Sub-Group Members:  Becky Burr, Carlos Raul, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Greg Shatan, Izumi Okutani, Jonathan Zuck, Jorge Villa, Malcolm Hutty, Mark Carvell, Mathieu Weill, Matthew Shears, Robin Gross, Steve DelBianco

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer

Apologies:  James Gannon

**Please let Brenda know if your name has been left off the list (attendees or apologies).**





no notes

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (7/27/2015 07:17) Welcome to the WP2 Meeting #11 on 27 July!  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: 

  Becky Burr: (07:56) Hello

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:56) Good morning

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (07:56) 1

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (07:57) Hi Good evening from Tokyo

  David McAuley: (08:01) Good morning all

  Mathieu Weill: (08:04) HI everyone

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:06) so broader standard? sounds ok

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:09) Greg's compromise sounds like a good one.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:13) Not everyone in the world pays attention to ICANN public comments

  Jonathan Zuck (IPC): (08:13) +1 Robin

  Greg Shatan: (08:14) They don't know what they're missing!

  Mathieu Weill: (08:14) I think they are just being reasonable and sane

  Mathieu Weill: (08:14) ;-)

  David McAuley: (08:16) I did not think this was under frivolousness - thought it was separate grounds

  David McAuley: (08:17) my comment was on BGC action it seems - still apt, but looking at wrong language

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:17) I agree with Jonathan

  David McAuley: (08:18) I agree with the idea that frivolousness alone is a decent ground to disregard an appeal

  Greg Shatan: (08:18) If they meet the other criteria, how would it be frivolous?

  David McAuley: (08:19) Like Steve's amendment

  David McAuley: (08:21) Yes, clarification needed

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:22) Hard to see how the Ombudsman could be less independent than ICANN's lawyers

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:23) "Could" at who's discretion?

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (08:23) Should is better, I think

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:23) I think "could" was meant to be "shall"

  Matthew Shears: (08:24) should would make more sense

  Matthew Shears: (08:24) or shall

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:25) "shall" is best: if we're defining a process, let's say straightforwardly what should happen instead of leaving unstated alternative possibilities to be

  David McAuley: (08:25) That sounds reasonable Becky

  Greg Shatan: (08:25) Managing expectations is good.

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:25) did we get any public comment on the timing?  I think that was a specific question we asked.

  Mathieu Weill: (08:27) 90 extensible to 150 for specified reason ?

  David McAuley: (08:28) Ok, sounds good

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:28) agree with Greg's suggestion on timing

  David McAuley: (08:28) Greg's suggestion, that is

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:29) 30 days

  David McAuley: (08:29) 30 ok

  Mathieu Weill: (08:32) Excellent, just wanted to make this clear

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:36) Re-consider implies that the board had made an initial "consideration" of a decision.

  Mathieu Weill: (08:37) Doesn't it apply to any other decisions from Icann, out of the Board ?

  David McAuley: (08:39) IMO, decisions by panels like community objections panel were set up by Applicant Guidbook to deal with disputes on relevant issues and the issue is well handled - an appeal, seems to me, should go to IRP

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:40) @David, but grounds for appealing them to IRP should be more limited than grounds for using the objections panel

  David McAuley: (08:40) Agred, Malcom

  Mathieu Weill: (08:41) I also suggest that the reconsideration paper is presented to CCWG-A as largely supoprted and refined, without getting into details

  David McAuley: (08:43) Malcolm, that is

  Edward Morris: (08:44) Agree with Greg

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:48) How about a minimum then, instead of a range?

  David McAuley: (08:48) I like flexibility with baseline target number (7?) as Greg suggests

  Becky Burr: (08:48) minimum of 7?

  David McAuley: (08:48) Ok with me

  Malcolm Hutty: (08:48) I oppose setting a maximum, less worried about a minimum

  Becky Burr: (08:49) no max will be set

  Matthew Shears: (08:50) agree with David

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:50) I agree with David

  Matthew Shears: (08:51) application of a legal standard is easier to measure than a clear error of judgement

  Mathieu Weill: (08:52) Re: David suggestion, I'm concerned about potential Panelist lobbying  activities as a consequence

  Mathieu Weill: (08:53) Might affect independence

  David McAuley: (08:53) Fair point, hopefully we will have panelist level of intergity to avoid that but a fair point nenetheless Mathieu

  David McAuley: (08:54) "nenetheless"

  David McAuley: (08:54) nonetheless, third try

  Mathieu Weill: (08:54) I would defer this to an experienced panel ?

  Mathieu Weill: (08:54) in the detailed rules

  David McAuley: (08:58) Agree with Malcolm

  Brenda Brewer: (08:58) Mathieu, we cannot hear you.

  David McAuley: (08:59) Yes, but it can also explain iots decision Steve

  Brenda Brewer: (08:59) you may want to close and rejoin adobe

  Mathieu Weill: (08:59) Sorry my audio was disconnected. was in agreement with Malcolm (and Steve)

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (08:59) The .Africa IRP found it could recommend a remedy also.

  Mathieu Weill: (09:00) And I also wanted to note that I have to leave for another meeting. Keep up the good work and let's present all this as "almost agreed" tomorrow in CCWG.

  David McAuley: (09:00) Farewell, Mathieu

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:01) Can we look at this (community over-ride) in WS2?

  Becky Burr: (09:02) yes Robin

  David McAuley: (09:02) Good point Steve re clashing appeals

  David McAuley: (09:05) seven years seems so long

  Edward Morris: (09:05) Agreed David. Five years nonrenewal seems  a goood mix.

  David McAuley: (09:05) I like three year terms, renewable once

  Matthew Shears: (09:05) 7 is far to long - 3+3 or 4+3

  Greg Shatan: (09:06) 4+4

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:06) Not keen on renewable; very against renewable if the decision as to renewal is made by ICANN

  David McAuley: (09:06) Nonrenewable's impact on independence is a good point, I could live with Ed's suggestion - 5 years nonrenewable

  Matthew Shears: (09:06) good question malcolm - who decides on renewal?

  Matthew Shears: (09:07) maybe non-renewable is best

  Matthew Shears: (09:08) 5 years non renewable makes sense

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:08) We are really trying to avoid questions in the public consultation

  David McAuley: (09:09) I think Bernard's point is a good one, we should answer these as best we can

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:11) SCOTUS was happy to appoint for life, why are we so concerned to recall in a mere few years?

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:12) 5-7 years non-renewable

  David McAuley: (09:12) agree with five nonrenewable

  Greg Shatan: (09:13) I only checked for 4+3

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:14) @Becky, that works for me as an initial position; would prefer the community had ability to evolve that in the light of experience

  David McAuley: (09:15) Agreed

  Matthew Shears: (09:15) agree

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:15) yep

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:17) no, not remove it.

  Becky Burr: (09:18) i wasn't suggesting removing it altogether

  Steve DelBianco [GNSO - CSG]: (09:19) Makes sense.   And applies to all ACs

  Matthew Shears: (09:19) sounds ok Becky

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:19) Am content with that approach Becky, but I suspect we would all like to see it written down

  David McAuley: (09:20) so the rationale requirement is still there, just in different place

  Edward Morris: (09:21) I like that idea Becky.

  Matthew Shears: (09:21) I think that works

  Matthew Shears: (09:22) It would give the various parties additional time to find the right phrasing and framing for the issue

  Edward Morris: (09:23) Agreed Matt

  Matthew Shears: (09:24) its not timing so much as framing

  Greg Shatan: (09:25) That's not what I meant by a question of timing.  That said, I tend to agree with Malcolm and David's comments.

  David McAuley: (09:27) Agree w/Robin re potential for unintejnded consequences requiring careful handling

  Izumi Okutani (ASO): (09:27) + 1 David

  Greg Shatan: (09:27) Also consequences intended by some but not clear to others....

  David McAuley: (09:27) None here

  David McAuley: (09:28) Thanks Becky

  Mark Carvell  GAC - UK Govt: (09:28) GAC is not against providing rationale for decisions. We do not understand the prupose of this amendment  whiel there is concern that its advice will be rejected outright on the basis of contestign the rationale and this leave no scope for finding a mutually acceptable solution. Hope this helps explain the concern expressed by some GAC members. If you feel this is overstated concern,  you need to  explain the reason for adding this text and the consequence of it.

  David McAuley: (09:28) Agreed on Greg's draft - it was helpful

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (09:28) inform the discussion

  Malcolm Hutty: (09:29) Becky, I offered some polishing up of Greg's language

  David McAuley: (09:31) thanks all, esp Becky

  Matthew Shears: (09:31) thanks!

  Robin Gross [GNSO - NCSG]: (09:31) Thanks, Becky, and All.  Bye.

  • No labels