AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Yesim Nazlar: (11/7/2018 15:19) Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call taking place on Wednesday, 07 November 2018 at 13:00 UTC.
Yesim Nazlar: (15:19) Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/eADVBQ
Evin Erdogdu: (15:45) Hello all!
Yesim Nazlar: (15:46) Welcome Evin!
Yesim Nazlar: (16:02) @Hadia: would you like to test your mic as you'll be giving an update during the call?
Jonathan Zuck: (16:03) can Hadia speak
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:03) yes Yesim could i test the mic now
Yesim Nazlar: (16:05) @Hadia: we can not hear you if you're speaking
Jonathan Zuck: (16:08) we can hear you!
Jonathan Zuck: (16:13) and we have a new one
Evin Erdogdu: (16:14) Yes will check off @Hadia's AI as complete. Thank you!
Heidi Ullrich: (16:16) @Hadia, we are working to get you back on the call.
John Laprise: (16:17) Arrived
Yesim Nazlar: (16:17) welcome John!
Yesim Nazlar: (16:18) Hadia is now back on the bridge
Christopher Wilkinson: (16:21) The differentiation between natural and legal persons is necessary. Geograplhic differentiation is not necessay, actually prefer global best practice.
Kaili Kan: (16:24) Sorry to be late. Internet connection problems.
Yesim Nazlar: (16:24) Welcome Kaili!
Justine Chew: (16:31) Or distill policy brief from Exec Summary from EPDP initial report since it's out next week?
Jonathan Zuck: (16:32) persons is legal versus individual
Jonathan Zuck: (16:33) most of them are CCTLDs + godaddy
Jonathan Zuck: (16:33) twocows
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (16:34) Tucows Germany subsidiary/afiliate
Justine Chew: (16:36) What happens if CP + NCSG continue to pushback on legal vs person distinction?
Jonathan Zuck: (16:36) they win
Jonathan Zuck: (16:37) or we need to get creative about leverage
Justine Chew: (16:37) Okay, but potentially, the research could put that push back to rest?
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (16:38) Since this is a GNSO working group, if one side of the house + 1 constituency from the other house support something, they win, don't they?
Alfredo Calderon: (16:39) Who is responsible to do the research?
Joanna Kulesza: (16:40) Hi all, apologies for arriving late.
Alaraj Nadira: (16:41) hi Joanna
John Laprise: (16:42) +1 Jonathan!
Alfredo Calderon: (16:42) Welcome @Joanna
Hadia Elminiawi: (16:42) @Jonathan +1
Heidi Ullrich: (16:43) +1 Jonathan!
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka: (16:43) This is a brilliant idea Jonathan
Heidi Ullrich: (16:43) BTW, the Chairing Skills Program teaches all of this.
Joanna Kulesza: (16:44) +1 Jonathan
Heidi Ullrich: (16:44) See: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=62395123 (deadline for registration is 21 December)
Heidi Ullrich: (16:44) You do need to be a Chair of a group to qualify
Heidi Ullrich: (16:45) or in a leadership position.
Justine Chew: (16:46) @Jonathan, will try to comply for v2 of my ppt :)
Joanna Kulesza: (16:47) thanks Jonathan, looks great
Justine Chew: (16:52) +1 Tijani
Alaraj Nadira: (16:53) some echo
Carlton Samuels: (16:53) Howdy all. My ISP is getting on my last good nerve.
Carlton Samuels: (16:54) Apologies for the late join
Yesim Nazlar: (16:55) Welcome Carlton!
Jonathan Zuck: (17:00) there has been plenty I think
John Laprise: (17:00) It's fairly clear. The important question is whether the (new & improved) mechanism should be employed.
Evin Erdogdu: (17:01) @Marita you may find previous ALAC statements on the issue at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge.icann.org_policy-2Dsummary&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=bseRUahvLnfUbjz25n9qCQavM9IhkLWhO-kVWtDcVy4&s=e4RO1DrAJonjwAt_PC0L6q8204SxDOOrOixRo9pCneY&e= and use the search function by topic.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (17:06) External auctions have been seen by some applicants as the way to check out & strike it rich quickly
Marita Moll: (17:07) Can ICANN actually prohibit private auctions?
Christopher Wilkinson: (17:11) @Marita - I think private auctions could readily be assimilated to anti-competitive collusion. Therefore probably illegal in some jurisdictions.
Marita Moll: (17:13) @Christopher -- yes, that possibility comes to mind
Marita Moll: (17:14) Juntine's audio is pretty noisy. Makes it hard to follow
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:15) yes Marita true, the audio is nosiy
Carlton Samuels: (17:17) @Christopher. The fact that we see parties actually embracing the private auction in the last round as a winning formulation - specifically an economic windfall - makes collusion a real possibility
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:21) I am on both the adobe audio and the phone line
Marita Moll: (17:21) Yes, I think this would make a great webinar. I would need to read these slides much more carefully
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (17:22) +1 Marita. I was going to suggest this
Christopher Wilkinson: (17:22) The problems with Registrar sulpport are a direct consequence of the flawed 'cross-ownershiop' version of vertical int4egration in 2010.
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:24) Thank you Justine - great work
Christopher Wilkinson: (17:24) Re auctions in general: the money will ultimately be recuperated from registrants. There must be more efficient ways of taking these decisions.
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:24) +1 for the webinar
Harold Arcos: (17:25) @Marita proposal +1. Surely we will request a webinar for our LAC-Ralo
Christopher Wilkinson: (17:27) @ Sebastien: If we are boud by all the mistakes in 2007 and 2012 then we are all wasting our time. A question for ICANN Legal?
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:27) if it would be retroactive
Christopher Wilkinson: (17:27) Not retroactive
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka: (17:28) It requires collaboration with Capacity Building
Carlton Samuels: (17:29) @Tijani +1
Justine Chew: (17:29) @Sebastien: I think any change for the next round would not "affect" prior applicants and applications that are still being concluded.
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:30) yes greg
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:31) Thank you Greg
Joanna Kulesza: (17:32) +1 Marita
Carlton Samuels: (17:33) A few small typos;
Joanna Kulesza: (17:33) legal grounds for LEAs access and IP lawyers access are distinctly different. Thanks for pointing it out Marita.
Joanna Kulesza: (17:35) Is that a position we want to maintain?
John Laprise: (17:35) at large can change its mind
Jonathan Zuck: (17:35) this is a broader conversation. we shouldn't be afraid of supporting other parts of the community if there's an end user interest to be supported
A-Eduardo Diaz: (17:36) I need to move on. Other commitments....
Jonathan Zuck: (17:36) thanks Eduardo
Joanna Kulesza: (17:36) I would be thrilled to discuss this in more detail.
Joanna Kulesza: (17:37) @Jonathan - we can only support end user interest within legal boundaries ;) yes, it is a #GDPR related argument. No, I don't want to start a storm here. Just flagging an issue.
Jonathan Zuck: (17:38) yes, except we are not trying to be lawyers but instead representives of "interests."
Marita Moll: (17:38) Well, I think it has already been determined that this was in old version
A-Eduardo Diaz: (17:38) Thnaks to all. These dicussion are very healthy and enlightening but like JZ said a bit dense some times..
Alfredo Calderon: (17:38) This should be continued in the mailing-list.
Carlton Samuels: (17:39) @Jonathan: My position always. We always look for opportunities to garner support on an issue so long as the expected outcomes supports our posture, regardless of motivation of the supporter. The At-Large has permanenet interests, We have no permanent enemies.
Joanna Kulesza: (17:39) @Alfredo +1
John Laprise: (17:39) IP is civil not criminal law (largely). ICANN should needs to comply with govt requests but can be far more cuircumspect on civil law requests.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (17:39) The first point which Marita makes is about a past ALAC Statement that is quoted in this proposed Statement. The past Statement is from 10 April 2018. So as Greg said, this is already past.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (17:39) it is a quotation from the past Statement
Justine Chew: (17:40) Do we have to quote previous statement?
Carlton Samuels: (17:40) Change position in a hearbeat if our collective interests are served!
Joanna Kulesza: (17:41) @Greg this is no way a personal issue - you are our fav IP lawyer:)
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond: (17:41) Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrgh! A lawyeeeerrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hellllp.... must... survi...ve...
Carlton Samuels: (17:41) @Justine: For me, no. But I guess it helps the navigation
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka: (17:42) I am not understanding the Lawyer in this sense or aspect
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:46) Thanks Marita
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:47) @Sebastian you have a point
Jonathan Zuck: (17:50) /Thanks for staying late everyone!
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:51) thank you all - i have forwarded the EPDP most recent update to the CPWG
Sebastien: (17:51) I will not be available at all
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka: (17:52) Me to - I will not be able to attend due to the IGF
Justine Chew: (17:52) *I suspect it will be too early for me
Carlton Samuels: (17:53) This business of protecting city names becomes a rathole, especially for those of us at the edge of empire. Just for Jamaica, for example, we have lots of place names that are shared with other jurisdictions. Question is, which jurisdiction gets preference? And how do we assert our ownership interest?
Joanna Kulesza: (17:54) thanks all.
Alfredo Calderon: (17:54) Bye to all!
Jonathan Zuck: (17:54) Good point Carlton
Rainer Rodewald: (17:54) by to all
Kaili Kan: (17:54) Bye!
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka: (17:54) Bye to all
Hadia Elminiawi: (17:54) bye
Carlton Samuels: (17:54) Bye all. Thanks all
Harold Arcos: (17:54) +1 @Carlton
Gordon Chillcott: (17:54) Thanks and bye for now
Evin Erdogdu: (17:54) Thank you all!
Harold Arcos: (17:54) Within the WT5 call, this very early morning was discussed some points regarding this issue.
Harold Arcos: (17:55) thanks to all,,,bye everyone
