When: Wednesday, 6 March 2013. GMT Standard Time. 17:00 UTC / This is a 120 Minute Call.
09:00 PST, 12:00 EST, 17:00 London, 18:00 CET
Adobe Connect Link: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/r1onj8cflqp/
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-igo-ingo-20130306-en.mp3
On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#mar
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Lanre Ajayi - NCA
Jim Bikoff – IPC/IOC
Avri Doria – NCSG
Elizabeth Finberg - RySG
Chuck Gomes - RySG
Alan Greenberg - ALAC
Catherine Gribbin - Red Cross
Stephane Hankins - NCSG
David Heasley - IPC/IOC
Wolgang Kleinwaechter – NCSG
David Maher - RySG
Kiran Malancharuvil - IPC/IOC
Osvaldo Novoa - ISPCP
Thomas Rickert – NCA –Working group chair
Greg Shatan - IPC
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit – ISO
Jo Teng for David Roache Turner - WIPO
Mary Wong - NCUC
Guilaine Fournet - IEC
Apologies:
Mason Cole - GNSO Council vice chair - RrSG
Evan Lebovitch – ALAC
Christopher Rassi - Red Cross
ICANN Staff:
Brian Peck
Berry Cobb
Gisella Gruber
Proposed Agenda – IGO-INGO WG Meeting – 6 MAR 2013 @ 17:00 UTC (120 Min):
1. Roll Call / SOI Update
2. Status of General Council Request
3. Review latest Qualification Criteria standard
4. Review Protection Matrix - spreadsheet
5. Review Second Level Exception Process
6. Next steps & confirm next meeting (13 MAR 2013 @ 19:00 UTC (120 MIN))
Action Items
1. None
AC Transcript:
Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 6 MAR 2013 IGO-INGO Teleconference.
Osvaldo Novoa:Hello all, sorry I couldn't make it for the previous two call nor inform in advance
IOC:Hi all, Kiran Malancharuvil, David Heasley and Jim Bikoff
Julia Charvolen:Avri Doria joined the meeting
Avri Doria:oh, this meeting does not have sound. bummer. guess i will dial in.
Julia Charvolen:Do you want the operator to dial out to you Avri?
Julia Charvolen:Claudia MacMaster Tmarit has joined the call
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Thank you Julia.
Avri Doria:Hi Julia, no i dialed in, was just hoping to avoid needing to use two communications methods to contact one meeting.
Julia Charvolen:Mary Wong joined the meeting
Berry Cobb:Ecosoc list: http://esango.un.org/paperless/reports/E2010INF4.pdf
Berry Cobb:Ecosoc Consultative Status: http://esango.un.org/paperless/Web?page=static&content=intro
Mary Wong:Thanks, Berry
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Consultative status is divided into categories.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Orgs with general consultative status number some 140. However, I point to this list as a starting point not an end point.
Mary Wong:@Claudia, thanks - so the full list would be something like 3000 organizations?
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:I agree with Greg.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Mary, the may well be the case. You may wish to refer to the Berry's link to th exact number.
Avri Doria:My SOI includes this, but I should point out that I am a member and volunteer staff member of one one the organizations on the ECOSOC general consultative list.
Avri Doria:s/member/affiliate member/
Berry Cobb:Not that this is official, but interesting that it is posted.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest
Avri Doria:Am I alone in being disturbed by the constant lumping of RCRC and IOC in the same category? One ois about saving lives in time of way and disaster, and one is about sports.
Avri Doria:s/way/war/
IOC:I think the focus is rightly on the similarities between the legal positions of the two organizations rather than a subjective, and frankly distorted, preference for the work of one organization over the other.
Avri Doria:i think it has to do with Global Public Interst as a criteria. Beyond that, the Geneva Convention is a singular background
Avri Doria:I beleive that each of these organizations should have to stand on its own merits.
Avri Doria:And beleive the objective criteria for each of them is as differnt as the criteria betwnee any other 2 organizations.
Mary Wong:I've sent the draft para requested by Thomas to the list. Again, it's intended as simply a temporary "park" of the issue rather than a definitive definition.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Greg plus 1
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Alan plus 1
Greg Shatan:I think the number of countries should be 2.
Mary Wong:"Multiple" should be more than 2 (which is really just bilateral and could mean a trade agreement signed by two countries only..)
Chuck Gomes:Agree w/ Alan that we may not avoid subjectivity in total but would like to minimize it.
Mary Wong:(oops, sorry Greg!_
wolfgang:I am sorry I have to leave the call in 5 minutes
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Agree that defining the public interest is difficult, but I do hope that attempts start at the word "public". Public funds and public/governmental members and so forth.
Berry Cobb:My apologies, but the Legend could not be included in the PDF....I will post in left pane of AC.
Avri Doria:I think that various threshhold criteria could be defined for global public interest.
Mary Wong:Application should be required.
Avri Doria:e.g. engagement in specific activities, international scope of activities, percentage of contributions used for public work as opposed to internal expenses, etc.
Avri Doria:pretty much the same criteria that funders use in making funding recommendations.
Avri Doria:s/funders/major institutional funders/
Avri Doria:ICANN is gaing expereince in producing multivariate test to decide wither an organization meets some threshold or other.
Avri Doria:no one knows what a PICDRP looks like yet
Mary Wong:I'm having a memory-loss moment - does this matrix apply to both top and second level or just one of the two?
Berry Cobb:I cant quantify how many applications, but several PICs submitted already reveal protections for IGO/INGO names.
Berry Cobb:@Mary, page one is top level, page two is 2nd level
Mary Wong:@Berry, thx - that's what I thought but I also thought I should check! :)
Mary Wong:@Alan, that's right, and is the position of some NCUC and NCSG members.
Mary Wong:+! Alan & Chuck; please keep that option by including it, at least as a footnote, in the matrix (pg 1).
wolfgang:Bye
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:thank you Berry. I hope such protections will be used by TLDs like .NGO, etc.
Alan Greenberg:I am reminded that the whole concept of "objections" is a very subjective process!
Berry Cobb:For future rounds, there will also be a review conducted of the new gTLD program to review how well/or not well aspects of the applications process worked. Hence possible opportunity to improve or add ojection processess.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:... if they are delegated, of course.
Alan Greenberg:Thomas, I think the question you are asking is not the right one.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:And if the LRO is sufficient, it's terribly expensive for an INGO.
Alan Greenberg:Claudia, the price is part of the objection process. The GAC and ALAC can object at $0 price
Chuck Gomes:Thomas - they need to think about it.
Jo Teng (for David Roache-Turner) (WIPO):we would favour keeping the reserve list
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Jo plus 1
Guilaine Fournet:Same for IEC
IOC:Thomas, we can respond in writing after the call
Alan Greenberg:Why would organization that are offered 1st level blocking NOT say yes, we want it. That should not be the question that we are asking.
Mary Wong:+1, @Alan.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:But it might stop who.health, which could highly confusing.
Alan Greenberg:@Claudia, 2nd level protection might stop that, but tld protection woud not stop .health
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Right.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Leads back to the discussion regarding certain TLDs being more potentially more appropriate for a reserved names list, if that's how we want to go.
Alan Greenberg:We really should use an expression such as "a TMCH-like service" and not imply that it is the same.
Alan Greenberg:Thomas, whether it is the THCM or some expansion of it or a new service is IMPLEMENTATION
Alan Greenberg:If I were the TMCH suppliers, I would be rubbing my hands with glee. There is nothing better than add-on services added to a contract after the original contract is locked in.
Alan Greenberg:I fully beleive that an integrated solution will be the final rsult. BUt *we* don't need to specify that.
Guilaine Fournet:I'm leaving. Glad that I managed to attend part of the meeting.
Jo Teng (for David Roache-Turner) (WIPO):Second level protections should be extended to acronyms as well as full names – many IGOs are commonly known and referred to by their acronyms rather than their full names
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:And acronyms are not always the best known short name, which may well be heavily protected.
Alan Greenberg:For Red Cross, the name is the issue, because they don't use RC. But I UNICEF or UNESCO *the* term that is used.
elizabeth finberg 2:are we talking about exact matches *within a string, as well? e.g. www.info@who.com?
Mary Wong:I think the distinction made between TMCH Sunrise *2 & *3 is good.
Alan Greenberg:@ elizabeth, no, Exact match is the entire name
elizabeth finberg 2:Thanks, Alan
elizabeth finberg 2:the chart uses the term "Direct Match"
Mary Wong:@Elizabeth, good point. Should we just use either Exact Match or Identical Match, which is what is used elsewhere in ICANN processes?
elizabeth finberg 2:I think that would help avoid confusion and/or ambiguity
Greg Shatan:Agree with Alan
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Stefan.
Alan Greenberg:My real concern is that if we omit all acronyms, people will wake up later in the process and we will need to go back and do it again. That is exactly what we are seeing in the current 1st level objections and comments. Issues were ignored all along and now a major furor is upon us.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Agree with Alan.
Claudia MacMaster Tamarit:Jim plus 1
Alan Greenberg:I will not be on the call next week.
Chuck Gomes:I need to drop off for another meeting. Thanks to all and especially to Thomas.
Berry Cobb:Abuse overview.... https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40931994
Mary Wong:Thanks and bye!
