MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012
Dear All, The next call for the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting is scheduled on Thursday 20 December 2012 at 20:00 UTC Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday 6 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121206-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#<http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct>dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ray Fassett – RySG Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary J. Scott Evans – IPC Primary Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Alternate Apologies : Angie Graves – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:Welcome Avri Julie Hedlund:Hi Anne Ron A:Just fell off the call, but was not suggesting you would loss ;o) avri:Ron, it is quite alreaight. It is midnight here and it sounded that way to me, but it amused me. no worries. you have to realie i have been doing ITU and diplomatic double talk to 2.5 weeks now. avri:... for 2.5 weeks now avri:Really good question Ron A:@ Avri - I feel your pain... Ron A:@ Anne: That is my issue avri:Yes, it could be easy to just add a line that says a suspeiton must be for a fixed length of time. avri:but who give notice. and what is the vote thershold of that motion. Ron A:For those who have served on the Council, this may not be an issue, but from the outside looking in, it looks like an open loop. Ron A:Or better said: loophole Marika Konings:No new vote would be required - the motion would contain the 'timeinterval' for suspension as noted in the footnote at which point the PDP would resume J. Scott:I think Marika has made a very valid point Marika Konings:with the previous instance ('thick' Whois) the PDP was restarted (without a vote) before the actual end date of the original suspension Marika Konings:as there was Council agreement J. Scott:Yes, Wolf-Ulrich. I was saying "simple majority" Ron A:IF the time suspension is included in the motion, THEN I am okay with this. J. Scott:What if we insert the term "stated" before the wording "time interval" avri:i need to drop off now. Marika Konings:I think that would be a useful clarification avri:will stay on adobe Ron A:I support J Scott's proposal Ray Fassett:agree with J Scott. Appears to me the issue is making clear that a time interval to resume is inherent with the suspension Marika Konings:Exactly - no other vote required if timeframe is included in the motion Marika Konings:it would automatically restart, unless the Council would take another vote Ray Fassett:I think the time interval should be case by case vs. hard scripting Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Marika Konings:There is also a summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Ron A:Thank you, Marika. Wolf Knoben:Thanks to all
Ugh, that will be 3 a.m. in the morning for me as I will be in Singapore, but I'll try to make it ... :) Thanks everyone! Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen@icann.org> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc@icann.org> CC: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org> Date: 12/6/2012 7:20 PM Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] MP3 recording SCI meeting - Thursday 6 December 2012 Dear All, The next call for the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting is scheduled on Thursday 20 December 2012 at 20:00 UTC Please find the MP3 rerecording and transcript of the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation meeting held on Thursday 6 December 2012 at 20:00UTC. http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-sci-20121206-en.mp3 On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#dec (transcripts and recording are found on the calendar page) Attendees: Ray Fassett – RySG Ronald Andruff – Commercial and Business Users Constituency - Primary Wolf-Ulrich Knoben – ISPCP – Primary J. Scott Evans – IPC Primary Avri Doria – Non Commercial SG – Primary Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC Alternate Apologies : Angie Graves – Commercial and Business Users Constituency – Alternate Mary Wong -NCUC James Bladel – Registrar Stakeholder Group - Alternate Jennifer Standiford ICANN Staff: Marika Konings Julia Charvolen ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Julia Charvolen For GNSO Secretariat Adobe Connect chat transcript: Julie Hedlund:Welcome Avri Julie Hedlund:Hi Anne Ron A:Just fell off the call, but was not suggesting you would loss ;o) avri:Ron, it is quite alreaight. It is midnight here and it sounded that way to me, but it amused me. no worries. you have to realie i have been doing ITU and diplomatic double talk to 2.5 weeks now. avri:... for 2.5 weeks now avri:Really good question Ron A:@ Avri - I feel your pain... Ron A:@ Anne: That is my issue avri:Yes, it could be easy to just add a line that says a suspeiton must be for a fixed length of time. avri:but who give notice. and what is the vote thershold of that motion. Ron A:For those who have served on the Council, this may not be an issue, but from the outside looking in, it looks like an open loop. Ron A:Or better said: loophole Marika Konings:No new vote would be required - the motion would contain the 'timeinterval' for suspension as noted in the footnote at which point the PDP would resume J. Scott:I think Marika has made a very valid point Marika Konings:with the previous instance ('thick' Whois) the PDP was restarted (without a vote) before the actual end date of the original suspension Marika Konings:as there was Council agreement J. Scott:Yes, Wolf-Ulrich. I was saying "simple majority" Ron A:IF the time suspension is included in the motion, THEN I am okay with this. J. Scott:What if we insert the term "stated" before the wording "time interval" avri:i need to drop off now. Marika Konings:I think that would be a useful clarification avri:will stay on adobe Ron A:I support J Scott's proposal Ray Fassett:agree with J Scott. Appears to me the issue is making clear that a time interval to resume is inherent with the suspension Marika Konings:Exactly - no other vote required if timeframe is included in the motion Marika Konings:it would automatically restart, unless the Council would take another vote Ray Fassett:I think the time interval should be case by case vs. hard scripting Marika Konings:http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf Marika Konings:There is also a summary: http://gnso.icann.org/council/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-06apr11-en.pdf Ron A:Thank you, Marika. Wolf Knoben:Thanks to all
participants (2)
-
Julia Charvolen -
Mary.Wong＠law.unh.edu