When: Wednesday, 30 October 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-20131030-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct
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
Elizabeth Finberg – RySG
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
Stephane Hankins – Red Cross Red Crescent
David Heasley – IPC/IOC
Judd Lauter – IOC/IOC
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan – IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
Val Sherman – IPC/IOC
Apology:
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
David Maher - RySG
Christopher Rassi – Red Cross Red Crescent
ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Mary Wong
Julia Charvolen
Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 30 OCTOBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
1. Review Agenda & Changes to SOI’s
2. Chair’s update
3. Review Public Comments RT
4. Review draft Final Report
5. Confirm next meeting, 06 November 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
Adobe Chat Transcript 30 October 2013:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 30 Oct 2013 IGO-INGO Conference Call.
Avri Doria:hello
Greg Shatan:Hello, all.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Hi.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I'm afraid I may have to leave early today. But I'll stay as along as I can.
Berry Cobb:Val Sherman, can you provide your affiliation?
Alan Greenberg:On now.
Val Sherman:Silverberg, Goldman, and Bikoff LLP
Berry Cobb:Thank you Val...IOC. Appreciate it.
Avri Doria:exactly, rephrase the question to make sense.
Greg Shatan:“In fact, the consensus position of the Working Group was “Consensus Against” this particular recommendation. However, the approved levels of consensus for PDP Working Groups does not include “Consensus Against,” so the Working Group felt that it was not able to formally state that the position of the Working Group was “Consensus Against.” Because the inverse of this recommendation was not formally submitted for a consensus call, the Working Group felt that it could not, as a matter of procedure, state the proposition in the negative, and then state that the position of the Working Group was “Consensus” for the negative of the recommendation set forth above. In Working Groups with fewer recommendations than those before this Group, it is highly likely that this situation can be avoided altogether. However, due to the number of recommendations being considered by the Group, the Group adopted a “matrix” approach to setting forth the recommendations under consideration. It would have b
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Alan has a very fair point on enunciating our lack of support on this recommendation.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Or whatever we would call it.
Greg Shatan:It would have been unwieldy and confusing to set forth the negative of each recommendation in the matrix merely to guard against the possibility of a “Consensus Against” result. Therefore, the Group finds itself with a “Hobson’s Choice” between showing the level of consensus as “consensus against” (which does not appear to be formally available as a consensus level) and showing the level of consensus as “Divergence” (which mischaracterizes the position of the group). As the Group did not feel it had the authority to take the first choice, it has ended up by default with the consensus level of “Divergence.” The Working Group instructs the GNSO Council and the ICANN Board to consider this recommendation to be not supported by the Working Group, in spite of this formal statement of “Divergence” which the Group felt constrained to use. The Working Group further recommends that (a) the “Consensus Vocabulary” be expanded to include “Consensus Against” and (b) unless and until
Greg Shatan:that occurs, future Working Groups put safeguards in place in their consensus process to avoid this unfortunate result.”
Greg Shatan:I should have listed Alan's suggestion as an option. It is certainly a good possibility and would reflect our conclusion as a group..
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Chuck. Although I think it is a different situation when we have true divergence. Whereas when we have opposition.
Chuck Gomes 2:I cannot lower my hand.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If that's the case, we should have shown the recommendation for ISO-IEC criteria as divergence.
Avri Doria:i prefer indicating consensus against over dropping things.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Divergence cannot mean both no strong opinion AND opposition.
Alan Greenberg:Inverting the recommendation does not change the rules. It is a semantic technique to be able to clearly present the results of the consensus call.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Alan
Greg Shatan:Another +1.
Alan Greenberg:It *would* have been discrimainatory to phrase the original question with the negative. It is not so to alter the wording based on the result.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Again, +1 Alan
Greg Shatan:Another plus 1
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):If the definition for "divergence" included "opposition" we would not object. It does not.
Greg Shatan:We cannot blend divergence recommendations and consensus against recommendations in the same package. It hides the truth.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Greg
Greg Shatan:Even if you are constrained to call both of them divergence.
Mary Wong:@Greg, that's why we are thinking a separate table/column for this specific rec might make things clearer.
Mary Wong:@Chuck, right - so there would be different groupings, one for Consensus, one for Strong Support, one for Divergence etc.. Does that answer your question?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):! Well-said
Mary Wong:And we can have a separate group/table/column for this particular recommendation, explaining why in it.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+1 Greg
Greg Shatan:We need two sections for Divergence: One for authentic Divergence, and one for "Divergence" where there is strong opposition/consensus against. Blending them into one doesn't work.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I would strongly suggest that we do not try to complicate this matter too much. This is one discrete issue where divergence means opposition.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I agree with Alan. I would rather see a "not". It's simple and it's accurate.
Greg Shatan:"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
Greg Shatan:Agree with Chuck (and this is in my email...)
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Right.
Avri Doria:Of course minority views can be postive statement that are not necessarily oppostional to somethng that was decided.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Whatever scalpel we use to cut out this confusion, we should make the smallest cut possible. Time is of the essence.
Avri Doria:it beleive it is a minority view if it is relevant and only a minority holds that view
Chuck Gomes:In our report the Exec. Summ. probably will not contain the recommendations because they are too long.
Chuck Gomes:We may want to put the recommendations immediately after the Exec. Summ.
Elizabeth Finberg:+1 to Chucks suggestions
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Almost months ago, we had suggested puting in a "NOT". We felt, like Alan, that this would be the simplest way to accurately express our views. This was not taken up. If we do not go that way, then we would prefer to take this non-recommendation out. This particular case is rather singular in that it had overwhelming opposition
Greg Shatan:Another plus one for Chuck.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):And that opposition does need to be expressed. For the reason Alan and others support.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):+ Chuck, Greg
Avri Doria:aren;t implementation teams almost SOP now, and do they need specific council approval?
Avri Doria:i would not think so. the WG just sets it up.
Avri Doria:i guess it informs that council but i can find no grounds o=under whcih the council could say no.
Mary Wong:@Avri, my point was that it should be specifically called out for the Council.
Mary Wong:So if it was in the WG report that would be very helpful.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I apologize - I must leave. Thank you as always for the robust discussion and plan for concrete steps.
Avri Doria:what would have been the situation with regard to one of these names being transfered?
Chuck Gomes:They could be transferred.
Avri Doria:to anyone?
Chuck Gomes:I think so.
Avri Doria:i tink selling thse names should be forbidden as well!
Chuck Gomes:Avri's issues should be dealt with by the Implementation Review Team.
Avri Doria:i think so as long as we have the right recommendations.
Avri Doria:we are not talking about companies
Avri Doria:and lots of discussion of usign locking mechanisms
Avri Doria:i think that both my case and lan's narrower restriction can be done with locking mechanisms.
Greg Shatan:Alan - trrue, and good point. As IPC rep I should have recognized that.
Avri Doria:i think either a single report or a part A, B report is a good idea
Avri Doria:if you already did the check of the person listing once, that shouldbe enough.
Avri Doria:htere may be only a few that look like acronym.s. lllooking at the list now
Mary Wong:Thanks everyone.
