Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Amrita Vasudevan, Andrew Harris, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, David McAuley, Edward Morris, Erich Schweighofer, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Jeff Neuman, Jorge Cancio, Kavouss Arasteh, Mary Uduma, Parminder Jeet Singh, Paul McGrady, Pedro da Silva, Philip Corwin, Rafael Perez Galindo, Vinay Kesari, Wale Bakare   (22)

Observers:  Igor Resende, Taylor Bentley

Staff:  Bernie Turcotte, Anne-Rachel Inne, Berry Cobb, Brenda Brewer, Karen Mulberry, Nigel Hickson, Patrick Dodson

Apologies:  Herb Waye, Tijani Ben Jemaa

 ** If your name is missing from attendance or apology, please send note to acct-staff@icann.org **


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

  1. Welcome
  2. Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions
  3. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
  4. Discussion of ‘Multiple layers of jurisdiction’ document
  5. Discussion of ‘Influence of ICANN’s existing jurisdiction’ document
  6. Review of Workplan and working method
  7. AOB
  8. Adjourn

Notes  (including relevant parts of chat):

1.         Welcome

Greg Shatan:changes to SOIs (none).

2.         Discussion of reformulated “experience” questions

Greg Shatan: recap of objective of questions. I have reformulated based on the original draft.

Farzaneh Badii: Can the rapporteur or group vet the veracity?

Kavouss Arasteh: what is the form of submission?

Greg Shatan: we have not decided if submissions can be anonymous. We also have not decided on the mechanics for submitted responses. Per KA we could use Effect vs Affect.

David McAuley (RySG): hand down, I agree w/Greg and I personally think it is unwise to ask for replies that are second-hand

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): As I said last time, some people with adverse experiences may be reluctant to share them if a certain degree of anonymity is not granted

Parminder: (bad audio - unworkable).

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: Indirect effects of Jurisdiction - when serving on the Board of ICANN I had to fill out a form for US tax purposes as a Vendor! this is not suitable for volunteers outside of US. Second point - Board accepted creating additional jurisdictions - I had suggested Geneva.

Greg Shatan: JJS any comments on questions?

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: I'll see if I can suggest a few lines.

Parminder: I will like the chairs to clarify what is their view about other question proposed by some members. We need to include things beyond experiences. Jurisdiction impacts reach people who are beyond the usual ICANN community and these views should be captured.

Greg Shatan: In our previous meeting, we agreed that we needed actual experiences of being affected by jurisdiction - which resulted in the questions we received. Now do we want to turn this questionnaire to cover a wider field as some have suggested and also go beyond facts.

Parminder: and we have to decide what we do

Kavouss Arasteh: The two persons drafting team bluntly rejected the consideration of any questions coming outside that little group

Avri Doria: Greg, there are more kinds of facts than you are recognizing.

Farzaneh Badii: I think we can work with these questions. we just have to reach out to the affected community, which I have done in the past.

Parminder: but we are still at the stage at deciding what we want

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg, I suggest adding something like this: "ICANN's jurisdiction also carries other effects, not directly on the performance of the DNS. 1) All forms used by ICANN, including financial and fiscal, take into account only the US situation. Thus, when ICANN reimburses travel or accommodation costs to its volunteers (such as Member of the Board, or of ALAC), the latter are defined as "vendors", which is inappropriate, considering the free work provided by them to a US corporation. 2) One of the recommendations of ICANN's "Improving Institutional Confidence" (2009) was to set up an "additional jurisdiction" (not a replacement for) the US jurisdiction of ICANN. Specifically, we suggested setting up an additional jurisdiction in Geneva, in order to facilitate ICANN's international work, e.g. in recruiting employees or signing contracts for studies, polls, etc.

Pedro da Silva: These questions do not take on the suggestions by Parminder. It would be valuable to understand perceived risks and threats if they are well founded.

David McAuley: Support GS in his views. Agree with Parminder that this will not make it to a wider community - regardless what we do. Let us remember our mandate and would not support asking for perceived risks - or at least if it is asked limit it to disputes.

Farzaneh Badii: I have researched about the communities that are affected by ICANN jurisdiction in one way or another Kavouss. I think I quite clearly said that above.

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): Farzaneh: could you share any doc on your research?

Jeff Neuman 2: I strongly believe that we should only be looking at impacts of ICANN's jurisdiction on the DNS and/or participation in the multistakeholder model.  Other impacts seem to me to be out of scope

Farzaneh Badii: Kavouss, I also think you represent the Iraninan gov at ICANN. You might want to reach out to those who might be affected by ICANN jurisdiction due to sanctions too. 

Kavouss Arasteh: I am a GAC representative

Farzaneh Badii: yes Jorge, I will provide that for the group. either in a blogpost or in a list

Kavouss Arasteh:could make question 1 more general? Verifiable is subjective. Do not agree with DM.

Farzaneh Badii: yes but you are representing Iran on GAC. you might be able to see what the Iranian community is going through with regards to DNS related issues and jurisdictional issues.

Parminder: i find people say affrct only on DNS industry needs to be found. am i correct?

Greg Shatan: re Verifiable - direct experience could be taken at face value - however indirect references should be verified.

Parminder: i disagree. Effect on everyone, all public, is included.

David McAuley (RySG): As to the meaning of "verifiability" I think the responder will factor that in and so it seems a good term to me

Avri Doria: please count me among those who support a broader questionnaire

Parminder: even if we use the term 'dispute'  - disputes can be brought under public law on public interest questions. and they are included.

Avri Doria: support wider questionnaire. We could have two parts to the questionnaire. We should not be defeatist - it may be responded by more people than we think. There have been many papers published on this subject which could be relevant.

Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: +1 Avri

Kavouss Arasteh: Avri+1

Parminder:  ican now the basis of our differences on how the questionnaire should - some people think we are looking only on the impact on the DNS industry which can be reached and speak up directly, on their own. Other people think the wider public impact is as or perhaps more important.

Mary Uduma:  +1 Avri

Kavouss Arasteh: Parminder +1

Parminder: Such impacts are found in different ways than impact on DNS industry can be found, for which the current questionnaire may be useful - though it still is limited for even that purpose

Greg Shatan: more legal questions should be submitted to lawyers for professional input.

Avri Doria: its not just about legal views - we need to have a look at the broader picture - having lawyers do this work could not be a good investment. Also, we never make decisions on only one meeting usually.

Kavouss Arasteh: Once again questions must be sufficiently broad

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: link to "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008, https://archive.icann.org/en/jpa/iic/improving-confidence.htm

Kavouss Arasteh: Could staff provide a link to that material on mailing list

David McAuley (RySG): I think Avri makes a fair point about two meetings

Greg Shatan: AD good points. We can continue to discuss the questionnaire. Could we consider two questionnaires which would allow us to get this fact based one out sooner? We also need a reading list?

Parminder: We cannot issue multiple questionnaires.

Avri Doria: the questionnaire would help build that list.  we could ask people for references.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg and Staff: and more specifically, see chapter 3 and its item 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as follows: "3.5. During its consultations (not only recently but over the last two years), the PSC has received input from global stakeholders external to the United States that ICANN should also be represented in other jurisdictions. The PSC believes that that it would assist increase the credibility of ICANN’s claim to be an entity serving a global community for ICANN to have representation in other countries additional to that which it will always possess in the United States.3.6. The PSC emphasizes that an additional legal presence will strengthen ICANN's fundamental multi-stakeholder model and underline the element of public trust that is a key element of its mission. The PSC believes that such a presence is not about reducing accountability. Indeed it will provide for more acceptance and confidence in ICANN as it will have a legal personality that is additional to its US presence. (...)"

Kavouss Arasteh: can we advance on questions given the time remaining.

David McAuley (RySG): I think we should stick to the remit found in Annex 12

Greg Shatan: Agree with DM.

Vinay Kesari: Hi Greg, all - I unfortunately have to step away a few mins early. If I could just ask everyone to also devote some thought to how we're getting this questionnaire out, who it will be sent out to, etc. (once of course the questions are settled), we could perhaps come to that separately on list or on the next call.

David McAuley (RySG): I remain "con" on questions asking for answers going beyond direct experience, with respect

Avri Doria: i remain pro, also with respect.

Greg Shatan: temperature check - who wants to add an additional question to this (and would need to define the question). No clear result.

Parminder: I am still unable to hear or understand what is the danger of that additional question

Kavouss Arasteh: Pls kindly look at my suggestion to amend Q1 and Q 2

Jeff Neuman 2: I like impact on the DNS and/or their participation in the ICANN multistakeholder community

Parminder: yes, id work with avri and others who supported

Parminder: you want it done now?

Avri Doria: you confused it.

Kavouss Arasteh: Jeff , I tend to agree with you , to some extent

Avri Doria: check for narrow, cross for borader.

Jean-Jacques Subrenat: @Greg: like Avri, I favour a wider or additional question.

Kavouss Arasteh: Jean- Jaques+1

Parminder: lets do it in the next two days and close it on the elist

Avri Doria: cross is red, check is green

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): broader

Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland): I have very bad connection, but please note my support for Avri's points

Kavouss Arasteh: Made some progress - we have to develop the questions more.

Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain): +1 Avri

Parminder: we cannot issue two questionnaires in quick succession ... that is even logistically not wise, apart from logically not ok

David McAuley (RySG): Agree w/Parminder - two questionnaires is not good

Greg Shatan: Let us work on the list on defining that additional question

Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]: There is significant support for an additional question. Let's please have a small group elaborate this additional question in the next 1-2 days.

Parminder:  i can cut paste from the list -- but it will be impossible to close it

Parminder: there have been suggestions on an proposed text, we should go by that, without an entirely fresh text

Kavouss Arasteh: Pedro, in principle, I agree to either broader the existing questions or draft additional questions$

Parminder: I mean additional question of course

Avri Doria: ok

Greg Shatan: (lost connexion)

Bernard Turcotte: We are at the top of the hour - as proposed by GS we will pursue the questionnaire discussion on list. Meeting Adjourned.

Documents Presented

Chat Transcript

 Brenda Brewer:Good day all and welcome to Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #11 on 29 November @ 13:00 UTC!

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:good day all

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:please mute if not speaking

  Kavouss Arasteh:Brenda,

  Kavouss Arasteh:GD

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pls advise to dial me up

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:Brenda, I have dialled in as well and my numebr is the one that ends with 6609

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:Hi all ;-)

  Kavouss Arasteh:Dear Bernard, Brenda,

  Brenda Brewer:Calling you now Kavouss!

  Kavouss Arasteh:Tks  

  Kavouss Arasteh:Don

  David McAuley (RySG):Hi Brenda, I am 4154

  Kavouss Arasteh:Done

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Hello All!

  Vinay Kesari:Hi all

  Brenda Brewer:Thank you David!

  David McAuley (RySG):very feint Greg

  David McAuley (RySG):not really

  David McAuley (RySG):better

  avri doria:yes can hear you better now

  avri doria:but it also added alot of electronic noise to the line.

  Brenda Brewer:If number listed in Attendees ends with 6609 please identify your name for attendance purposes.  Thank you!

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:Already done, Brenda (see above). It is me, Pedro

  Brenda Brewer:Thank you Pedro!

  David McAuley (RySG):Please mute if not speaking

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec, After 10 meeting we are still at the very begining of tghe process. that preoccupies my thinking

  David McAuley (RySG):Good words Greg, suggest adding "actual, verifiable" in Q3 if we have to have a Q3 (which I would prefer we not do)

  Kavouss Arasteh:Dadid, who will verify and how it would be verified?

  David McAuley (RySG):lots of background noise

  Kavouss Arasteh:what is actual?

  David McAuley (RySG):it is a filtering question and the responder may filter appropriately, I think Kavouss

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Hi I'm the swiss number

  avri doria:i think some of the noise comes from the high gain on Greg mike.

  Brenda Brewer:Thank you Jorge!

  Greg Shatan:i've turned down the volume.

  Vinay Kesari:Kavouss, your voice is very muffled

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Strong background noise!...

  avri doria:long list of hands upp.

  Finn Petersen, GAC -DK:a lot of Boisen

  avri doria:JJS comes from the high gain on Greg mike.  it goes away when he mutes

  Finn Petersen, GAC -DK:noise

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Could Staff shut off the noise source? Thanks.

  David McAuley (RySG):hand down, I agree w/Greg and I personally think it is unwise to ask for replies that are second-hand

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):badbecho

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):As I said last time, some people with adverse experiences may be reluctant to share them if a certain degree of anonimity is not granted

  Brenda Brewer:Jorge, please mute your computer mics

  Kavouss Arasteh:TERRIBLE COMMUNICATION LINE

  David McAuley (RySG):that is better sound

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):much better

  avri doria:better now

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:noise: good now, thanks.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):done - but no sound on my place

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pls, REPLACE "effect"by impact

  David McAuley (RySG):noise is back

  avri doria:nope, loud electronic and muffled voice

  David McAuley (RySG):very bad noise - hard to hear anything

  Mary Uduma:noise

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:Parminder, strong audio distortion.

  Kavouss Arasteh:distorted line

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):iaudiblea

  Vinay Kesari:Could I request staff for a dial out for Parminder?

  David McAuley (RySG):this is awful

  Nigel Hickson:Should be "affected" in English usage

  David McAuley (RySG):can't hear any voice

  Parminder:id type my inouts

  Kavouss Arasteh:Sorry, I can not support such distortion

  Mary Uduma:Can't hear anything

  David McAuley (RySG):+1 Nigel

  Parminder:pl dial in at 91984xxxxx , thanks

  David McAuley (RySG):yes

  Finn Petersen, GAC -DK:with echo

  Brenda Brewer:One moment, please Parminder.

  Parminder:i will like the chairs to clarify what is their view about other question proposed by some members

  Parminder:i am on phone and will like to speak , thank,

  Kavouss Arasteh:Parminder+1

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg: I'll see if I can suggest a few lines.

  avri doria:i think he should be allowed to make his entire argument.

  David McAuley (RySG):for some reason Parminder's recent comments are feeding back

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Parminder can you mute your speakers

  Kavouss Arasteh:Let Parmider speak

  Kavouss Arasteh:Questions are very much narrowed down and too specific

  Parminder:i am done

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):echo is bad

  avri doria:but we can listen to recordings and email works.  excluding someone is not in keeping with our methods.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Grec, pls do not interogate participants

  avri doria:And people have been questioning that mandate ever since.  One call does not make a decsion.

  Parminder:i understand. but matters are still in the WG hands

  Parminder:and we have to decide what we do

  Kavouss Arasteh:The two persons drafting team bluntly rejected the consideration of any questions coming outside that little group

  avri doria:Greg, there are more kinds of facts than you are recognizing.

  farzaneh badii:I think we can work with these questions. we just have to reach out to the affected community, which I have done in the past.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh, what you have done in the past

  Parminder:yes, some people may have said 'expereice' and others may have understood it in some ways

  Parminder:but we are still at the stage at deciding what we want

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg, I suggest adding something like this: "ICANN's jurisdiction also carries other effects, not directly on the performance of the DNS. 1) All forms used by ICANN, including financial and fiscal, take into account only the US situation. Thus, when ICANN reimburses travel or accommodation costs to its volunteers (such as Member of the Board, or of ALAC), the latter are defined as "vendors", which is inappropriate, considering the free work provided by them to a US corporation. 2) One of the recommendations of ICANN's "Improving Institutional Confidence" (2009) was to set up an "additional jurisdiction" (not a replacement for) the US jurisdiction of ICANN. Specifically, we suggested setting up an additional jurisdiction in Geneva, in order to facilitate ICANN's international work, e.g. in recruiting employees or signing contracts for studies, polls, etc.

  David McAuley (RySG):yes

  Kavouss Arasteh:I fully agree  to the idea of setting additional jurisdiction for optional use

  farzaneh badii:I have researched about the communities that are affected by ICANN jurisdiction in one way or another Kavouss. I think I quite clearly said that above.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Farzaneh: could you share any doc on your research?

  Jeff Neuman 2:I strongly believe that we should only be looking at impacts of ICANN's jurisdiction on the DNS and/or participation in the multistakeholder model.  Other impacts seem to me to be out of scope

  farzaneh badii:Kavouss, I also think you represent the Iraninan gov at ICANN. You might want to reach out to those who might be affected by ICANN jurisdiction due to sanctions too.  

  Kavouss Arasteh:I am a GAC representative

  farzaneh badii:yes Jorge, I will provide that for the group. either in a blogpost or in a list

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:@David: I would agree with you to add perceived risk to dispute resolution, since this is the scope of this questionnaire.

  farzaneh badii:yes but you are representing Iran on GAC. you  might be able to see what the Iranian community is going through with regards to DNS related issues and jurisdictional issues.

  Parminder:i find people say affrct only on DNS industry needs to be found. am i correct?

  Parminder:i disagree. Effect on everyone, all public, is included.

  David McAuley (RySG):As to the meaning of "verifiability" I think the responder will factor that in and so it seems a good term to me

  avri doria:please count me among those who support a broader questionnaire

  Parminder:even if we use the term 'dispute'  - disputes can be brought under public law on public interest questions. and they are included.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Farzaneh, pls send me a personal message on what you have referred to

  farzaneh badii:I will Kavouss

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:Time check - 20 minutes to the top of the hour

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:+1 Avri

  Kavouss Arasteh:Avri+1

  Parminder: ican now the basis of our differences on how the questionaire should - some people think we are looking only on the impact on the DNS industry which can be reached and speak up directly, on their own. Other people think the wider public impact is as or perhaps more important.

  Mary Uduma: +1 Avri

  Kavouss Arasteh:Parminder +1

  Parminder:Such impacts are found in diffeent ways than impact on DNS industry can be found, for which the current questionaire may be useful - though it still is limited for even that purpose

  Kavouss Arasteh:Once again questions must be sufficiently broad

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg and Staff: link to "Improving Institutional Confidence" 2008, https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__archive.icann.org_en_jpa_iic_improving-2Dconfidence.htm&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=LgNK5nv4wz7ER7-UKH89aj9YjsOGSPzHvLUUhTppu_Y&s=20kjmXaqxQKHFifs9f93lAtPYkb_kXGAROYXpRQrFF4&e=  

  Kavouss Arasteh:Could staff provide a link to that material on mailing list

  David McAuley (RySG):I think Avri makes a fair point about two meetings

  Parminder:We cannot issue multiple questionaires.

  avri doria:the questionnaire would help build that list.  we could ask people for references.

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg and Staff: and more specifically, see chapter 3 and its item 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 as follows: "3.5. During its consultations (not only recently but over the last two years), the PSC has received input from global stakeholders external to the United States that ICANN should also be represented in other jurisdictions. The PSC believes that that it would assist increase the credibility of ICANN’s claim to be an entity serving a global community for ICANN to have representation in other countries additional to that which it will always possess in the United States.3.6. The PSC emphasizes that an additional legal presence will strengthen ICANN's fundamental multi-stakeholder model and underline the element of public trust that is a key element of its mission. The PSC believes that such a presence is not about reducing accountability. Indeed it will provide for more acceptance and confidence in ICANN as it will have a legal personality that is additional to its US presence. (...)"

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg and Staff, continued: "There are also clear advantages to diversity and representation in having presences in additional jurisdictions as well as operational advantages in the employment of staff.3.7. The PSC stresses that additional presences are not about building a treaty or intergovernmental organization with diplomatic immunities. ICANN - both in its US-based corporate form and any additional presence it may have globally - must remain true to the unique multi-stakeholder, “private sector led’ model that has been its hallmark from the beginning."

  Brenda Brewer:Documents for this meeting can be found here:  https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_vJDDAw&d=DgIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kbiQDH54980u4nTPfwdloDLY6-6F24x0ArAvhdeDvvc&m=LgNK5nv4wz7ER7-UKH89aj9YjsOGSPzHvLUUhTppu_Y&s=UYhwdTlkiylUT-aoYO6L0tjRJ_sW_I8cO7-hULp3UC8&e=

  David McAuley (RySG):I think we should stick to the remit found in Annex 12

  Vinay Kesari:Hi Greg, all - I unfortunately have to step away a few mins early. If I could just ask everyone to also devote some thought to how we're getting this questionnaire out, who it will be sent out to, etc. (once of course the questions are settled), we could perhaps come to that separately on list or on the next call.

  David McAuley (RySG):I remain "con" on questions asking for answers going beyond direct experience, with respect

  avri doria:i remain pro, also with respect.

  Kavouss Arasteh:related to your business and/or activities including DNS

  Parminder:i am still unable to  hear or understand what is the danger of that additional question

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pls kindly look at my suggestion to amend Q1 and Q 2

  Jeff Neuman 2:I like impact on the DNS and/or their participation in the ICANN multistakeholder community

  farzaneh badii:I need to go. look forward to the finalized questions.

  David McAuley (RySG):please mute if not speaking

  Parminder:i mean, let some people who want some additional info get it ... more info cannot be dangerous. we decide what to do with it

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Agree with Avri

  avri doria:yes i am willing to work with Parminder and others on new question(s)

  Parminder:yes, id work with avri and others who supported

  Parminder:you want it done now?

  avri doria:you confused it.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Jeff , I tend to agree with you , to some extent

  avri doria:check for narrow, cross for borader.

  Jean-Jacques Subrenat:@Greg: like Avri, I favour a wider or additional question.

  Kavouss Arasteh:Jean- Jaques+1

  Parminder:lets do it in the next two days and close it on the elist

  avri doria:cross is red, check is green

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):broader

  Mary Uduma:broader

  Wale Bakare:Check for broad, Red for narrow

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support:time check 4 minutes left

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I have very bad connection, but please note my support for Avri's points

  Rafael Perez Galindo (GAC Spain):+1 Avri

  Parminder:we cannot issue two questionaires in quick succession ... that is even logistically not wise, apart from logically not ok

  avri doria:i think we should float one on the list in the next days. and there should be one questionnaire.

  David McAuley (RySG):Agree w/Parminder - two questionnaires is not good

  Wale Bakare:*Broader

  Pedro da Silva - [GAC Brasil]:There is significant support for an additional question. Let's please have a small group elaborate this additional question in the next 1-2 days.

  Parminder: i can cut paste from the elist -- but it will be impossbile to close it

  Parminder:there have been suggestions on an proposed text, we should go by that, without an entirely fresh text

  Kavouss Arasteh:Pedro, in principle ,I agree to either broader the existing questions or draft additional questions$

  Parminder:i mea additional question of course

  avri doria:ok

  avri doria:on the hour he seemed to drop.

  Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):we lost our co-chairs!

  David McAuley (RySG):Thanks bernie - and thanks Greg, Vinay and staff

  David McAuley (RySG):Bernie, that is

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thx everyone  bye for now

  avri doria:thanks for the open discussion

  David McAuley (RySG):bye

  Wale Bakare:Thanks, bye

  Parminder:thanks and bye everyone

  Kavouss Arasteh:Bye

  Mary Uduma:Thanks All and bye

  Nigel Hickson:thanks

  avri doria:bye

  Greg Shatan 2:Hard stop at 9. Sorry.



  • No labels