Zoom chat: 2020-08-19 Consolidated Policy Working Group Call

00:29:42 Ricardo Holmquist: Hello Heidi
00:30:34 Judith Hellerstein: HI All, did others have a different interface when entering this meeting
00:30:41 Evin Erdogdu: Welcome, all!
00:31:11 Bill Jouris: Interface looks just like usual to me
00:31:49 Judith Hellerstein: mine was totally different this time, before I entered zoom
00:31:58 Judith Hellerstein: zoom interface is the same
00:32:07 Michelle DeSmyter: To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
00:35:46 Bill Jouris: Wait, this is an addendum to a statement to be published 6 weeks from now???? )Per line 1)
00:36:10 Bill Jouris: published => submitted
00:37:01 Holly Raiche: Happy to go with this statement
00:37:44 Michelle DeSmyter: To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
00:40:13 Roberto: I am also puzzled by the date, @Bill
00:40:21 Heidi Ullrich: Well-noted, Bill.
00:40:24 Herb Waye: Greetings everyone nice to see names and hear voices.
00:40:31 Bill Jouris: Always helps to get a second pair of eyes on things
00:41:22 Hadia’s iPhone: I think we pointed that one last time, it’s just not updated
00:42:29 Jonathan Zuck: So why not have a thirty-second pair of eyes, eh?
00:42:37 Heidi Ullrich: On the third paragraph, should it read: Although the ALAC, BC, IPC, GAC and the SSAC each took…?
00:45:26 Jonathan Zuck: Indeed
00:45:54 Michelle DeSmyter: To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
00:47:12 christopher wilkinson: With reference to the excellent work by Haida and Alan, my first and last reaction to this situation is that it was a MISTAKE for the Board to address this question to the GNSO.
00:59:01 Roberto: Mumbai = Bombay
01:02:00 Betty Fausta: or Bombai
01:03:39 Roberto: @Alan - you mean Ninive and Babylon as “former capital cities”?
01:04:01 Jonathan Zuck: And SPA
01:04:11 Betty Fausta: all the countieAll the countries are not equal.
01:04:21 Betty Fausta: countries
01:04:41 Jonathan Zuck: I renew my suggestion that ICANN, or even the At-Large, implement a notification database and remove the question of who “gets in,” etc.
01:06:27 Jonathan Zuck: There are NOW city names with .COM in them!
01:06:46 Alan Greenberg: @Roberto, depends on how far back you want to go. I was presuming only for countries that still exist. I was thinking Rio de Janiero and Brazilia.
01:08:30 Roberto: @Alan - I understand - my fancy example is just to point out that we need to define the limits. How long back is one parameter, but maybe not the only one.
01:17:42 Marita Moll: I am also wondering about the airport list -- some airports are tiny
01:17:45 Justine Chew: The UN Database = https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/documents/DYB2018/table08.pdf
01:18:03 Justine Chew: IATA list = https://www.iata.org/en/publications/directories/code-search/
01:19:44 Marita Moll: International airport?
01:22:12 Jonathan Zuck: Well, actually we DO need to have the conversation here. We need to reach consensus on what we are recommending and not keep having the same conversation over again
01:22:59 Marita Moll: That would be a good amendment (international airport)-- the IATA list is too broad
01:23:41 Jonathan Zuck: Then perhaps “airport” isn’t the criteria
01:24:05 Harold Arcos: @Marita if we just consider the international airports, how about of another capital tiny cities,,, Will be discretional use by anyone?
01:24:14 Jonathan Zuck: 100k population seems better
01:25:55 Greg Shatan: France has 33 international airport cities (with Paris having 2)
01:26:49 Marita Moll: @Harold -- capital cities already protected
01:26:51 Sébastien Bachollet: IANA list is 1819 locations
01:27:21 Greg Shatan: France has 39 cities with 100,000 plus inhabitants
01:27:33 Jonathan Zuck: So?
01:28:06 Jonathan Zuck: I’m not sure what this concern is about the database being “too big.” These aren’t big numbers from a database standpoint
01:28:52 Marita Moll: 3a= International airports
01:29:06 Marita Moll: 3b= ?
01:29:09 Greg Shatan: My point is that International Airports scales similarly to 100,000 cities
01:29:09 Justine Chew: Option 1: as stands Option 2: as stands Option 3: as stands Option 3A: (ii) would be just international airports Option 3B: no cities with airports
01:29:50 Greg Shatan: And the IATA list is 9094 codes as I see it. What list are you looking at Sebastien? Mine is on iata.org.
01:29:53 Roberto: In the poll there was no option 3, just 3A and 3B
01:30:12 Hanan Khatib: if any location classified as city, then it should be considered as a city with no conditions weather it is listed in IATA or US (may it is not listed)
01:30:16 Hadia’s iPhone: there is no option 3 in the poll
01:30:32 Betty Fausta: exact Hadia
01:30:45 christopher wilkinson: 100k is insufficient. There are many smaller places who will consider that they merit protection. Not generic, Not uniform globally. Not addressable except in all languages, scripts and histories.
01:31:04 Betty Fausta: agree with Christopher's
01:31:28 Greg Shatan: Sebastien, the list is 1819 PAGES, not codes....
01:31:28 Hadia’s iPhone: we should have. 1,2,2,3a,3b like 1,2,2,3,5
01:31:34 Betty Fausta: all historic city. mythological one's even there is nobody
01:31:38 Roberto: Can we run the poll again with all options?
01:31:48 Judith Hellerstein: People did not understand this
01:31:50 christopher wilkinson: Memo: GNSO thinks that what is agreed (imposed?) now, will hold validity for all future Rounds. No.
01:32:00 Hadia’s iPhone: me at 1,2,3,3a,3b
01:32:22 Harold Arcos: +1 Christopher about 100K insufficient.
01:32:29 Hadia’s iPhone: 1,2,3,,4,5
01:32:49 Greg Shatan: This is why we need to talk about curative protections, which could offer broader opportunities for protections,
01:33:00 Alberto Soto: I do not agree that more rights are given for having a greater number of inhabitants The rules should be the same for everyone ...
01:33:19 Heidi Ullrich: Many thanks, Michelle.
01:33:22 Roberto: However, it looks from the previous run of the poll that no option will have substantial majority - so no consensus, apparently
01:33:49 Bill Jouris: In fact, there probably isn't a useful AND SIMPLE criteria. Whatever we come up with is going to leave exceptional cases
01:34:17 Jonathan Zuck: Indeed, although it is probably safe to assume that you can always add the numbers from above. In other words, option 2 will have a plurality by effect unless someone objects
01:34:32 Betty Fausta: too much thighs to be right
01:34:45 Betty Fausta: this poll is controversial
01:34:46 Hanan Khatib: what id the population became less 100k for anyreason?
01:35:12 Betty Fausta: great remarks Hanan
01:35:50 christopher wilkinson: 65% supporting 3*. This is negotiable.
01:36:18 Jonathan Zuck: So it’s 3
01:36:19 Yrjo Lansipuro: 65% for the variants of 3
01:36:29 Hadia’s iPhone: yes
01:36:37 Hadia’s iPhone: some form of three
01:36:37 Roberto: Hand up
01:36:47 Abdulkarim oloyede: Judith is right
01:36:53 Jonathan Zuck: Sounds good
01:37:01 Judith Hellerstein: works for me
01:38:28 Jonathan Zuck: Yes, it could be a multi-selection poll that together makes up the total answer
01:38:31 Hadia’s iPhone: like not packages
01:39:31 Roberto: @Justine - indeed, but I had already my hand up, so I spoke anyway
01:40:21 Marita Moll: straw poll only
01:40:51 Roberto: About splitting the complex in items, we adopted a similar approach in the Vertical Integration, saying that we were splitting the “molecules” in “atoms”
01:41:10 Roberto: and vote on the atoms
01:42:21 Hadia’s iPhone: + 1 Jonathan the consensus was to do more
01:42:46 Marita Moll: Just learning how to best use the voting system to get so kind of feeling of where people are -- and we often only hear from a few people
01:43:07 Jonathan Zuck: Exactly @Marita
01:43:27 Jonathan Zuck: That’s what we’re talking about doing by focusing on some version of 3
01:43:45 Yrjo Lansipuro: Marita +1 Yes, are just learning how to use the straw poll functionality
01:48:08 Jonathan Zuck: @Marita and @Greg, we should assign a homework project for everyone to watch 12 Angry Men to see what the process of developing consensus with a series of straw polls could look like ;)
01:49:17 Marita Moll: We already had a strong preference for some kind of protection for non-capital cities and we now have a pretty good preference for something more than option 2 and less than options 3. That is moving forward.
01:49:26 Jonathan Zuck: Generic notification does NOT imply any power, whereas a “list” based approach does
01:50:03 Jonathan Zuck: Why?
01:55:36 Gordon Chillcott: Agree with Christopher here.
01:56:18 Hadia’s iPhone: I am sorry but I shall need to leave the call now. thank you everyone, bye for now
01:58:29 Marita Moll: Not only talking about cities here -- geographic names like Amazon
01:59:17 Marita Moll: Me too -- agree with Christopher
02:00:58 Jonathan Zuck: Exactly!
02:01:52 Judith Hellerstein: I just voted for the one thing
02:01:58 Judith Hellerstein: wrong thing
02:02:44 avri doria: polls seem to be tricky things
02:02:56 Jonathan Zuck: They REALLY shouldn’t be
02:03:04 Judith Hellerstein: I vote for greg’s option
02:04:57 Jonathan Zuck: Ha, we don’t even know “Greg’s Option”
02:05:11 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Judith you can vote again
02:05:32 Betty Fausta: I hope interpreter can give the right information for the poll.
02:05:54 Yrjo Lansipuro: NomCom is using straw polls all the time, but it’s easier when dealing just with names. It’s much more difficult when we’re dealing with different policy options
02:06:07 Betty Fausta: everyone are not English speaking person and can read the poll easily
02:07:01 Betty Fausta: thanks Judith to be my voice
02:08:53 Greg Shatan: Old hand....
02:08:53 Herb Waye: Stay safe everyone
02:08:58 Hanan Khatib: thank you all
02:09:02 Roberto: Bye all
02:09:07 Judith Hellerstein: bye all
02:09:12 Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: bye all
02:09:15 Heidi Ullrich: Thank you. All.
02:09:20 Betty Fausta: bye bye
02:09:21 Marita Moll: Interesting call. bye all
02:09:22 Alberto Soto: Thanks, bye bye!!!
02:09:26 Evin Erdogdu: Thanks all
02:09:27 Greg Shatan: Bye all!