Grec, I could agree with the following Q1 Has your ability to use domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way? Q2 can go as drafted Q3 totally to be deleted Q4 I could agree with Phil Corwin edits but deleting the the following text particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Regards Kavouss 2016-12-20 16:33 GMT+01:00 MSSI Secretariat <mssi-secretariat@icann.org>:
Hello all,
The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Accountability WS2 *Jurisdiction Subgroup Meeting #14* – 19 December 2016 will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/ZpTDAw
A copy of the notes may be found below.
Thank you.
With kind regards,
Brenda Brewer
MSSI Projects & Operations Assistant
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
*Notes (including relevant parts of chat):*
*1. Welcome*
Greg Shatan: No changes to SOIs.
*2. Questionnaire*
a. Results of First Reading at CCWG Plenary
b. Potential Edits to Preamble and Questions
Greg Shatan: Unfortunate Parminder is not on call. He had asked for an annex to the preamble to be the full Annex 12.
Milton Mueller: Not in favour of modifying preamble. Propose we simplify vs expand the preamble. Propose we delete everything after the second paragraph.
avri doria: whereas i see people narrowing the range of facts to suit their hoped for outcome. but the answers take time. better we have people willing to understand the issue to answer than those who have no time.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: We can simplify and include a link to the relevant part of Annex 12
Milton Mueller: People need to understand the questions, Avri
avri doria: inclusion of 12 by reference is ok.
Milton Mueller: And some of them won't even read the questions if they have to wade through a bunch of procedural gobbledegook
Kavouss Arasteh: Have no problem with shortened preamble - but simply add hyperlink to Annex 12.
Greg Shatan: So the proposal is to take the first two paras, add the link and then fix the last para.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Makes sense, what Greg just summarized
avri doria: it is less than a page, that is not long.
David McAuley: As the drafter of the preamble not unsympathetic to shortening.
avri doria: take out the 12 text and it is a quarter of a page.
Milton Mueller: Right Greg
David McAuley (RySG): OK
Greg Shatan: cut Further Background and Specifically it would be short - do we need TO HELP? I think the last para is useful.
Kavouss Arasteh: Last para needs to stay.
avri doria: do not remove that para. please
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree on last paragraph - go with those edits Greg
Avri Doria: SPECIFICALLY para is important.
Greg Shatan: really need to condense the first three paras. any objections? (none). Let us move on to the first question.
Kavouss Arasteh: Propose to delete Business and Privacy and as JN proposed in the plenary remove RELATED SERVICES.
Greg Shatan: Any comments? (none)
Greg Shatan: Proposal Have your activities related to domain name services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Kavouss Arasteh: domain name system or servicees? Willing to be corrected.
David McAuley (RySG): DNS sounds better, I think there are more DN services than ICANN deals with
Jeff Neuman: DNS may "sound" better, but 99% of the services are not related to ICANN
Milton Muller: We can qualify DNS later. We are interested in any effect of ICANN's jurisdiction on DN Services - you cannot buy DNSystem.
Greg Shatan: "domain name-related services"? to avoid confusion with managed DNS services etc.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: what is DNS services pls?
Milton Mueller: domain name-related services is ok with me
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agree
Christopher Wilkinson: support keeping Business and Privacy in question 1.
Kavouss Arasteh: Services/Systems is used in other for a – could solve the problem here?
David McAuley: Need to focus it on ICANN related services etc. could be fixed in intro.
Greg Shatan: other comments? (none) 1 for changing, 1 against...any further comments. Temperature check 3 and 3 so no consensus.
Milton Mueller: I am against changing it
Kavouss Arasteh 2: then other people would be against what was in the initial text. Those who have drafted the text should not radically acts again any comments
Greg Shatan: new temperature check
Kavouss Arasteh 2: I object to the initial text
Greg Shatan: will republish the first question to the list. Second question (no comment). third question, comments? (none).
David McAuley (RySG): 2 seems ok
Greg Shatan: Question 4. Much discussion on the list regarding this.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Q4 as proposed by Phil Corwin: "4. What are the advantages or disadvantages, if any, relating to ICANN's jurisdiction*, particularly with regard to the actual operation of ICANN’s policies and accountability mechanisms? Please support your response with appropriate examples, references to specific laws, case studies, other studies, and analysis. In particular, please indicate if there are current or past instances that highlight such advantages or problems."
avri doria: looks good
Philip Corwin 2: +1 to Jorge's suggestion ;-)
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: +1 to Phil :D
Kavouss Arasteh: issue with Q3.
Greg Shatan: Q3 was added to allow people to submit other people/business/countries experiences if documented.
Kavouss Arasteh 2: I am not convinced by Q3 objectives
avri doria: we are worried about people answering one questionnaire. Now we want to send them two?
Greg Shatan: Q1: Has your business, your privacy or your ability to use or purchase domain name-related services been affected by ICANN's jurisdiction in any way?
Greg Shatan: This would be sent with a note of Kavouss's alternate suggestion.
Milton Mueller: I am opposed to Q4 in this questionnaire - could be sent independently later (Explaining rationale for this)
Kavouss Arasteh: not convinced on question 3. Worried it has not meaning.
Greg Shatan: needs to be verifiable.
Kavouss Arateh: do not agree.
Erich Schweighofer: Q3 is a research question - can be helpful, most will ignore it.
David McAuley (RySG): I agree with kavouss in this respect - the responder can simply say that the report is verifiable.
Paul McGrady 2: I tend to agree with Kavouss. Q3 has little real value since it is just gathering hears
Avri Doria: Support Q3 for secondary sources. Requires more work in analysis but still very useful.
David McAuley (RySG): Avri raises an interesting point - who will do the work of verification?
Wale Bakare: Q3 is about data collection, so that poses a bit of challenge.
Milton Mueller: those with multiple personalities get multiple speaking opportunities
Kavouss Arasteh: still do not support Q3 - cannot get comments from experiences who are not your own.
Christopher Wilkinson: Understand the concern about Q3 vs validation. But still could be useful. Would prefer not to have hearsay.
Greg Shatan: Need to focus Q3 to get valid information.
Paul McGrady 2: We would also need a mechanism to toss out responses that don't fit though.
Wale Bakare: IMHO, we have many registered ALSs, where factual data could be sourced from as well.
Milton Mueller: of course, Paul, if someone does not provide actual reports or information we toss it out.
Avri Doria: needs to be there. This could be the factual basis to lead to other discussions.
Milton Mueller: we are not going to get any concrete information with Q4
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: agree with Avri... as said before Phil Corwin's formulation could work
(many people leaving for other call)
Kavouss Arasteh: need Q4 but can be re-edited.
Greg Shatan: KA are you ok with PC edits.
Erich Schweighofer: I support the revised version.
David McAuley (RySG): I don’t support Q4. But if that ship sails I prefer Phil Corwin version - again, only if we insist on Q4.
Milton Meuller: Q4 should be reformulated and not sent at the same time - but if we have to send it the PC version is ok.
Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland) 2: Let's go with Phill's version if everyone can live with this
Kavouss Arasteh 3: I do not agreee David with that version
Greg Shatan: I will put these options out on the list. Adjourned
c. Question 4
i. Can this question be revised to get broader support?
ii. Should this question be sent separately?
d. Preparing for Second Reading at CCWG
Plenary
3. Mechanics and details of the questionnaire process
a. How to publish/send out questionnaire
b. How to collect responses
4. Review of Work to Date and Potential Next Steps
5. AOB
6. Adjourn
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community