Page History

Participants: Eric Brunner-Williams, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Evan Leibovitch, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Kathy Kleiman

Apologies: Cintra Sooknanan, Tijani Ben Jemaa
Staff: Matthias Langenegger

AI: Staff to link to a password-protected subpage on the AGAT WG with links to the Google docs.

JJS: How are the experts on the expert panel chosen?

EL: In the Rec 6 WG there seemed to be a consensus that the expert could be recruited as individuals.

JJS: ALAC needs to be vigilant. In the case of the IRT, there were many objections and once the experts have been chosen, it is difficult to change it. 2) With regards to the application process, could you point me to specific wording on applicant support for applicants from developing countries?

EL: I would point you to the snapshot report of the JAS that came out before Brussels. Its milestone report contains some language but it has not been picked up by the applicant guidebook and not been accepted by the GNSO. The GNSO wanted to revise the charter of the JAS. There is some friction between the ALAC and the GNSO because of that.

JJS: There seem to be different legal conceptions in, for example, the United States and Europe with regards to certain aspects of the Rec6 document.

EL: As far as I understand, legal experts have not vetted the Rec6 WG document so far.

OCL: 1) Expert panel: this was discussed in the Special Trademark Interest (STI) group and no consensus was reached. 2) Betrand de la Chappelle started a BOF meeting in Sydney but the debate did not evolve. 3) The database clearing house, is an example of staff selectively implementing parts of a community document.

EBW: The GNSO did not create a specific limitation. Many potential applicants are sponsored by GVT that do not fall in the current category. In addition to that, there are communities using multiple languages. We need to looks closely at the category issue.

JJS: If time permits, I suggest that we look it into categories and categorization. There is a risk that applicants are repudiated because they fall into a certain category. Rather, we should focus on the concept of criteria. With regards to obscenity-based objections, the real question is whether we consider that States or GVTs will have the final word because this is an example of national law taking over international law.

EL: Everythig ICANN does is commonly based on the assumption that countries are free to block its decisions on a national level. However, in my view, the proposal that GVT can veto proposals goes beyond that.

JJS: 1) In the multi-stakeholder environment, each community has its own goal. Each constituency protects the things it is most equipped to co. We as At-Large want something far-reaching but within the legal framework. 2) National law always applies but in the preparatory stage, we are not required to choose sides based on what the GAC proposes.

EL: A real-life example is .gay. If any country could veto gTLDs, it would lead to a lowest common denominator situation.

JJS: Although we need to keep track of reality, we need to push the extension of human rights and dignity as far as we can. Whether the Board support this or not, is out of our sphere of influence. We should be the proponents of certain principles such as human rights, human dignity and social and economic development.

OCL: Very interesting, JJS. I look at two examples: 1) DotNazi. This is a bad example because it targets content. We would need to look at the content since a Holoast museum applying for .nazi would be perfectly okay. 2) DotGay is different. It would fall under the category JJS mentioned. We should focus on that in particular as there will be applications for this.

CLO: I agree with JJS. It is impossible for ICANN to get involved in content. We have always maintained this.

KK: The notion that GVT can veto any POV they do not agree with is gaining ground. Even the US DOC has recently proposed this. We should be specific that anything that disintegrates the Internet is bad, including blocking TLDs.

EBW: With regards to human rights and dignity, we should look at another issues. For example, we did not expect the explosion of Catalan text in the in DotCAT space. The Catalan language has grown enormously and there was a considerable growth in printed text that followed the growth in online text. While the threat that some TLDs such as DotGay will be blocked is hypothetical, there are already those non-hypothetical blocked TLDs for people whose language, script or cultural identity is not contained in the com,net,org,biz,info set of buckets, and is not served sufficiently by the cctld set of buckets.

AI: EBW will take ownership for JAS-related issues (possible explicit categorization of applications and provisions such as reduced costs and/or streamlined processes for applicants meeting the criteria).

AI: Evan will send an email to the mailing list to find volunteers for the remaining issues.

AI: JJS will take ownership on morality and obscenity issues.

JJS: I would need a Skype chat with staff and/or Evan to be able to draft something on this.

AI: Evan and JJS will have a Skype conversation to prepare the draft text on morality and obscenity issues.

CLO: We should also be able to see the comments from other constituencies that represent users and registrants in ICANN.

EBW: I would assign Amadeo Abril i Abril on the trademark issues.

JJS supported this.

AI: EBW will get in touch with Amadeo Abril i Abril and ask him to cover the trademark issues in the AGAT.

The call was then adjourned.