Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Could we please have a saveable version of Alain's presentation. Too much detail to take on board in real time on the screen.

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Ah, just now it has become saveable!

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan, I understood that PICs are not the only issue. But as it is important...

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Leon, but there is a provision for "grandfathering", isn't there?

Leon Sanchez:Indeed JJ

Leon Sanchez:I could live with it. I can't forsee a consequence that would harm end users at this point

Sébastien:important for me

Leon Sanchez:I will have a hard stop in 23 minutes

Leon Sanchez:My apologies for not staying for the full call

Leon Sanchez:I need to attend a CWG-CCWG Co-chairs call

VANDA SCARTEZINI:i believe it is relevant but i am concern if this had not considered before I do not know if we have time to convince people

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Christopher and Sébastien +1.

Terri Agnew:Welcome Loris Taylor

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):In terms of relevant interventions, we have the vertical integration decision which significantly reduces consumer choice between registrars.

Harold Arcos:@Alan, My words were misinterpreted. We can continue although we have no interpretation. I have no problem with those.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan, I don't remember seeing "neutral AND JUDGMENT-FREE" when we were preparing the AoC...

VANDA SCARTEZINI:i understand this will not be a problem if icann continue to be under US law

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Eduardo, yes.

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):'neutral and judgement free ...'. Does this apply to IDNs? There might be a reaction in terms of certain contents in some jurisdictions.

Leon Sanchez:I believe Harold is refereing that regardless of having the intepreter being able to stay longer, he can continue even without interpretation

VANDA SCARTEZINI:i do not have a problem with this

Eduardo Diaz:sorry I lost communication

Eduardo Diaz:I am OK with it

Leon Sanchez:I can also live with this

Gordon Chillcott:I can live with this one.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan, at end of sentence, add: "in so doing, ideology and judgment shall not play a part..."

Terri Agnew:We can stay on longer if needed with no Spanish Interpretation. As a reminder, if we do, the remaining recording and transcript will not be available on ES

Harold Arcos:@Leon, exactly!

Leon Sanchez::-)

Alan Greenberg:Ahh. ok

VANDA SCARTEZINI:my point, at this time we shall keep focusing on the most relevant items

Sébastien:I would like to be sure it is in the AOC

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan: and as I wrote 2 mintues ago on this chat, I don't recall "AND JUDGMENT-FREE" during the drafting of the AoC...

Harold Arcos:Important for me too.Let the weight of market mechanisms to generate a healthy environment would not see other factors. About DNS, is important to review to prevent misinterpreted.

Leon Sanchez:the word judgment does NOT appear in the current AoC

VANDA SCARTEZINI:leon is right

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):Consumer Trust should be mentioned in the Bylaws.

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):At Large members could raise this in the Comment period.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan, point taken about not fighting for only ONE item. But maybe from the User perspective, you could make a short list (consumer trust; different wording for "neutral and judgment-free"...)

Terri Agnew:finding line

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Alan, I can't remember another text, outside of a single national context, with "decisional participants". What we're talking about is actually "stakeholders with standing to vote on a limited number of items needing a decision". Decisional points to Voting members, whereas Participants suggests the exact oppositie, in that they do not have standing to vote.

Harold Arcos:Previous topic: Consider all as consumers can be a risk because it is contract relationship which can be an obstacle to recognize the human rights of the end users and vice versa. I think we should separate these two concepts *end users and consumers* in the statutes.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:"Is the term "Decisional Participants" an oxymoron?

Gordon Chillcott:It's a little odd, but it's livable

Christopher Wilkinson (CW):SCWG (page 56 of the CWG report): I have a major problem with the composition/voting proposal: what if at that final stage of the escalation there is a built in GNSO + ccNSO block vote for IANA/IPT (names) separation?

Leon Sanchez:LOL

Gordon Chillcott:I did get that, Alan

Jean-Jacques Subrenat:;-)

Leon Sanchez:I need to leave the call now

Leon Sanchez:My apologies

Leon Sanchez:Thanks everyone

Terri Agnew:@Leon, goodbye

VANDA SCARTEZINI:we can understand Alan, thank you

VANDA SCARTEZINI:+1 Alan

Terri Agnew:https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf

Eduardo Diaz:Sorry, but I have to go. Thnaks Alan. et al.

Terri Agnew:Welcome Glenn McKnight

Terri Agnew:Welcome Carlton Samuels

Carlton Samuels:Howdy all

Carlton Samuels:@JJS: A slight correction. The wording is the Internet is in the 'national security interest'. Its the word 'security' that makes all the difference.

VANDA SCARTEZINI:agree Carlton

VANDA SCARTEZINI:do we really need one more?

Sébastien:21?

Gordon Chillcott:In that case, a meeting late next week would be good.

VANDA SCARTEZINI:thank you all

Loris Taylor:Thank you

Gordon Chillcott:Thank you, all. Bye for now

Carlton Samuels:Bye all

Harold Arcos:Thanks all,,bye

Cheryl Langdon-Orr:thans bye for now

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 1

New Version Current

Key