Logo

IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
14:56
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Ariel Liang
16:12
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit#
Maxim Alzoba
16:57
WG should create it
Maxim Alzoba
17:01
not we are
Maxim Alzoba
19:40
how do we deal with the synchronization with operation stream?
Edmon Chung
20:53
hmm but we wont put out a partial report?
Maxim Alzoba
21:33
I am not sure the partial report is possible
Jeff Neuman
21:49
Working Groups generally do 1 Initial Report and 1 Final Report on all of the topics. But, there is nothing preventing Working Groups from being more Agile and taking this in pieces (if possible)
Jeff Neuman
23:50
For example, could the WG do an initial report on only the narrow issue of evaluators determining whether an application for a TLD is confusingly similar to an existing TLD or to another application due to the fact that they are variants?
Ariel Liang
26:01
Section 2 has been revised along the way of the meeting
Ariel Liang
26:48
Staff have noted in the agenda email to note what questions have been revised
Maxim Alzoba
28:34
I do not think we can add "please add here something" as part of the plan :)
Maxim Alzoba
30:26
the deliveries are all or nothing, we can not issue deliveries in bits
Jeff Neuman
30:42
Why Maxim?
Jeff Neuman
31:18
The whole notion of Agile Project Management is taking things in bite size pieces
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
31:45
even if prioritisation is necessary, shouldn't we leave that to the working group to decide?
Maxim Alzoba
31:47
as a part of my job I have to mend things cause by the agile approach
Maxim Alzoba
32:46
bite size pieces is about the task and not about endless deliveries
Maxim Alzoba
33:34
there is no more than one final report in the design
Maxim Alzoba
35:31
I do not support the idea of multiple final reports
Jeff Neuman
36:01
@Dennis, we could be
Jeff Neuman
36:48
Its what we did for transfers way back when. We broke it down into phases. But in this case, it would be the Working Group itself that decides the phases
Maxim Alzoba
37:00
the final report can consist out of different bits , but delivered at the same time
Jeff Neuman
37:22
PDP 3.0 is about improving the PDP process and trying to gain more efficiencies.
Maxim Alzoba
37:31
I think we should say - they should create plan e. t. c.
Jeff Neuman
37:42
That's the biggest lesson for me with SubPro
Maxim Alzoba
38:03
pdp 3.0 is not for WG members trying pilot projects
Dennis Tan
38:11
@Maxim, that’s right
Steve Chan
40:11
FYI, the Transfer Policy is intended to operate in two phases. I believe the IDNs EPDP could determine that its work is better conducted in phases and build that into its work plan. The work plan goes to Council for review and acknowledgment, so they would have an opportunity to object.
Dennis Tan
40:38
Thanks Steve. This is useful
Steve Chan
41:26
And the GNSO Council liaison could communicate that the EPDP might be thinking of going that direction in advance, to keep the Council more informed.
Ariel Liang
42:35
We can try this option
Maxim Alzoba
42:44
+1 here
Jeff Neuman
44:34
I would change the "shall" to a "may"
Jeff Neuman
44:55
This is not a legally binding document
Jeff Neuman
45:18
or you can say "are expected to"
Maxim Alzoba
45:40
it was more like a set of ideas
Ariel Liang
46:24
I have made that language revision
Ariel Liang
47:24
That’s correct
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
48:03
Reminder to state your name before speaking for recording and transcription purposes, thank you!
Maxim Alzoba
48:21
we should not confuse some flexibility with unlimited pilot
Jeff Neuman
49:23
We don't have a change history, do we?
Ariel Liang
49:53
Change history is not needed at the point
Ariel Liang
50:14
Change history is needed when the Council decides to update the already approved charter
Dennis Tan
54:16
I tend to agree…. some repetition (i.e stressing importance) might be good, and a quick way to find the resources
Ariel Liang
54:36
Maybe we should also add the Scoping Team final report, as it includes additional links of reference documents in its annex
Ariel Liang
01:00:12
Does the DT want to specify how many Staff Liaisons should be involved?
Jeff Neuman
01:00:14
In other words, trying to close out some issues
Ariel Liang
01:01:09
Also the number of liaisons
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:46
GNSO council appointments the liaison, not WG
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:00
appoints
Jeff Neuman
01:02:55
@Maxim - my point is not who selects, but the fact that this charter contains a provision to have one.
Jeff Neuman
01:03:13
I am just not clear as to why this section is a TBD?
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:19
at least one might sound better
Jeff Neuman
01:03:37
I am fine with Maxim's language
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:38
reasonable number :) like not 6
Jeff Neuman
01:04:54
you need the word "appoint" back in there
Ariel Liang
01:08:36
We will resolve the comments and redlines for the sections that have already been reviewed by the DT
Ariel Liang
01:08:49
So the charter doc will look much cleaner when it is circulated next
Jeff Neuman
01:09:06
By resolving redlines, you mean accept deletions, etc.?
Ariel Liang
01:09:20
Yeah, accept the revisions already approved by the DT
Ariel Liang
01:09:54
We will get rid of them
Ariel Liang
01:10:09
We remove this language along the way for sections already reviewed by the DT
Jeff Neuman
01:10:41
But I still see things like "GAP" and references to the mapping document
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:32
thanks all, have to drop the call
Jeff Neuman
01:12:06
lol
Edmon Chung
01:12:10
thx
Edmon Chung
01:12:18
bye
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:12:28
thank you
Ariel Liang
01:12:29
Thanks all