The next call is scheduled on 7 NOV 2012 . (Scheduled for 45 Min)
11:00 PDT, 13:00 CDT, 14:00 EDT, 20:00 CET, 06:00 Sydney (16.11)
Adobe Connect room:
http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/
Proposed Agenda – IOC-RCRC DT Meeting – 7 NOV 2012 @ 19:00 UTC (45 Min)
1. Roll Call
2. Review Public Comments (last comment, 15 OCT)
3. Review Final Recommendations
4. Determine next steps
Action Items – IOC-RCRC DT Meeting
1. Create draft Communications to ICANN Board & GAC
2. Submit Final Recommendations to GNSO Council / Finalize Draft Motion
Adobe Connect Chat Transcript:
Berry Cobb: Welcome to the 7 NOV IOC-RCRC / IGO-INGO Conference Call.
Berry Cobb: Please note that this is a split meeting. We will cover IOC-RCRC for the first 45 min.
Berry Cobb: We ask only participants of the IOC-RCRC DT participate in the first session, but all are welcome to listen in.
Chuck Gomes (Verisign): I am on the call
Kiran Malancharuvil: Hi All. For attendance purposes, I'm joined by David Heasley
Osvaldo Novoa: sorry I got cut out. I'm back now
Osvaldo Novoa 2: I apologize for my duplicated connection, I have a problem with my laptop so I'm also connected with my iPad.
Alan Greenberg: sorry to be late. calling in now.
Alan Greenberg: as soon as a coordinator assists me momentarily.
Berry Cobb: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ioc-rcrc-recommendations/msg00014.html
Berry Cobb: We should just remove reference to UN6
Kiran Malancharuvil: I agree
Kiran Malancharuvil: That is correct Alan, the GAC request more than what ended up in the AGB
Kiran Malancharuvil: *requested
Berry Cobb: Schedule A contains the list from the GAC.
Kiran Malancharuvil: Thanks Berry
Kiran Malancharuvil: Thank YOU Jeff!
Berry Cobb: I will send out to the list later today the members of the WG. It will also show who has submitted their SOI and who has not.
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: no objection
Kiran Malancharuvil: no objection
David Maher: I regret that I cannot participate in this discussion. Construction is going on in an adjacent office and i must remain on Mute
David Maher: I agree w/ Chuck
Donna Austin: What is the risk to the IOC of keeping the two groups together?
David Maher: What if every member of the WG joins both subgroups?
Kiran Malancharuvil: Donna - I don't understand what you mean my "risk," but the issue is one of time and resources wasted on revisiting from scratch an issue that has been beaten to death over the last few years.
Kiran Malancharuvil: David - would that be a problem?
David Maher: Not that I see
Kiran Malancharuvil: I agree.
Margie Milam: thats right-- that was the staff perspective....
Kiran Malancharuvil: Alan - the Subgroup A will expedite that issue and be done quickly. THey would not run parallel for long.
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I agree with Alan's point. There is a great deal of overlap between the subjects. Makes more sense to work just once.
Alan Greenberg: @ Kiran, all the more reason that there is no need to divide. But I am not at all sure that your scenario is how it will play out,
Kiran Malancharuvil: how do you figure that is a reason not to divide? if you bog down consideration of the IOC Red Cross issue with the larger issue on which much work is needed, how does that allow the issue to be expedited?
David Maher: I wish I could speak, but the construction noise would make it impossible for anyone to hear me
David Maher: that's correct
Alan Greenberg: @KIran, if the workload for RCRC/IOC is substantive, it will be a heavy load to have the two groups working in parallel, if it is not substantive, it will not slow down the overall work.
Kiran Malancharuvil: the susbtantive work has already been done Alan.
Osvaldo Novoa: I agree with the proposal
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I don't believe that all the work has been done yet. Even assuming that the IOC/RC are entitled to special protections, we need to decide what those special protections are and how they will be implemented.
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: We use the phrase special protection a lot, but it doesn't have an agreed meaning yet.
Donna Austin: Is there an assumption that because GAC advice has been provided that means that the work has been done. Please excuse my ignorance on this, I'm a latecomer on this group.
Alan Greenberg: @Kiran: doing them serially or interlaced than will not be a problem.
Kiran Malancharuvil: Alan, we are like two ships passing in the night.
Kiran Malancharuvil: :)
Kiran Malancharuvil: Donna - GAC advice is not the sole basis on our opinion that we have done the work. It's also the unredacted board paper with inside and outside counsel opinion, and over a year of discussion with the GNSO including presentation by both the IOC and Red Cross.
Donna Austin: Thanks Kiran
Kiran Malancharuvil: Why not say "the group can consider the following"
Berry Cobb: Just to point out. If we do not get the Charter agreed upon today, the next GNSO Council meeting is not scheduled until 20 DEC 2012.
Kiran Malancharuvil: What about: "Without duplicating work that has already been done by the IOC/RCRC DT, the group may consider the following."
Berry Cobb: proposed change.... "** Given commitment to expedite the PDP process, an effort should be taken to avoid duplication of past efforts with respect to IOC-RCRC"
Kiran Malancharuvil: NOT THE GROUP WILL
Kiran Malancharuvil: the group MAY
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: We are going to AVOID the duplication of work and we MAY consider the Arvri list of subjects.
Kiran Malancharuvil: I want to see it in writing Alan, as we often duplicate efforts in ICANN.
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: I agree with Alan's statement. I don't want to duplicate any work. At the same time, I don't believe we should cede to previous groups the policy decisions we are asked to examine.
David Maher: I agree
David Maher: I also agree w/ jeff's point
Elizabeth Finberg 2: I agree with Jeff's point, as well.
Alan Greenberg: @Jeff +1
Jonathan Robinson: @Jeff +1
David Maher: Not only am I unable to speak, I can only hear the proceedings part of the time because of construction noise. Sorry
Alan Greenberg: Will consider is good wording
Jeff Neuman: All - i need to drop. I will trust Chuck, David, Elizabeth and the other registries to speak for me.
Jeff Neuman: thanks everyone
Elizabeth Finberg 2: sorry, my call just dropped.
Berry Cobb: ** Given the commitment to expedite the PDP process, the WG will consider the work and documents produced by the IOC-RCRC DT, but an effort should be taken to avoid duplication of past efforts with respect to IOC-RCRC
David Maher: I think Jeff dropped off
David Maher: are we going to consider the legal question that I sent to the group?
Elizabeth Finberg 2: I agree with Chguck. stop after the comma
Berry Cobb: ** Given the commitment to expedite the PDP process, the WG will consider the work and documents produced by the IOC-RCRC DT.
Chuck Gomes (Verisign): We should consider the legal question after the charter
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry: That sounds right Berry.
Elizabeth Finberg 2: acceptable to me
Jonathan Robinson: I have to leave the call now. Apologies and thanks all.
David Maher: OK by me
Berry Cobb: ** Given the commitment to expedite the PDP process, the WG will consider the work and documents produced/used by the IOC-RCRC DT.
David Maher: no objection
Berry Cobb: ** Given the commitment to expedite the PDP process, the WG will consider the work and documents used by the IOC-RCRC DT.
Berry Cobb: ** Given the commitment to expedite the PDP process, the WG will consider the work and documents used by the IOC-RCRC DT with regard to the IOC-RCRC terms.
David Maher: it's not part of the charter
Osvaldo Novoa: I can do it if you want
Osvaldo Novoa: sorry I have to leave now
Chuck Gomes (Verisign): David - are you able to talk about the legal request
David Maher: no
David Maher: It is different, and I don't believe the other review that Alan mentioned is worth making.
Berry Cobb: Brian, what did you want me to post to AC?
David Maher: All that will happen is to get a lot of conflicting opinions.
David Maher: The fundamental question is the one that the RySG has proposed.
David Maher: We know all we nned to know about the existence of the treaties and statutes. The question is whether ICANN is undeer any obligation under those treaties and statutes.
David Maher: +1 chuck
Elizabeth Finberg 2: I agree
David Maher: +1 chuck
David Maher: The unredacted opinion does not answer the qeustions.
Kiran Malancharuvil: because the term INGO is way broader than just the IOC and RCRC I think we do specifically need to cite the two organizations
Alan Greenberg: I am assuming that they do not know of such laws, otherwise we surely should have been alerted to them already!!
David Maher: That's a logical assumption
Alan Greenberg: If the converse is true, one must question why we were not told of them.
David Maher: and it would be useless
Elizabeth Finberg 2: agree. focus should be on policy.
Chuck Gomes (Verisign): thanks Margie
Chuck Gomes (Verisign): Thanks Brian & Berry all all
David Maher: +1
