) Prioritize it only among Jur recommendations
Farzaneh Badii: (11:25) well this problem is about global access to DNS relates to ICANN mission ... so that's why it should be prioritized
Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) not among ws2 only from our group
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:26) Greg, pls look at my suggestion in the chat
David McAuley 2: (11:26) My sense is that specific license applications are more important pending study
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:26) tatianl hand?
Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Old hand :-)
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:26) thanks
Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Was so stressed with audio issues!
Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Ok importance is ok.
Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Just highlight it somehow so the process won't be delayed
Farzaneh Badii: (11:27) ok lets just say this is important for global access to DNS and ICANN should pay specific attention to it ...
Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Yes we want to say that attention should be paid to it
Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Ok now at least we know now what kind of language we should come up
Tatiana Tropina: (11:28) I agree Greg we can't come up with such language on the call
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:28) all - please mute if not speaking
Farzaneh Badii: (11:28) Tanya and I will come up with a language before the weekend
Tatiana Tropina: (11:29) I normally can draft on the fly but I want to be careful here...
Tatiana Tropina: (11:29) Farz, sigh :)
Farzaneh Badii: (11:30) so now Russia thinks that best effort is weak ...
Farzaneh Badii: (11:31) some other group thought it was too strong
Thiago Jardim: (11:31) Disagree
Thiago Jardim: (11:31) best efforts, leave as it is.
Thiago Jardim: (11:31) without the addition of "reasonable" best efforts.
Thiago Jardim: (11:31) best efforts is already a soft obligation, which needs no qualification to be an obligation o conduct, as opposed to an obligation o results.
Thiago Jardim: (11:32) of conduct* \ of results*
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:33) utmost effort in lieu of best effort
Thiago Jardim: (11:33) best efforts already contain the idea of reasonable
Thiago Jardim: (11:33) we would be adding more words for no reason.
Thiago Jardim: (11:34) who support it ?
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:34) there is difference between best and utmost
Thiago Jardim: (11:34) Leave it as it was
Thiago Jardim: (11:34) Leave as it was when consensus was built around this
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:35) time check - 55 minutes left in call
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:35) Kavouss hand
Greg Shatan: (11:35) Thiago, underUS law best efforts does not imply reasonableness.
David McAuley 2: (11:36) i support position we took last week
Thiago Jardim: (11:36) The position arrived at prior to the proposed change has more legitmacy in terms of process.
Thiago Jardim: (11:36) and I apologise for not being present during last call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:36) so leave it as is with"reasonable best efforts"
Farzaneh Badii: (11:37) We wrapped this up during the last call
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:37) agreed
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:38) no change pls
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:39) I am not comfortablwe with reasoable as it weaken the language
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:41) Greg, pls kindly avoid to disputing the comments made by Thiago
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:42) We need to retain "Best Efforts"
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:43) cheryl hand up
Thiago Jardim: (11:44) We are not codifying US laws here.
Thiago Jardim: (11:44) We are developing standards that are acceptable to all stakeholders, including Governments and the one I represent
Thiago Jardim: (11:44) as the one*
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:44) This discussion is not productive
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) time check: 45 minutes left in call
Thiago Jardim: (11:46) May I take the floor ?
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) thiago hand
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) Kavouss hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:47) I have no problem with the language either way
David McAuley 2: (11:47) IMO, if ICANN has some level of effort to study and, if feasible, seek a general license that is sufficient if they also plan on helping individual applicants, those actually knocking on the door, get a specific license.
Thiago Jardim: (11:48) the point is understood, isn't it ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:49) but like others I was concerned about the extreem possibly associated with the term last all... so any footnote that matches that concerns being met is fine
Thiago Jardim: (11:49) it is necessary to point to the fact that this is a US law standard
Thiago Jardim: (11:49) I agree with Kavoousss
Thiago Jardim: (11:49) that the word "reasonable" should be struck out
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:50) Thiago +1
Thiago Jardim: (11:50) Take up my constructive proposal and add a footnote
Thiago Jardim: (11:51) Please, Greg, be less biased when framing your questions.
Thiago Jardim: (11:51) Support/Oppositon/etc.
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:51) thomas hand
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:52) Kavouss hand
Tatiana Tropina: (11:52) Greg, actually I for now agree with Tiago - while I agree with reasonable but you are taking your rapporteur hat off :-)
Tatiana Tropina: (11:52) I am fine with the addition of reasonable but I don't believe that the absense of it takes the effort to any ridiculous level
Farzaneh Badii: (11:52) The rational behind adding "reasonable" was explained in the last call ... it has a legal consequence and best efforts means taking all measures even risks .. as I understood
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:52) Every possible effort
Farzaneh Badii: (11:52) so they decided to add reasonable
Thiago Jardim: (11:52) Add a bloody footnote and tell people what this is about, which is at the basis of the public comments receiveid on that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:52) a footnote seems to be a way forward
Tatiana Tropina: (11:53) Well I think we do have to make reasonable but I understand that the fear here is that ICANN could make it as an excuse
Farzaneh Badii: (11:53) we should footnote this yes. it should not be bloody though
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:53) as I believe Thiago said
Tatiana Tropina: (11:53) Bloody hahahaha
Farzaneh Badii: (11:53) it should be a clean footnote.
Thiago Jardim: (11:53) keep the original language "best efforts" and explaiin that it is "reasonable best efforts" according to US standards.
Farzaneh Badii: (11:54) or the other way round Thiago
Tatiana Tropina: (11:54) I think the other way works much better
Farzaneh Badii: (11:54) "best effort" has a legal meaning!....
Tatiana Tropina: (11:54) Reasonable should stay and footnote shall explain
Farzaneh Badii: (11:55) yes it involves risk
David McAuley 2: (11:55) a footnote would be further explanation and here that should be good
Tatiana Tropina: (11:55) But who is going to draft in on the fly :-)
Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:55) is the concern that if it was qualified with 'reasonable' that ICANN would not pursue this general license at all?
Farzaneh Badii: (11:55) I agree with the footnote . put reasonable in text , explain in footnote why it's added
Tatiana Tropina: (11:55) +1 to Farz and anyone who supports this
Farzaneh Badii: (11:56) Yes Taylor that could be a concern . but with the footnote would be ok
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:56) I need to join another call at top of hour so will drop my phone line and stay only in Accordance on new device, hoping to follow progress on the rest of the call
Thomas Rickert: (11:57) Greg, I saw support for the footnote idea to clarify the meaning of the terms.
Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:57) Thanks Farzi, I believe ICANN is bound by fiduciary duty in the bylaws, so does that change the consideration?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:57) please polling is not a vote
Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:58) *consensus on the intent, not consensus on the wording
Thiago Jardim: (11:58) can I take up the floor ?
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:58) Thiago hand
Kavouss Arasteh: (11:58) every possible effort
Thiago Jardim: (11:58) Green check to leaving as it is and adding a footnote
Tatiana Tropina: (11:59) what kind of change it makes, Tiago? compare to adding reasonable?
Tatiana Tropina: (12:00) I think it is better the other way around - leave reasonable and explain in a foot note
Thiago Jardim: (12:00) footnote that fleshs out that under US laws the language may require the word reasonable.
Farzaneh Badii: (12:00) leave "reasonable best efforts" in the text and lets provide a nice clean footnote that explains the terms
David McAuley 2: (12:00) Agree with Farzi and Tatiana
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:00) it doesn't in outcome in my view so thus I can support the use of footnote
Tatiana Tropina: (12:00) I agree with Farz but we have been saying this for 15 min now (that's when Thomas made this suggestion?)
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:01) leave best effort and a footnote to refer to the US LAW
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:01) i disagree
Farzaneh Badii: (12:01) a reasonable suggestion for a reasonable text
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:01) that seems to be the best way forward
Tatiana Tropina: (12:01) I think this will sokve the problem. And would be a good consensus solution, Tiago?
Tatiana Tropina: (12:01) I mean, we had this in public comments, we can't just discard them?
Tatiana Tropina: (12:02) if we have the footnote ... there is no stamping
Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) best effort is a US law term I thought
Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) but could be other jurisdictions too ...
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:02) Please maintain best effort and describe it in a footnote
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:02) that is the point I was hopefully making in my earlier intervention Tatiana
Thomas Rickert: (12:03) Can we PLEASE move on?
Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) well if it is vague I don't see the point!
Farzaneh Badii: (12:03) we are talking about US law here!!! why can't we use US legal terms
Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) Thomas... +100
Thiago Jardim: (12:03) Tatiana, it is vague, it makes easier for people to agree, and that's perhaps why it was agreed like that in the first place.
Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) Farz, yes, if international is *vague*
Thomas Rickert: (12:03) I am sure that the issue will disappear once we have a definition in front of us
Tatiana Tropina: (12:04) Tiago, I understand your concern, honestly, I can even sympathise, I just don't get why the approach with explaining reasonable doesn't work for you
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:04) That is a good suggestion as we could reflect on those alternative and decide at CCWG Plenary
Thiago Jardim: (12:04) a footnote would solve that concern, wouldn't it?
Farzaneh Badii: (12:04) we agreed on this last week. we can just add a footnote and explain I support that.
David McAuley 2: (12:04) And agree with Thomas that we need to move on - time is not on our side any more
Thiago Jardim: (12:04) My apologies for this long intermezzo.
Tatiana Tropina: (12:04) Thiago (God am sorry I misspelt your name, sorry) - I think both approaches would work in a way you want ...
Farzaneh Badii: (12:05) yeah you did that repeatedly Tatiana... :)
Farzaneh Badii: (12:05) it does say that Greg. no need to clarify
Tatiana Tropina: (12:05) Farz, I know, and am SORRY (also for Caps). Thiago :-) I hope you accept the apology.
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:05) Greg, I support two alternative text as you suggested
Farzaneh Badii: (12:06) legislation? treasury comes with the regulation I believe when it issues a general license
Farzaneh Badii: (12:06) No , I vehemently disagree
Farzaneh Badii: (12:07) no opportunity costs
Farzaneh Badii: (12:07) we said cost benefit ... it's broad enough
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:08) Farzaneh +1
Farzaneh Badii: (12:08) oh wow
Farzaneh Badii: (12:08) INTA enters :)
Farzaneh Badii: (12:09) so now we shouldn't say priority
Farzaneh Badii: (12:10) no I don't support either of changes
Tatiana Tropina: (12:10) No support at all.
Tatiana Tropina: (12:10) None none noe
Thiago Jardim: (12:10) What is the first proposed change?
Thiago Jardim: (12:10) Step by step, please.
Thiago Jardim: (12:11) Can it be displayed on the screen?
Thiago Jardim: (12:11) Thanks
Tatiana Tropina: (12:11) Thiago I bet you don't want to support this! :)
Thiago Jardim: (12:11) I see it now
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:12) Disagree with insertion of reasonable before effort
Thiago Jardim: (12:12) opposition to both changes.
Thiago Jardim: (12:12) A quick comment, very quck
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:12) thiago hand
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:12) Thiafgo +1
Tatiana Tropina: (12:13) it's not dead yet, the horse... apparently
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:13) Sorry for misspelling , Thiago
Thiago Jardim: (12:14) :) no offence taken with the mispellings
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:15) Disagree with the comments
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:16) time check - 14 minutes left in call
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:16) YES i object
Steve DelBianco: (12:17) I like acceptable
Farzaneh Badii: (12:17) acceptable is fine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:17) acceptable works
David McAuley 2: (12:17) agreed, acceptable is fine
Tatiana Tropina: (12:18) what's the purpose of public comments if we are not going to change anything? Although it's meta level. Acceptable is fine.
Farzaneh Badii: (12:18) I have to leave now ... please don't make earth shattering decisions :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:18) exactly Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (12:18) Farz, we gotta ditch all recommendations and go with INTA language everywhere if you leave ;)
Thiago Jardim: (12:18) can't we say "if the applicant otherwise qualifies" ?
Thiago Jardim: (12:19) I assume the passive voice begs the question of who "accepts" what.
Thiago Jardim: (12:20) or "if the applicant otherwise ossess all the necessary qualifications"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:20) Kavouss we are reviewing the Public Comments and discussing any proposed or required changes to our recommendations based on those comments
David McAuley 2: (12:20) I have a hard stop at 30 min past hour
David McAuley 2: (12:21) I have no problem with reading ‘acceptable’ as meaning in the eyes of the party having the right/obligation to make such a judgment
David McAuley 2: (12:23) i agree with Sam as to qwualified but could go with either
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:23) NO CHANGE
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:24) Kavouss new hand?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:24) thanks Sam very clear
Thiago Jardim: (12:24) I'd suggest us to turn the sentence and put it in the active voice : "if the applicationg otherwise qualifies for being..." "if the application otherwise meets the qualification requirements"
Steve DelBianco: (12:25) at the point where an applicant (Registry, Registrar, PP provider) starts to engage with ICANN, we won't easily know if they are "qualified". New gTLD applicants go thru a process to determine Eligibility
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:25) Time check - 5 minutes left in call
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:25) Sam hand?
Kavouss Arasteh: (12:25) The term "qualified " is used in AGB and being discussed by New gTLD AS THE CORRECT TERM
David McAuley 2: (12:26) good point by Kavouss as to consistency
Tatiana Tropina: (12:27) wishful thinking??? this is a nightmare thinking. Having a Jur call every day.
Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) we will do it. Thanks
Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) have to leave now.. bye all. Thanks for this interesting call
Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) :-)
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:29) correct Wed 1300
David McAuley 2: (12:29) I also have to drop off, thanks all, good bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:30) bye for now...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:30) thanks everyone bye
Thomas Rickert: (12:32) Thanks Greg! Thanks all!
avri doria: (12:32) bye
Thiago Jardim: (12:32) thank you all
Thiago Jardim: (12:32) bye
Herb Waye Ombuds: (12:32) Bye
Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (12:32) thanks everyone