When: Wednesday, 5 December 2012. GMT Standard Time. 19:00 UTC / This is a 120 Minute Call.
11:00 PST, 14:00 EST, 19:00 London, 20:00 CET
Adobe Connect Link: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20121205-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Wilson Abigaba – NCSG
Donna Austin – AusRegistry
Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
Iliya Bazlyankov – RrSG
Mason Cole - RrSG
Avri Doria – NCSG
Bret Fauset – RySG
Elizabeth Finberg – RySG
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Alan Greenberg – ALAC
Robin Gross – NCSG
Stephane Hankins – IPC
David Heasley – ICRC
Evan Lebovitch – ALAC
David Maher – RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil – NCSG
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit - ISO
Jeff Neuman – RySG
Jon Nevett – NTAG
Osvaldo Novoa – ISPCP
David Opderbeck – NCSG
Christopher Rassi – Red Cross
Thomas Rickert – NCA
David Roache-Turner - WIPO
Greg Shatan – IPC
Cintra Sooknanan – NPOC
Liz Williams – Individual
Apology :
Paul Diaz – RySG
Ricardo Guilherme - RySG
ICANN Staff:
Margie Milam
Barbara Roseman
Brian Peck
Berry Cobb
Julia Charvolen
Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 5 DEC 2012 @ 19:00 UTC (120 Min):
1. Roll Call
2. Statements of Interest
3. Status of General Council Request
4. Review of Reserved Names WG (Chuck)
5. Review of IGO-INGO Final Issue Report (Brian)
6. Review Request for Input from SO/AC & SG/C
7. Continue Exploration of Issues defined in Charter / Review of Proposed Work Effort straw man
8. Review IGO-INGO Work Plan
9. Next steps & confirm next meeting
Action Items
1. None
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 5 DEC 2012 IGO-INGO Conference Call.
Thomas Rickert:Hello everybody!
Kiran Malancharuvil:hi Thomas!
Jeff Neuman:hello
Kiran Malancharuvil:hi all!
Jeff Neuman:I am here, but will be on mute for a few minutes.
Evan Leibovitch:just came in
Julia Charvolen:Robin Gross joined the call
Liz Williams:I'm here to help you Chuck!
Osvaldo Novoa:Sorry I'm late, it was a bit difficult to reschedule the conference
Liz Williams:what we came up with was objective and transparent criteria for as much as we could. It was NOT ok for individual interests, of whatever persuasion, to try to lobby everyone and the ICANN Board to make decisions outside of the ICANN process. If that is done, then the ICANN process is meaningless.
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):It is perhaps also important to bear in mind that the UDRP does not cover IGOs, and that while being careful about changing past recomendations unduly, one significant development since the earlier Reserve Name discussions, is a massive DNS expansion. So its just about re-opening old processes, there are also genuinely new developments we need to be considering.
Jeff Neuman:David - That was a purposeful decision made in 2003 or 4
Jeff Neuman:after the "WIPO 2" process
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):meant "not just about"
Liz Williams:One of the other issues is that the opportunity to apply for a new TLD was open to everyone and any organisation to apply for a new TLD. The resources expended in the reverse engineering of protections is now, I think, at the point where it would have been more sensible and more objective for any of these organisations to apply for their own names.
Jeff Neuman:The ICANN Board, after a presentation from a number of governmnets that actually opposed protecting the IGOs at the time
Jeff Neuman:voted down the recommendations from WIPO to change the UDRP
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):"at that time"
Jeff Neuman:True --- that was then and this is now
Evan Leibovitch:thanks all for the history. This is helpful.
Donna Austin, AusRegistry:The GAC Principles on new gTLDs was considered during the development of the PDP
Liz Williams:The GAC was only involved because the parties at stake did not participate. Now the GAC is involved because it helps with the special petitioning.
Berry Cobb:Documentation of Rserved Names WG: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive-teams/2007/reserved-names-wg.htm%20
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Jeff has it right. We also didn't have the benefit of the latest GAC advice at thiat earlier time.
Liz Williams:The GAC advice is only ever advice for the ICANN Board. The advice can be ignored by the Board (which it has done on numerous occassions).
Donna Austin, AusRegistry:i understand the GAC will be developing a list of IGOs for protection based on the .int criteria, and it is their intention to have this work done before the delegation of new gTLDs
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Liz - sure, though the Board does not appear to have ignored this advice in its latest resolution. And if if the GAC has written specifically to the GNSO on the issue, should we lightly disregard such advice in our working group deliberations?
Jeff Neuman:@greg - do you have some examples?
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):Donna - that is my understanding also.
Evan Leibovitch:@David receiving and choosing not to follow is not the same as "disregard". Thei is a bottom-up process, and the community as a whole is involved in the decisions. Pressure politics, designed to circumvent the overall community, are to be resisted.
avri:I agree with Evan. The GAC advice does not have any controlling effect on the PDP.
Jeff Neuman:Part of the problem is that this is the distinction the GAC gave us
Jeff Neuman:After they did their research
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Is the "and" meant to require both treaty and statutory protection or a question of looking at either. The answer to that greatly limits the scope off the bat, and perhaps inappropriately so.
Liz Williams:no -- i support david maher's position.
avri:i support david whcih ever that is
avri:was not sure whether supporting david was agree or disagree.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):actually I did, changing entities to international organization in the first question
avri:say mark agree if this or disagree wif that.
avri:has the part of the Genva convention that says this been quoted somewhere?
Kiran Malancharuvil:Hi Avri, I think it's been quoted many times in emails from Stephane Hankins of the ICRC.
Greg Shatan:Claudia: To answer your question about "and" -- I think that (unfortunately) the intent is to require both a treaty and statutes to qualify for protection. That is the basis of my objection to this language.
David Roache-Turner (WIPO): In question three, should not be limited to names, but also include designations and acronyms for consistency with the introduction.
avri:Kiran: i have read all those emails and never seen a definaitive quote that showed the names were bared by the treaty. Guess i missed it.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Greg, if that is the case, then it is a fundamental flaw. Criteria are being set without any object reasoning for it.
avri:Kiran:I have read that certain uses were disallowed, not that the names could NEVER be used. but perhaps i did not understand the language.
Kiran Malancharuvil:Avri: Footnote 1 on page 2 of the GAC letter to the GNSO dated September 14, 2011, which details GAC advice on protections of the RCRC and IOC gives the cite to the section of the Geneva Convention.
Kiran Malancharuvil:other than that I can't comment on RC stuff.
avri:Kiran: I wil have to reread that secotnion, but i remmeber a limiting certain uses, eg, on the battle field, and not that it could not be used otherwise. but this is fodder for latter. I just have problems with t what i think may be a mischaracterization of what the Geneva convention limits.
Kiran Malancharuvil:I couldn't say, just trying to answer your question about where to find the information you seek.
Evan Leibovitch:This WG now seems to have its own soundtrack
Greg Shatan:Whoever just went on and off and on hold has "hold music" that is interfering with the call (beautiful though it may be).
Evan Leibovitch:(different music from what I would have chosen, but so be it....)
avri:will the URS exclude them?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg and David
avri:This is the PDP, educating people is required.
avri:we can't say oh, we told you already, dont ask again.
David Opderbeck:Agree with Alan
avri:We canot exlcude the community from the discussion!!!!
Kiran Malancharuvil:the community is represented by the members of the working group
Evan Leibovitch:@Kiran: dead wrong. This is not an elite. I fully intend to consult within my constituency.
Alan Greenberg:@avri, my recollection is that the URS does include treaty-based protections.
avri:thanks Alan, i thought it did, but i amnot a subject expert. So the question obout beleiving the URS covers it makes a lot of sense.
Berry Cobb:8.Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate enough to offer protections to IGO and INGOs?
Kiran Malancharuvil:Who said anything was elite? There is 2 years of work behind this... we can't flippantly ask a question without an enormous amount of informaiton presented along with it. If you want that, so be it. We're happy to resubmit, but don't ask the question without the background information.
avri:the PDP starting os back to zero.
Evan Leibovitch:That's the price paid for re-opening the original policy.
avri:... is back to zero. what went before is prelude but and infoo or education needs to be included.
Kiran Malancharuvil:so we are not to benefit from work previously performed?
avri:yeah, please dont assume the community is ignorant.
Elizabeth Finberg:But doesn't the term "special protection" mean protection above and beyond existing RPMs?
avri:yes we nenfit, by having it presented again. you dont need to prepare it anew, but it needs to be presented anew.
Kiran Malancharuvil:please don't put words in my mouth. that's counterproductive and villifying.
Elizabeth Finberg:in other words, our starting point is necessarily the adequacy of exisiting RPMs
Alan Greenberg:@Kiran, we cannot presume that previous DECISIONS are appropriate. If we did that, we would be honoring the original reserved names work. All previous work should be considered if applicable.
David Roache-Turner (WIPO):agree with greg
avri:that is one of the starting points. if they are agequate for aLL the needs, then what do we need to do further.
Berry Cobb:8.Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not accommodate all IGOs and INGOs)?
Kiran Malancharuvil:@Alan - the group is set to address the adequacy of RPMs, no one is suggesting that we take decisions as a starting point, only that we don't ask flippant questions without providing context.
avri:Berry, works for me.
Elizabeth Finberg:+1
avri:Kiran: oh, we are flippant are we?
Berry Cobb:8.Do you feel existing RPMs or proposed RPMs for the new gTLD program are adequate to offer protections to IGO and INGOs (understanding that UDRP and TMCH may not be eligible for all IGOs and INGOs)?
Kiran Malancharuvil:avri, give me a break.
Thomas Rickert:What should criteria look like?They should be objectiveThey should be globally applicableThey should be easily and unambiguously verifiedThey should address what is special for the potential beneficiaries (i.e. factors that apply to all rights holders do not help a lot.)
avri:are we asking if the 'and' means 'or'
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):I am. If it is an and, the qualifying INGOs are immediately limited without any reasoning for do so.
avri:i know of no time in logic where an 'and' can mean or. I know of inclusivie and exclusive 'or' but not and.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):an and meanding both not either
avri:either is or.
Donna Austin, AusRegistry:I have to drop off the call.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):In other words, INGOS receiving protections under treaties and INGOs receiving protections under multiple jurisdictions
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):Agree with Greg, this is fundamental.
avri:as i say i studied philsophy/logic not law, but the meaning of 'and' was defined the same way in every truth tables i ever saw.
avri:or are you asking a gramatical question. if so shouldn't the punctuation be the defining criteria - i.e. grapgh the sentence.
avri:i did not think the RCRC thought itself an INGO
Greg Shatan:I like fish and chicken. Does this mean I like fish and I like chicken, or does this mean that I only like the combination of fish and chicken?
avri:in that case you have used parallel constrictiion and dai ilike both time. that is a different sentence than i like fish anc chicken, simlar to i like gin and tonic.
avri:sorry about the typos. it is late in Dubai
avri:i like X and i liek y, is not i like X and Y.
avri:if i say i lke gin and tonic, do you assime i like gin and i like topic, or do you assume i like a mix of the two.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit (ISO):To be clear, I am not asking this question as a philosophical exercise, but as an objection to any defintional limitation that is not based in discussed reasoning.
avri:i am not answering as aphilosphical question. i am used logic and grammer to discover the answer.
Cintra Sooknanan:@Greg 'and' in legal drafting usually means and/or
Cintra Sooknanan:meaning both or either
Cintra Sooknanan:whereas or just means either
avri:this is not legal drafting. and i thought they wrote and/or when that is what they meant.
Greg Shatan:I think we need to clarify that that is the case here. I think that others here would object to that construction (though I would prefer it.)
Cintra Sooknanan:@ avri not always unfortuntately ... it's best to take a plain language meaning
avri:if the langauge is not clear, the process of a WG requires we go back to the council for clarification.
Greg Shatan:@avri: lawyers try to avoid and/or at all costs. Some documents also include lengthy statements about interpreting "and".
Cintra Sooknanan:bye everyoen
Cintra Sooknanan:take care
