Page History
...
Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way.
Decisions:
- Schedule calls for the weeks of 20 and 26 February
- Schedule call for 1900 UTC 14 February for 90 minutes.
- Review of comments on next call will begin with comment 6.05
Action Items:
- GS – will produce and updated draft of the recommendations for the next meeting.
- NCSG Participants requested to provide draft language with respect to comment 6.03 in the Google doc and advise the list.
- Staff to schedule calls for weeks of 20 and 26 February and send calendar invites.
Requests:
- (none)
Next Meeting:
- Wednesday 14 February 1900 UTC.
Documents Presented
- #3893862-v1-CCWG-Accountability-WS2-Jurisdiction-PublicComments-january2018-Summary-post.PDF
- #3893859-v1-Report v 1 2 1.PDF
- Jurisdiction-Public Comments-January 2018-Summary-post
Chat Transcript
Brenda Brewer: (2/7/2018 12:24) Good day! Welcome to Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #54 on 7 February 2018 @ 19:00 UTC.
Brenda Brewer: (12:24) When not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6). To unmute, *6. This call is recorded.
Brenda Brewer: (12:24) Reminder to all, for captioning and transcription, please state your name before speaking and speak slowly. Thank you!
Olga Cavalli: (12:52) hello
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (12:52) hello!
Thomas Rickert: (12:57) Hi all!
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (12:59) HELLO ALL
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (12:59) Hello Bernie. Could you confirm the duration of today's meeting? It was set for 1h in your agenda but 1.5h in the google agenda invite. Thank you.
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (13:00) 90 minutes as agreed at last meeting
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:00) alright thank you. I will most likely have to leave a bit after 9. Apologies in advance.
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:01) I meant 8 UTC, or 9pm for those in W Europe..
Brenda Brewer: (13:01) Dialout to Kavouss was not accepted.
David McAuley: (13:02) i am 8222
Steve DelBianco: (13:03) Greg -- what is difference between your two doc attachments? Both show markups
David McAuley: (13:07) i did also
Steve DelBianco: (13:07) right, Greg. So those are the SAME content, right?
Steve DelBianco: (13:08) An SOI joke. Good one
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (13:08) docs sent 1 PDF of spreadsheet and 1 PDF and Word of the edited recommendations
David McAuley: (13:08) lol
Steve DelBianco: (13:09) those two markups appear slighlt differnt on my screen, so I was confused. Better now
Steve DelBianco: (13:11) Greg is timing you, THomas. So don't be "excessive" <joking>
Finn Petersen,: (13:14) The comment from Denmark is from the Danish Goverment - not from me even though I have sign the letter
Greg Shatan: (13:14) Tick tock, Thomas. Tick tock.
David McAuley: (13:22) Fair warning, thanks Bernie
Brenda Brewer: (13:24) Scroll is on for all
David McAuley: (13:26) i like reasonable and suggest we approive it
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:26) I suppose that if best efforts in US law means absolute best efforts, then adding reasonable seems reasonable ;)
Steve DelBianco: (13:27) is "commercially reasonable" different than "reasonable" efforts?
Greg Shatan: (13:27) Not different enough to matter.
Farzaneh Badii: (13:29) but what does "reasonable" mean
Steve DelBianco: (13:29) Does "Best Efforts" create an obligation to expend any and all means and resources? If so, we should seek a different standard of effort
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:29) that would make a good question for a phd! haha
Farzaneh Badii: (13:30) It seems like in US it means that Steve.
Steve DelBianco: (13:31) Even if we lower the standard of effort, let's ensure tha tICANN is obligated to make an effort
David McAuley: (13:31) It's a high burden but ultimatelyt a court/panel will interpret it
Farzaneh Badii: (13:31) I agree with Steve.
David McAuley 2: (13:34) i lost connection for a short time
David McAuley 2: (13:35) I would follow Greg on that in explaining this discussion - ut remains a recooemdnation that would impose a burden
Farzaneh Badii: (13:35) Agreed Steve. there has to be an obligation to begin
Leon Sanchez: (13:36) hello everyone. My apologies for lateness. I had some technical issues with my ISP
Robin Gross: (13:36) I think Steve is proposing a good compromise that serves all.
Steve DelBianco: (13:36) okay with the obligation to apply
David McAuley 2: (13:37) taht's right Greg - it is and remains an obligation
David McAuley 2: (13:37) bad typing day
David McAuley 2: (13:39) Bernie's hand up
Farzaneh Badii: (13:39) "reasonable best effort"
Tatiana Tropina: (13:39) Hi all, sorry for joining late
Farzaneh Badii: (13:39) that's the change Tatiana
Tatiana Tropina: (13:39) seems I missed the poll
Greg Shatan: (13:40) Poll is still open
David McAuley 2: (13:42) I am ok with either term
Steve DelBianco: (13:42) acceptable is acceptable
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:42) I'd rather go with acceptable
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (13:42) ;)
Robin Gross: (13:42) no strong view - either ok
David McAuley 2: (13:42) I can acccept that
Farzaneh Badii: (13:44) ok
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (13:45) time check - 45 minutes left in call
Farzaneh Badii: (13:48) I agree with Steve. we need to have a broad sanction relief not limited to OFAC
Tatiana Tropina: (13:49) +1 to Farz and Steve
David McAuley 2: (13:49) This underscores the usefulness of the term 'reasonable' as we just discussed.
Farzaneh Badii: (13:50) +1
Farzaneh Badii: (13:51) we support the change
Tatiana Tropina: (13:51) seems reasonable to me.
Steve DelBianco: (13:51) I think it is both reasonable and acceptable
Robin Gross: (13:52) ok
Tatiana Tropina: (13:52) Tanya is a reasonable name!
Robin Gross: (13:52) but is it acceptable?
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (13:52) Best effort
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (13:52) ;-)
Olga Cavalli 2: (13:53) I will join another call in 5 minutes thanks.
Farzaneh Badii: (13:54) oh please also note down the name of NCSG, CSG, all their constituencies and my good name as well! (joking)
Farzaneh Badii: (13:55) content of comment is enough thank you
David McAuley 2: (13:55) agreed
David McAuley 2: (13:56) acceptable
Farzaneh Badii: (14:00) I have to leave. sorry. have a good meeting.
David McAuley 2: (14:01) The menu approach will need a fair amount of clarification, I think
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:01) At the time of operationalisation yes
Finn Petersen,: (14:02) Then it should not be part of the menu
David McAuley 2: (14:02) a short menu, no daily specials, said as a supporter of the status quo
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:03) I have to leave as well. To provide you an answer on what you have said Greg, I am more of the opinion that the menu should be small, and pre-cleared, and that registries "select". Have a nice evening all!
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:04) yes. it would. Now I don't know whether we would contravene Thomas' guidelines ;)
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:04) no no no this is just intellectual masturbation
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:04) lets move on
David McAuley 2: (14:05) abstain
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:05) support to Finn
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:06) apologies wrong chat
David McAuley 2: (14:06) IMO< the introduction to this menu approach is most important -- up to ICANN and CPH to discuss/negotiaste
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:06) true David yes
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:06) support point made by David
Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix: (14:07) Alright, I go now good evening all.
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:07) hand David
David McAuley 2: (14:07) hand up
David McAuley 2: (14:09) ok thankls
David McAuley 2: (14:09) let's hope not to go back out for comment
David McAuley 2: (14:10) OK, agree Greg, thanks
David McAuley 2: (14:14) what about other toolks comment
David McAuley 2: (14:15) tools, that is, sheesh
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:16) david hand
David McAuley 2: (14:16) good solution
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:17) 6.03
Robin Gross: (14:19) We should make this change suggested by NCSG
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:21) time check - 10 minutes left in call
Tatiana Tropina: (14:21) I disagree with David (while respecting his opinion a lot)
Tatiana Tropina: (14:22) we talked a lot about the wording that will ask ICANN to try to obtain a general license but without putting them into the risk of being obliged to put all the money into getting it
Tatiana Tropina: (14:23) Greg, yes -- this should be a priority (taking into account costs and obstacles)
Tatiana Tropina: (14:24) can we find a compromise with ICANN legal on this? If we have a general direction, I mean if we decide to strengthen the language related to general licence
Tatiana Tropina: (14:24) I suggest we discuss this on the next call
Tatiana Tropina: (14:24) as we don't have much time left, it's a significant issue
David McAuley 2: (14:25) IMO< we got language right the first time, but happy to consider specific proposed revision
Tatiana Tropina: (14:25) Greg, can you make it as an action item eg on the list?
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:25) ok
Tatiana Tropina: (14:25) (God am speaking like GNSO - action item...)
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:26) reminder deadline of 2 March
Tatiana Tropina: (14:26) 2 March is plenty, plenty of time :-)
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:27) Action Item NCSG Participants requested to provide draft language with respect to comment 6.03
Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (14:27) Begin next meetting with comment 6.05
David McAuley 2: (14:28) none here
Thomas Rickert: (14:30) Thanks Greg!
Thomas Rickert: (14:30) Bye all!
David McAuley 2: (14:30) Thanks Greg, Bernie, and all
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): (14:30) thanks and bye all!
Tatiana Tropina: (14:30) thank Greg - thanks all!
