Sub-group Members:   Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chris Wilson, David McAuley, Farzeneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Herb Waye, KAvouss Arasteh, Rita Houkayem, Samantha Eisner, Steve DelBianco, Tatiano Tropina, Thiago Jardim, Tijani Ben Jemaa

Observers/Guests:  Taylor R.W. Bentley, Thomas Rickert

ICANN Org:  Bernard Turcotte, Brenda Brewer, Patrick Dodson


 ** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to **




Raw Captioning Notes

Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way. 


  • Continue second reading of comments starting at comment 9.01 on next call

Action Items:

  • GS to produce two footnote options regarding the REASONABLE BEST EFFORT discussion for the list.


  • (none)

Next Meeting:

  • Wednesday 21 February 1300 UTC

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

Brenda Brewer: (2/14/2018 10:39) Good day all and welcome to WS2 Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #55 on 14 February 2018 @ 19:00 UTC!

  Brenda Brewer: (10:39) When not speaking, please mute your phone by pressing *6 (star 6). To unmute, *6. This call is recorded.

  Brenda Brewer: (10:39) Reminder to all, for captioning and transcription, please  state your name before speaking and speak slowly.  Thank you!

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:47) Hi Brenda

  Marie Fresch: (10:47) Thank you for making me a host

  Brenda Brewer: (10:48) Hi Kavouss!!

  Marie Fresch: (10:51) Who is rappateur today?

  Brenda Brewer: (10:53) Greg Shatan is Rapporteur today

  Marie Fresch: (10:53) Thank you.  I will make that change,

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN: (10:56) Hello all

  Farzaneh Badii: (10:57) Hi

  Greg Shatan: (10:59) Hi, everybody.

  Thomas Rickert: (11:00) Hi all!

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:02) Hi all

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:06) working on it

  Patrick Dodson: (11:06) We will post that shortly

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:07) transcribers ... it's OFAC

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:08) Reminder all its a 90 minute call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:08) There is some echo

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:10) there is some echo which makes the voice unaudible in a clear manner

  Steve DelBianco: (11:11) +1 Kavouss.   Difficult to understnad Farzi

  Thomas Rickert: (11:12) Hi Farzaneh, we discussed this during the plenary - the question of what to prioritize and roadmap / timeline is nothing for us to do in the CCWG. This should be discussed between the Board and the Community.

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:14) audio very bad

  Thomas Rickert: (11:14) Question for Farzaneh: So you are not talking about prioritizing in general, but making this a priority in the jurisdiction recommendations?

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:15) Farzaneh - need to lower the level of your mike if you are using Adobe input

  David McAuley 2: (11:15) on mute?

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:15) just prioritizing looking into an obtaining OFAC general license

  Thomas Rickert: (11:16) Prioritizing this amongst the jurisdiction recs and not against the recs of other subteams, right?

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:17) that line sounds like just prioritize the study ... but ok

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:18) I agree with Farz that we might just strengthen the priorities part

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:18) We need a concrete suggestion

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:19) where we have to emphasize the prioritization

  David McAuley 2: (11:19) Ialso agree with Kavouss, at this point we need specific language suggestions

  David McAuley 2: (11:19) also agree, that is

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:19) let me call in

  Steve DelBianco: (11:20) could staff give users the ability to increase size of the Adobe display?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:20) If we could reiterate the priritization without repeating ,that could be done

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:20) uncertain we ccan do that Stevel

  Thiago Jardim: (11:21) Let me ask for some clarification really quickly. Why is the recommendation language on page 20 different to that on page 5/6 relating to the same OFAC general license issue?

  Thiago Jardim: (11:21) In particular, on page 20 a certain sentence reads: "If unsuccessful, ICANN wouldneed to find other ways to accomplish the ultimate goal -- enabling transactions..."

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:22) Reminder to everyone that we only have two meetings left after this meeting before the Jurisdicition recommendations are due to the plenary

  Thiago Jardim: (11:22) On page 5/6, the "equivalent" reads "If unsuccessful, ICANN needs to findother ways to remove “friction” from transactions between ICANN...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:23) Perhaps we could say, ICANN should proceed with seeking one or more general lisence with TOP priority

  David McAuley 2: (11:23) hard to hear

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:24) very faint

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:24) all NCSG members sound low today ...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:24) Too low

  Thiago Jardim: (11:24) To respond myself to the point I just raised, I would ask the language on page 20 to be drafted to reflect the language on page 5/6, since we did agree to that language on page 5/6 before.

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:24) Is my sound that bad?

  David McAuley 2: (11:24) pretty low

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:24) I am very sorry

  David McAuley 2: (11:25) but I think we got it @Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) Just say this recommendation is a priority - then we are fine that language stays the same

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) I am sorry for my audio, I never got issues before :(

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:25) Prioritize it only among Jur recommendations

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:25) well this problem is about global access to DNS relates to ICANN mission ... so that's why it should be prioritized

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) not among ws2 only from our group

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:26) Greg, pls look at my suggestion in the chat

  David McAuley 2: (11:26) My sense is that specific license applications are more important pending study

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:26) tatianl hand?

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Old hand :-)

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:26) thanks

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Was so stressed with audio issues!

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:26) Ok importance is ok.

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Just highlight it somehow so the process won't be delayed

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:27) ok lets just say this is important for global access to DNS and ICANN should pay specific attention to it ...

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Yes we want to say that attention should be paid to it

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:27) Ok now at least we know now what kind of language we should come up

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:28) I agree Greg we can't come up with such language on the call

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:28) all - please mute if not speaking

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:28) Tanya and I will come up with a language before the weekend

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:29) I normally can draft on the fly but I want to be careful here...

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:29) Farz, sigh :)

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:30) so now Russia thinks that best effort is weak ...

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:31) some other group thought it was too strong

  Thiago Jardim: (11:31) Disagree

  Thiago Jardim: (11:31) best efforts, leave as it is.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:31) without the addition of "reasonable" best efforts.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:31) best efforts is already a soft obligation, which needs no qualification to be an obligation o conduct, as opposed to an obligation o results.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:32) of conduct* \ of results*

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:33) utmost effort in lieu of best effort

  Thiago Jardim: (11:33) best efforts already contain the idea of reasonable

  Thiago Jardim: (11:33) we would be adding more words for no reason.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:34) who support it ?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:34) there is difference between best and utmost

  Thiago Jardim: (11:34) Leave it as it was

  Thiago Jardim: (11:34) Leave as it was when consensus was built around this

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:35) time check - 55 minutes left in call

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:35) Kavouss hand

  Greg Shatan: (11:35) Thiago, underUS law best efforts does not imply reasonableness.

  David McAuley 2: (11:36) i support position we took last week

  Thiago Jardim: (11:36) The position arrived at prior to the proposed change has more legitmacy in terms of process.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:36) and I apologise for not being present during last call.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:36) so leave it as is with"reasonable best efforts"

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:37) We wrapped this up during the last call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:37) agreed

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:38) no change pls

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:39) I am not comfortablwe with reasoable as it weaken the language

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:41) Greg, pls kindly avoid to disputing the comments made by Thiago

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:42) We need to retain "Best Efforts"

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:43) cheryl hand up

  Thiago Jardim: (11:44) We are not codifying US laws here.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:44) We are developing standards that are acceptable to all stakeholders, including Governments and the one I represent

  Thiago Jardim: (11:44) as the one*

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:44) This discussion is not productive

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) time check: 45 minutes left in call

  Thiago Jardim: (11:46) May I take the floor ?

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) thiago hand

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:46) Kavouss hand

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:47) I have no problem with the language either way

  David McAuley 2: (11:47) IMO, if ICANN has some level of effort to study and, if feasible, seek a general license that is sufficient if they also plan on helping individual applicants, those actually knocking on the door, get a specific license.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:48) the point is understood, isn't it ?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:49) but like others I was concerned about the extreem possibly associated with the term last all... so any footnote that matches that concerns being met is fine

  Thiago Jardim: (11:49) it is necessary to point to the fact that this is a US law standard

  Thiago Jardim: (11:49) I agree with Kavoousss

  Thiago Jardim: (11:49) that the word "reasonable" should be struck out

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:50) Thiago +1

  Thiago Jardim: (11:50) Take up my constructive proposal and add a footnote

  Thiago Jardim: (11:51) Please, Greg, be less biased when framing your questions.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:51) Support/Oppositon/etc.

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:51) thomas hand

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:52) Kavouss hand

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:52) Greg, actually I for now agree with Tiago - while I agree with reasonable but you are taking your rapporteur hat off :-)

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:52) I am fine with the addition of reasonable but I don't believe that the absense of it takes the effort to any ridiculous level

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:52) The rational behind adding "reasonable" was explained in the last call ... it has a legal consequence and best efforts means taking all measures even risks .. as I understood

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:52) Every possible effort

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:52) so they decided to add reasonable

  Thiago Jardim: (11:52) Add a bloody footnote and tell people what this is about, which is at the basis of the public comments receiveid on that.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:52) a footnote seems to be a way forward

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:53) Well I think we do have to make reasonable but I understand that the fear here is that ICANN could make it as an excuse

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:53) we should footnote this yes. it should not be bloody though

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:53) as I believe Thiago said

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:53) Bloody hahahaha

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:53) it should be a clean footnote.

  Thiago Jardim: (11:53) keep the original language "best efforts" and explaiin that it is "reasonable best efforts" according to US standards.

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:54) or the other way round Thiago

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:54) I think the other way works much better

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:54) "best effort" has a legal meaning!....

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:54) Reasonable should stay and footnote shall explain

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:55) yes it involves risk

  David McAuley 2: (11:55) a footnote would be further explanation and here that should be good

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:55) But who is going to draft in on the fly :-)

  Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:55) is the concern that if it was qualified with 'reasonable' that ICANN would not pursue this general license at all?

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:55) I agree with the footnote . put reasonable in text , explain in footnote why it's added

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:55) +1 to Farz and anyone who supports this

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:56) Yes Taylor that could be a concern . but with the footnote would be ok

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:56) I need to join another call at top of hour so will drop my phone line and stay only in Accordance on new device,  hoping to follow progress on the rest of the call

  Thomas Rickert: (11:57) Greg, I saw support for the footnote idea to clarify the meaning of the terms.

  Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:57) Thanks Farzi, I believe ICANN is bound by fiduciary duty in the bylaws, so does that change the consideration?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:57) please polling is not a vote

  Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (11:58) *consensus on the intent, not consensus on the wording

  Thiago Jardim: (11:58) can I take up the floor ?

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (11:58) Thiago hand

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:58) every possible effort

  Thiago Jardim: (11:58) Green check to leaving as it is and adding a footnote

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:59) what kind of change it makes, Tiago? compare to adding reasonable?

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:00) I think it is better the other way around - leave reasonable and explain in a foot note

  Thiago Jardim: (12:00) footnote that fleshs out that under US laws the language may require the word reasonable.

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:00) leave "reasonable best efforts" in the text and lets provide a nice clean footnote that explains the terms

  David McAuley 2: (12:00) Agree with Farzi and Tatiana

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:00) it doesn't in outcome in my view so thus I can support the use of footnote

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:00) I agree with Farz but we have been saying this for 15 min now (that's when Thomas made this suggestion?)

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:01) leave best effort and a footnote to refer to the US LAW

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:01) i disagree

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:01) a reasonable suggestion for a reasonable text

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:01) that seems to be the best way forward

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:01) I think this will sokve the problem. And would be a good consensus solution, Tiago?

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:01) I mean, we had this in public comments, we can't just discard them?

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:02) if we have the footnote ... there is no stamping

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) best effort is a US law term I thought

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) but could be other jurisdictions too ...

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:02) Please maintain best effort and describe it in a footnote

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:02) that is the point I was hopefully making in my earlier intervention Tatiana

  Thomas Rickert: (12:03) Can we PLEASE move on?

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) well if it is vague I don't see the point!

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:03) we are talking about US law here!!! why can't we use US legal terms

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) Thomas... +100

  Thiago Jardim: (12:03) Tatiana, it is vague, it makes easier for people to agree, and that's perhaps why it was agreed like that in the first place.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:03) Farz, yes, if international is *vague*

  Thomas Rickert: (12:03) I am sure that the issue will disappear once we have a definition in front of us

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:04) Tiago, I understand your concern, honestly, I can even sympathise, I just don't get why the approach with explaining reasonable doesn't work for you

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:04) That is a good suggestion as we could reflect on those alternative and decide at CCWG Plenary

  Thiago Jardim: (12:04) a footnote would solve that concern, wouldn't it?

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:04) we agreed on this last week. we can just add a footnote and explain I support that.

  David McAuley 2: (12:04) And agree with Thomas that we need to move on - time is not on our side any more

  Thiago Jardim: (12:04) My apologies for this long intermezzo.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:04) Thiago (God am sorry I misspelt your name, sorry) - I think both approaches would work in a way you want ...

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:05) yeah you did that repeatedly Tatiana... :)

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:05) it does say that Greg. no need to clarify

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:05) Farz, I know, and am SORRY (also for Caps). Thiago :-) I hope you accept the apology.

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:05) Greg, I support two alternative text as you suggested

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:06) legislation? treasury comes with the regulation I believe when it issues a general license

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:06) No , I vehemently disagree

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:07) no opportunity costs

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:07) we said cost benefit ... it's broad enough

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:08) Farzaneh +1

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:08) oh wow

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:08) INTA  enters :)

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:09) so now we shouldn't say priority

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:10) no I don't support either of changes

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:10) No support at all.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:10) None none noe

  Thiago Jardim: (12:10) What is the first proposed change?

  Thiago Jardim: (12:10) Step by step, please.

  Thiago Jardim: (12:11) Can it be displayed on the screen?

  Thiago Jardim: (12:11) Thanks

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:11) Thiago I bet you don't want to support this! :)

  Thiago Jardim: (12:11) I see it now

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:12) Disagree with insertion of reasonable before effort

  Thiago Jardim: (12:12) opposition to both changes.

  Thiago Jardim: (12:12) A quick comment, very quck

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:12) thiago hand

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:12) Thiafgo +1

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:13) it's not dead yet, the horse... apparently

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:13) Sorry for misspelling , Thiago

  Thiago Jardim: (12:14) :) no offence taken with the mispellings

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:15) Disagree with the comments

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:16) time check - 14 minutes left in call

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:16) YES i object

  Steve DelBianco: (12:17) I like acceptable

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:17) acceptable is fine

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:17) acceptable works

  David McAuley 2: (12:17) agreed, acceptable is fine

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:18) what's the purpose of public comments if we are not going to change anything? Although it's meta level. Acceptable is fine.

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:18) I have to leave now ... please don't make earth shattering decisions :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:18) exactly Tatiana

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:18) Farz, we gotta ditch all recommendations and go with INTA language everywhere if you leave ;)

  Thiago Jardim: (12:18) can't we say "if the applicant otherwise qualifies" ?

  Thiago Jardim: (12:19) I assume the passive voice begs the question of who "accepts" what.

  Thiago Jardim: (12:20) or "if the applicant otherwise ossess all the necessary qualifications"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:20) Kavouss we are reviewing the Public Comments and discussing any proposed or required changes to our recommendations based on those comments

  David McAuley 2: (12:20) I have a hard stop at 30 min past hour

  David McAuley 2: (12:21) I have no problem with reading ‘acceptable’ as meaning in the eyes of the party having the right/obligation to make such a judgment

  David McAuley 2: (12:23) i agree with Sam as to qwualified but could go with either

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:23) NO CHANGE

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:24) Kavouss new hand?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:24) thanks Sam very clear

  Thiago Jardim: (12:24) I'd suggest us to turn the sentence and put it in the active voice : "if the applicationg otherwise qualifies for being..." "if the application otherwise meets the qualification requirements"

  Steve DelBianco: (12:25) at the point where an applicant (Registry, Registrar, PP provider) starts to engage with ICANN, we won't easily know if they are "qualified".   New gTLD applicants go thru a process to determine Eligibility

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:25) Time check - 5 minutes left in call

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:25) Sam hand?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (12:25) The term "qualified " is used in AGB and being discussed by New gTLD AS THE CORRECT TERM

  David McAuley 2: (12:26) good point by Kavouss as to consistency

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:27) wishful thinking??? this is a nightmare thinking. Having a  Jur call every day.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) we will do it. Thanks

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) have to leave now.. bye all. Thanks for this interesting call

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:29) :-)

  Bernard Turcotte - ICANN 2: (12:29) correct Wed 1300

  David McAuley 2: (12:29) I also have to drop off, thanks all, good bye

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:30) bye for now...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2: (12:30) thanks everyone bye

  Thomas Rickert: (12:32) Thanks Greg! Thanks all!

  avri doria: (12:32) bye

  Thiago Jardim: (12:32) thank you all

  Thiago Jardim: (12:32) bye

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (12:32) Bye

  Taylor R.W. Bentley (Canada, GAC): (12:32) thanks everyone

  • No labels