Transcript

Recording

Adobe Connect recording is available here:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/p893muqfz0c/

MP3 recording is available here:  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-wp2-13jul15-en.mp3

Notes

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (7/13/2015 06:40) Welcome to the WP2 Meeting #8 on 13th July 2015!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards 

  Becky Burr: (06:54) good (whatever part of the day it is for you)

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:54) Hi Brenda and Becky!

  Brenda Brewer: (06:55) Good Day!

  James Gannon: (06:56) Morning/Afternoon

  Pär Brumark (GAC Niue): (06:57) Afternoon

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (06:59) hi all

  Adam Peake: (07:01) oops

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (07:07) Several people may be upset calling them IANA's registries

  Avri Doria: (07:12) it is descriptive langauge of what seems to be the case.

  Berry Cobb: (07:12) As an FYI, Bruce responded to this on the list this morning.  http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2/2015-July/000175.html

  Avri Doria: (07:13) he added the word facilitates

  Avri Doria: (07:13) to consideration, not to the list in the mission.

  Greg Shatan: (07:15) If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  David McAuley: (07:15) I agree with paraphrase that becky stated of Bruce's mail

  Avri Doria: (07:15) the other core is CORRE, isn't it.

  Avri Doria: (07:16) CORe

  Avri Doria: (07:16) CORE

  Avri Doria: (07:16) i see no problem with changing it.

  Greg Shatan: (07:17) I see problems with changing things we don't understand and can't justify.

  David McAuley: (07:17) I guess I prefer to reserve to CCWG

  Konstantinos Komaitis: (07:17) I think that supports is more (technically) accurate for what ICANN does in response to the individual policies set by the 3 operational communities. Coordinates indicates a step further as if ICANN might perhaps be in the position to 'coordinate' some of these policies.

  Greg Shatan: (07:17) Once we can undersatand the change and the justifications, I'm all ears.

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:19) shouldn't enforce be in there as well?

  Greg Shatan: (07:19) @Konstantinos, do you think ICANN has not been coordinating, but has merely been supporting?  Or do you think ICANN has been coordinating , but should be merely supporting?

  Avri Doria: (07:19) on the support/coordinate, i think i do understand them, but i agree that there is not a groundswell to change existing langauge.  and in a bylaws, existing language has some priority.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:19) +1 Abri

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:19) Avri even

  David McAuley: (07:20) +1 Avri

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:20) Bruce Tonkin sent an email suggesting [support and coordinate]/

  Becky Burr: (07:21) he didn't say he liked that - just if he had to choose one or the other he would pick both

  David McAuley: (07:23) I just spoke in support of uniform approach but on hearing Greg I changed my mind and think he is right about examining each use in context

  Greg Shatan: (07:24) Did Bruce say what he thought it did, or was he just being accommodating?

  David McAuley: (07:24) becky - by existing do you mean current bylaw

  Becky Burr: (07:25) current bylaw

  David McAuley: (07:25) thanks

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:25) Bruce said, "in most cases I think "coordinates" is probably the right word - but it has a slightly stronger role with respect to gTLDs - perhaps "facilitates" policy development within the community."

  David McAuley: (07:26) Agree with that Becky - good language

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:29) That was intentional

  David McAuley: (07:31) If the word reasonably is not there an IRP panel would add it anyway unless more restrivive language is inserted IMO

  David McAuley: (07:31) restrictive that is

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:38) @Malcolm -- how about the BC statement about allowing enforcement of obligations that are agreed to by the contract party"

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:39) Disagree Greg: I think we're saying Mission can evolve, but only with a Fund. Bylaws change

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:40) @Steve: that's too broad: merely being contractual compliance shouldn't per se be enough to bring it within the Mission, it needs to be a term that is legitimate to put in the contract

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:40) agree Greg

  David McAuley: (07:40) Not sure I afully agree with Greg. Adding contract terms by adhesion could be regulation and new clauses should jot be added absent a PDP

  David McAuley: (07:40) Not be added, that is

  Becky Burr: (07:40) yes, agree with that David

  Becky Burr: (07:41) but it seems to me that the question is right - is an imposed contract term effectively regulation

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:41) Well said James

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:41) but what's the practical implication of that? who will decide what to enforce?

  Becky Burr: (07:42) i don't think the question is enforcement - ICANN can enforce its contracts - that is not regulation.  But ICANN cannot force people to agree to something outside its mission

  Becky Burr: (07:43) agree that it seems out of place in bylaws

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:43) The conern is that ICANN will end up enforcing contract provisions that are outside of its missions via agreement with a registry, that has the risk of having ICANN become a regulator outside of its experience and mission.

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:44) I agree with Greg

  Greg Shatan: (07:45) @Steve: Sounds like a clear breach of ccontract, so long as that promise was in the contract.

  Becky Burr: (07:45) agree Greg

  Greg Shatan: (07:46) I think it's already permitted.

  Becky Burr: (07:46) agree

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:46) Agree Malcom. I think that the current language is permissive enough to allow that litus test (I am not a lawyer)

  Greg Shatan: (07:47) Sometimes, getting ICANN to enforce its contracts seems harder than it should be.

  Greg Shatan: (07:47) But that is a different problem.

  Becky Burr: (07:47) agree on both accounts

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:48) ICANN has to stay within its limited mission AND it can enforce contract provisions proposed and agreed to by contract parties.  

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:48) that formulation does NOT expand ICANN's mission

  Greg Shatan: (07:49) Steve -- it does NOT matter who proposed the language.  Only that it was agreed to by the parties.

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:49) ICANN has to stay within its mission. As part of that, as one of the tools to carry out its mission, it can use contracts and enforce them

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:49) @Becky -- if contract enforcement is not restricted to narrow mission, let's please say that as a notation here

  Becky Burr: (07:50) i understand the concern STeve i think we can address

  Greg Shatan: (07:51) ICANN is able to enforce everything in its contracts.  I don't understand the limitation.

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:51) I could live with either

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (07:52) NOt helpful I know =)

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:52) I like the new language Becky proposed

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:52) I guess I prefer blue language

  David McAuley: (07:52) I don't see a problem with both

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:56) Looks good to me

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (07:56) I think the new balancing test is easier to understand

  David McAuley: (07:57) I think your effort on balancing, Becky, was good, it is very difficult area to begin with and will be hard to come up with solution that satisfied all

  Malcolm Hutty: (07:57) @Greg, again intentional. Commitments expected to be always upheld; they are designed not to need trade-offs. Core Values might entail trade offs

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:00) "multistakeholder process AND that is within ICANN's Mission"  right?

  Becky Burr: (08:00) correct Steve

  David McAuley: (08:02) Agree with your formulation re GAC involement Becky

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:03) GAC is part of the multistakeholder process, so they have a role in determining public interest.    This is not the same thing as the GAC's role on "public policy"

  David McAuley: (08:03) relatively comfortable

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:03) comfortable

  Greg Shatan: (08:04) Steve, agree 100%.  But the GAC paper blurs that distinction to the point of erasing it.

  David McAuley: (08:05) applicable local law is the right standard, not a concern

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:05) I would not support adding lists to bylaws, doesnt seem right to me.

  Avri Doria: (08:06) plus there are new ones all the time.

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:07) agree

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:07) @Greg, then its our job to correct the GAC on that (gently)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:09) I don't think [unbiased] is helpful and could create challenges based on this word

  Greg Shatan: (08:09) Consider the word "independent" rather than "unbiased."

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:10) transparent experts....ghosts?

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:10) @Greg, that's a good suggestion

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:11) "independnet" sounds helpful

  David McAuley: (08:12) It's gone, good result

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:12) Efficent decision making

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:21) AoC Review of new gTLD looks at "a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice, "

  Greg Shatan: (08:22) Nice hat!

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:22) Indeed. Interesting that Crocker just wrote he wouldn't want to see this review built into the bylaws but cerainly the goals should be

  Greg Shatan: (08:23) "Interesting" is a good word for it.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:26) "Public policy" is not the same thing as "public interest"

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:29) Ok my mind is changed, I'll keep current language for govs and pub auth =)

  Avri Doria: (08:30) it does not conflict with the TA

  Avri Doria: (08:30) this is one of the issues that is creatively ambiguous in the TA

  Avri Doria: (08:31) it is less ambiguous and needs to be said.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:31) Sure, Becky

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:32) Saying within responsibility means there is a test to determine this and govts are usually very touchy about anyone applying this test to them

  Greg Shatan: (08:32) Avri -- passes my intentionality test then.

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:33) I think I agree with Avri here.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:33) I agree with Avri

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:33) (See, it can happen!)

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:36) "undue impact on others

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:37) When we got rid of Domain Tasting, it certainly created expense for domain sepculators.

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:38) Do we REALLY need this clause at all?

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:38) @Steve +1

  Avri Doria: (08:39) exactly, we need something

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:39) If we keep it, then let's say "undue impact" instead of 'expense'

  David McAuley: (08:39) I think Greg's over/under test for this language will prove prophetic

  Avri Doria: (08:39) i think impact is a good word to use here.

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:39) "Striving to achieve a reasonable balance between the interests of different stakeholders in the pursuit of  the Mission"

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:39) ?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:40) I like that, Malcolm

  Greg Shatan: (08:40) Agree

  David McAuley: (08:41) Agree as well

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:42) +1 Malcom

  Greg Shatan: (08:42) Have fun in Paris!  Have a croissant for me....

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (08:42) bye all

  James Gannon [GNSO-NCSG]: (08:42) See you all in APris

  David McAuley: (08:42) Thank you Becky - loads of prep work by you

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:42) see you there!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:42) Thanks - See you!

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:42) thanks, Becky

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:42) thanks again Becky

  Greg Shatan: (08:42) Bye all!