Attendees: 

Sub-group Members:   Andrea Brambilla, Avri Doria, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Christopher Wilkinson, David McAuley, Farzaneh Badii, Finn Petersen, Greg Shatan, Herb Waye, Irene Borissova, Kavouss Arasteh, Nigel Hickson, Philip Corwin, Tatiana Tropina, Veni Markovski, Vidushi Marda, Wale Bakare  (17)

Observers/Guests: Silvana Rivero 

Staff:  Bernard Turcotte, Berry Cobb, Karen Mulberry, Yvette Guigneaux

Apologies: Jorge Cancio, Mathieu Weill, Seun Ojedeji, Matthew Shears

 

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


Transcript

Recording

Agenda

1. Welcome
2. Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire
3. Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire
4. Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation
        a. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en
5. “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C
       a. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing
6. AOB
7. Adjourn

Notes (including relevant portions of the chat):  

  • in order to increase readability, some typographical errors have been corrected (Brenda/25 Jan 2017)

 (21 Participants at start of call)

1.  Welcome

Greg Shatan: (no actions).

2.  Publishing and Announcing the Questionnaire

Greg Shatan: There has been some exchange on the list. No support for a “fill in the box” format. we should expect free form input which should be sent to an email address. Unclear to whom it should be sent.

Kavouss Arasteh: Concerned regarding your response to FB question. I disagree with your views on this - you cannot judge on this or anything. We need a reply to the question.

Greg Shatan: the answer sent was discussed with the co-chairs and was made in good faith.

David McAuley (RySG): I think Greg’s e-mail comment that these are hard to answer in abstract was right – may be better to wait for actual answers to deal with this.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): indeed David

Chirstopher Wilkinson: need to have this translated into all the ICANN languages. The competition group should have a good list of email addresses.

Greg Shatan: ask for staff to have the questionnaire translated.

Farzaneh Badii: if we translate, does that mean that we receive answers in 6 language? and then should be translated in to English for analysis?

Kavouss Arasteh: Would ask the co-chairs the respond to FB's question.

Greg Shatan: KA if you have a request of the co-chairs you should make the request directly.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Getting back to the questionnaire - wrt the translation - sometimes ALAC uses more than just the official languages. The costs for doing this both ways should not be much when considering ICANN language services which are excellent.

Greg Shatan: Agree - small cost of language services well worth it.

Farzaneh Badii: well, can we translate these questions in to a language that is not a UN language?

Kavouss Arasteh: I formally request you Greg to ask co-chair to provide their answer to Frzaneh question in a formal and official manner signed by one of them on behalf of co-chairs on the mailing list

Greg Shatan: where should we publish it?

Kavouss Arasteh: please respond to my chat request. As to languages the 6 is fine and where to publish I am open if it is widely distributed. As to timing would request 1 month after Copenhagen meeting.

Greg Shatan: KA if you wish to raise this with the co-chairs please do so directly.

Kavouss Arasteh: Co-chairs need to be alerted through  you for formal reply and not indirect reply

Kavouss Arasteh: Deadline ,30 day<s after ICANN meeting in Copenhagen

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I believe yes as we often do it's just a matter of small cost some time extra if not specifically an internal languages one like Portuguese for example if it is anemone 'obscure'   language ( and. APAC has plenty of these)  they would need to outsource with additional cost and delay on delivery...  a small risk if we get in a response

Greg Shatan: Timing -  2 weeks after Copenhagen sufficient? where should publicize it. ICANN PC page with a link?

David McAuley (RySG): the practical reason Greg mentioned makes sense for putting on comment page

CW: I have seen precedent for publishing EN first and other languages shortly aftwerwards as and when Trads. are available.

3.  Time Period for Responses to the Questionnaire

Greg Shatan: KA has suggested 30 days after Copenhagen.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes plenty of precedence but ensure closing dates are equitable. CW

David McAuley (RySG): 60 days from posting

David McAuley - Let us just pick a number of days required.

Phil Corwin: No set position but we need to provide fair opportunity for comment. Mid- April seems far away.

Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: 60 days

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes  all assuming 60

Tatiana Tropina: 60 days from posting, yes.

Wale Bakare: 60 days from posting, when is posting? Bear in mind of ICANN58, why not after the meeting for 30 days?

Kavouss Arateh: Why are we rushing not allowing people proper occastion to comment.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes  but if translation takes  it to publish time later than En the response time is still equitable

Philip Corwin: How long can it take to translate a brief preamble and four short questions? We are not talking about a 100 page report.

Wale Bakare: For sufficiency vis-a-viz translation to EN, why not pegged at 90 days irrespective?

Greg Shatan: KA request about allowing govts to consult with each other so they can go back home and then produce and answer.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Understand KA request.

Farzaneh Badii: well I would be more worried about the difficulty of reaching out to people who might be really affected by ICANN jurisdiction

Philip Corwin: I fully support adequate time for any interested party to read the questions in a major language and have adequate time to respond. That needs to be balanced against the fact that we need to review and discuss the answers and determine their relevance and import for our work, and if the closing date is mid-April that means we don't see answers until a quarter of a year from now.

Greg Shatan: Really only talking about two weeks of difference.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): exactly Greg we are talking  a 2w difference

Kavouss Arasteh: text says 30 days after Copenhagen.  

Greg Shatan: temp. check on April 13 - split. April 1 (3 for 2 against). Let us remember that responses can be made late and considered. Let’s take this to the list.

Philip Corwin: Given that standard ICANN response time on a major policy proposal is 40 days, I think 40 days after publication in all languages is sufficient for 4 questions

Philip Corwin: I co-chair a PDP WG that is about to publish a 100+ page report for comment, and that only gets the standard 40 days.

4.  Review of ICANN’s Past and Current Litigation - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/litigation-en

Greg Shatan: Doing this would be very good and allow us to consider issues wrt Jurisdiction of disputes.

David McAuley: support this but would suggest we ask Jones Day to come and present to us on this topic which could really help us.

Greg Shatan: Good suggestion.

Kavouss Arateh: Good suggestion.

Greg Shatan: Some suggestions from Mathieu Weill - identify the Jurisdiction the case was brought in, the type of claim, the rate of success, temporary relief and duration of the process. Jones day could help with this. Any other comments on how to get this done.

Kavouss Arasteh: These are good ideas let us proceed.

David McAuley: After Jones day - a smaller group of us could go through summaries fairly efficiently.

Greg Shatan: we should create a small group to manage this work. Will get vol. from the list.

David McAuley (RySG): I would volunteer

Kavouss Arateh: would volunteer but cannot type much with operation on hand.

Avri Doria: can help.

Phil Corwin: will participate.

5.  “Influence of ICANN’s Existing Jurisdiction” document, Section C - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_uxN8A5J3iaofnGlr5gYoFVKudgg_DuwDgIuyICPzbk/edit?usp=sharing

(no time for this item)

6.  AOB

 (none)

7.  Adjourn

Next call on 24 JAN. 1300


Documents Presented

None

Chat Transcript

  Yvette Guigneaux: (1/19/2017 18:24) Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #17  | 20 January @ 19:00 UTC!

  Yvette Guigneaux: (18:25) To mute & unmute phone, please press *6

  Kavouss Arasteh: (1/20/2017 10:39) Hi Eyvette

  Yvette Guigneaux: (10:40) hello Kavouss, how are you feeling?  better i hope?

  Kavouss Arasteh: (10:49) HI veni

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (10:56) hi all

  David McAuley (RySG): (10:59) Hi Yvette, I am 4154

  Yvette Guigneaux: (10:59) hi David, copy that

  Philip Corwin: (11:00) I am 5316

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:00) No one is ever 007

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:00) LOL Bernie

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:01) copy that Philip, thanks

  Veni Markovski: (11:01) Hi, Kavouss.

  Nigel Hickson: (11:02) good afternoon / evening

  Wale Bakare: (11:03) Hi all

  Wale Bakare: (11:03) Good morning/afternoon/evening

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:03) I am disconnected

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:03) Yevette pls advise to redial me:

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:03) will call you back again now Kavouss

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:04) yes doing it now 

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:04) Pls advise to redialé me

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:04) 0600 Sat is preferred to 00 Greg all good Greg from my biased view

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:04) it should be ringing now Kavouss

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:05) you connected Kavouss?

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:05) ok looks like we're good to go

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:09) one persons opinion  is not a group view very true Kavous'

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:10) I think Greg’s e-mail comment that these are hard to answer in abstract was right – may be better to wait for actual answers to deal with this.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:10) indeed David

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:12) good point on Language needs for a more accessible Survey on this topic CW

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:12) if we translate, does that mean that we receive answers in 6 language? and then should be translated in to English for analysis?

  Wale Bakare: (11:14) @Farzaneh, isn't it bidirectional?

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:16) yes, I meant answers, thanks Greg. sorry was not clear

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:16) I noticed that CLO ;-)

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:19) well, can we translate these questions in to a language that is not a UN language?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:19) great Bernie

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:19) I formally request you Greg to ask co-chair to provide their answer to Frzaneh question in a formal and official manner signed by one of them on behalf of co-chairs on the mailing list

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:20) pls reply to my chat

  Wale Bakare: (11:20) We are targeting 6 major supported languages in my opinion.

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:20) oh that's good. so we can translate the questions and answers?

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:24) If we are planning to translate answers and cost is needed to be flagged to co-chairs, do we want to consider a reply-length maximum – say 2 pages not 22 pages?

  Karen Mulberry: (11:24) We needed to contact thr international operator for a call out

  CW: (11:24) Provided that the Links are well publicised, one could be indifferent as to exactly which website is employed for this purpose.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:24) I believe yes as we often do it's just a matter of small cost some time extra if not specifically an internal languages one like Portuguese for example if it is anemone 'obscure'   language ( and. APAC has plenty of these)  they would need to outsource with additional cost and delay on delivery...  a small risk if we get in a response

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:25) But didn't we agree on the deadline for submission of answers? isnt it 60 days?sorry I was not following

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:25) NO i do not undferstand your objection

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) cO-chairs need to be alerted through  you for formal reply and not indirect reply

  Kavouss Arasteh: (11:27) Deadline ,39 day<s after ICANN MEETING IN cOPENHAGWEN

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:29) the practical reason Greg mentioned makes sense for putting on comment page

  CW: (11:29) I have seen precedent for publishing EN first and other languages shortly aftwerwards as and when Trads. are available.

  CW: (11:31) Substance over form.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:32) yes plenty of precedence but ensure closing dates are equitable. CW

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:32) 60 days from posting

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:32) I am driven to the doesn't matter camp"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:33) as long as it's after

  Finn Petersen, GAC - DK: (11:33) 60 days

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:33) yes  all assuming 60

  Tatiana Tropina: (11:33) 60 days from posting, yes.

  Wale Bakare: (11:34) 60 days from posting, when is posting? Bear in mind of ICANN58, why not after the meeting for 30 days?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:35) yes  but if translation takes  it to publish time later than En the response time is still equitable

  Philip Corwin: (11:37) How long can it take to translate a brief preamble and four short questions? We are not talking about a 100 page report.

  Wale Bakare: (11:37) For sufficiency vis-a-viz translation to EN, why not pegged at 90 days irrespective?

  Farzaneh Badii: (11:39) well I would be more worried about the difficulty of reaching out to people who might be really affected by ICANN jurisdiction

  Philip Corwin: (11:40) I fully support adequate time for any interested party to read the questions in a major language and have adequate time to respond. That needs to be balanced against the fact that we need to review and discuss the answers and determine their relevance and import for our work, and if the closing date is mid-April that means we don't see answers until a quarter of a year from now.

  Wale Bakare: (11:43) Do we really have the knowledge of those who ICANN jurisdiction might have affected or who might not? Given ample time would be good enough to capture  anyone in my  opinion.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:43) exactly Greg we are talking  a 2w difference

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:45) I think it is too long depending on when q released

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:46) two weeks seems good again depending on when q is released

  Philip Corwin: (11:50) Given that standard ICANN response time on a major policy proposal is 40 days, I think 40 days after publication in all languages  is sufficient for 4 questions, 60 days is very generaous, and anything beyond that is unnecssarily dilatory.

  Yvette Guigneaux: (11:51) Time Check - 10  minutes

  Philip Corwin: (11:51) I co-chair a PDP WG that is about to publish a 100+ page report for comment, and that only gets the standard 40 days.

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:52) hard to hear now

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:52) too soft

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): (11:52) better

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:55) time check - 5 minutes - Next steps?

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:56) i have a hard drop off at top of hour

  avri doria: (11:57) just wanted to stop in and apologize for missing this mtg.  got sidetracked on another issue.

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (11:57) Hand up

  David McAuley (RySG): (11:59) I would volunteer

  Wale Bakare: (12:00) Thanks, David

  avri doria: (12:00) i will contribute to the small group in my meaer way

  David McAuley (RySG): (12:00) I must go - thanks to Greg, staff and all, good bye

  Wale Bakare: (12:01) Please, Greg post the request in the jurisdiction mailing list

  Philip Corwin: (12:01) If it's to review litigation I volunteer as well

  Wale Bakare: (12:01) My suggestion though. Thanks

  Wale Bakare: (12:02) Bye all!

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) Bye everyone.

  Tatiana Tropina: (12:02) Thanks Greg and all! Bye

  Herb Waye Ombuds: (12:02) goodbye all

  CW: (12:02) Good b'ye.

  Farzaneh Badii: (12:02) so long

  Bernard Turcotte Staff Support: (12:02) BYE ALL

  Philip Corwin: (12:02) I am at namescon on 24th

  Nigel Hickson: (12:02) good weekend all

 




  • No labels