Welcome, Theo

Greetings from the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombuds team is available all week in our virtual office. The Zoom room details are on the Conversation page of the ICANN73 home page under Discussions. Stay safe and be kind. ombudsman@icann.org

Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants.Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants.Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants.Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants.Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for remote participants.

Thanks Mark

Hello all

The Open Mic session scheduled at the end of this session, observers will be invited to raise their hands to be unmuted and to ask questions or comments. Questions & comments from the chat will only be considered during the Open Mic if posted in the correct format.

When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.

Welcome Theo! Great to have you here.

To view the real time transcription, click on the “closed caption” button in the Zoom toolbar. As requested verbally, please rename your sign-in name with your full name. You will need to exit the Zoom Webinar and rename yourself before signing in again. If you do not use your full name (e.g. First Name + Last Name/Surname), you may be removed from this Zoom session.

Welcome, Theo.

Please note that chat sessions are being archived and are governed by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.

I wish the "here" were real and no web

I just set my chat to "Everyone" because I always fail to do so and I want to save Nathalie having to remind me (for the 1,000th time). :)

Welcome Theo!

A F2F would be really great :)

Kurt - is multi-tasking :-)

Just to Panelists: Jeff Neuman and Jeff Neuman #2 are both me. Have to sign on with two devices. No one is impersonating me (that I know of).

@Jeff, are you sure?

Thanks Jeff!

Thanks "Jeff".

Maxim, that is a remarkably philosophical question for the beginning of a Council meeting…..😀

Greetings. - Dr. T V Gopal, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy Campus, Anna University , Chennai, INDIA.

strange sound

like electric shaver

2022 NomCom Announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/apply-now-for-icann-and-pti-leadership-positions-15-12-2021-en

I am aware of NomCom. :-)

maybe it's the way the noise gate is processing ambient sound

2022 NomCom: Job Descriptions and Open Leadership Positions: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/nomcom2022-positions-2021-12-15-en

I did not hear few sentences

@Maxim, check the live transcript

@Desiree, thank you

Thank you all

Thank you Taiwo!

To do so, you would have to charge for access at the various rates suggested in the ODP

via making pilot payments?

In a small pilot, some users might be willing to invest, just to get this thing off the ground. You would then have to correct for that…don’t know how you could do that.

Yes Maxim, I think so...

it might be a question - how many users of the system is going to be using it after 3 months

exactly

like sending e-mails

@Kurt - but that would be good to know and why a lightweight ticketing system seems like a great option.

@Kurt there is no need to build a ticketing system, to save money it can be integrated into ICANN's existing SalesForce platform, just look at what Ash did in integrating Compliance into SalesForce. He saved $ and increased functionality.

@Michael, the current platform is slow enough

+1 Kurt - Staff could do a lightweight ticketing system without a formal recommendation from us.

+1 Michael Palage

just for clarity - the current platform , if too much added on the top, might stop performing even the current functions in a reasonable time manner

Not wanting to be overly technical here, but before assuming what potential impact lower volumes would have on the cost of an SSAD, you may want to validate first what the sensitivity of the costs to volume is. Org can help with that.

5 mins left on this item

Wouldn’t there be an output of the Pilot to give insight if recommendations should be changed?

Good point Xavier

Agree with Desiree

@Stephaine - please take the extra time and try to resolve the accuracy definition issue :-)

@Stephanie - I hear you, but if we have to solve every problem at once in order to solve a problem we will never solve any problems.

Michael, if you wanted to resolve the accuracy definition issue, your doodle poll would have included other options for the definition.including the one that the Registrar proposed and we (NCSG) supported.

See the link to the SubPro ODP Question Set #2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_A5oEnsFQHAvXDtNNRkDGzPoC2GRTxtlnMCwd3rNMOM/edit

IMO - If a ticketing system results in insight and concrete data into issues related to accuracy then all the better.

Paul, as anyone on an international policy, treaty, or standards drafting committee would agree…..definitions are the baseline. In the accuracy committee, absent any other work on that definition, the definition remains what is in the RAA. Which was omitted from the Doodle poll I just mentioned. Hence my concern about going in circles.

Posted above.

Will post again.

See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_A5oEnsFQHAvXDtNNRkDGzPoC2GRTxtlnMCwd3rNMOM/edit

Link above it to the SubPro ODP Question Set #2

Standing Predictability IRT

PDP —> GNSO Council -> ICANN Board -> usually IRT

+1 Jeff. The additional work is Implementation work and there are checks and balances in the Consensus Policy Framework and in the GNSO Operating Procedures that assure Accountability for the IRT working on the additional work.

Thanks for clarifying that Jeff

Just thinking - as an outsider (apologies) Why not just work on the basis that the GNSO can be informed of a likely issue (ODP benefit IMHO)- so let the GNSO work on it - then be ready with an answer and present it when the Board poses the expected question. - this would merely be using the ODP to it’s fullest. And working with the Board and the ORD as the ODP seems to be intended to do?

*org

I like Kurt’s approach

+1 Kurt

Jeff, Your favourite class was civil procedure???? That says a lot.

@Jeff - however, there are specific guardrails for what constitutes policy in ICANN and there are specific Annexes that allow GNSO to make the determination as to what requires policy work.

Must be really fun

Kurt, I instantly thought about exactly the same question :-)

Right. GNSO does the policy and ICANN Org does the implementation.

Thanks Jeff - super helpful to understand the context.

Jeff - the SPIRT clearly contemplates a system where ICANN org does NOT control whether or not an issue involves policy.

@Anne, SPIRT does not come into play as yet.

Thank you Jeff

yes - Justine and that is the organizational problem. ODP is new and its creation requires recognition that it is doing implementation without the benefit of oversight by an IRT

@Anne, I could be misunderstanding you but this is what I understand - ODP isn't implementation, it is "fact finding" for ICANN Board. There will still be an IRT to do implementation if and after the Board approves the Outputs.

AGB is a historical PDF now

The group could not reach consensus on what the status quo was on closed generics. Important distinction.

@Paul - there was no Sub Pro consensus on the point of view you express that the lack of a ban in 2012 meant that was the status quo. Several members of Sub Pro believed the Status Quo was the Board's denial of Closed Generics based on the REsolution

I agree Jim. From a Board perspective (as I had at the time) the absence of the mention of closed generics did not mean they were fine. Rather that they weren’t considered. Y+The Board felt cornered in having to create a way to deal with them and decided at that time that it should not owe put in tat position again.

*shoud not be put in that position again

no consensus meant - no changes

@Chris: they were discussed in the many public sessions reviewing and modifying the AGB

but there was no policy Kurt

Noting the chat above, I'd probably frame ODPs as "assessing implementation requirements and impacts" rather than "doing implementation." But clearly, the role of PDP, ODP and IRT in GNSO processes require a common understanding across the community, Board and Org, and I feel that's what we're wrestling with at the moment. We need to maintain the procedural structures that provide predictability and transparency, while also looking for opportunities to conduct our work more efficiently. (I'm not speaking about SubPro specifically here, but process generally.)

Right - the policy was a set of restrictions and regulations. The policy could not state everything that was allowed.

that’s true

Can anybody outline very specifically and narrowly what the key issue with closed generics would be?

@Paul, I wouldn't say that the SubPro PDP operated on the status quo being CG as allowed is accurate.

But if I remember correctly, the Board provided the GNSO with a list of matter it wanted delay with in sub pro and closed generics was one of them

*wanted dealt with

What the Board says now is what the Board says now.

true, again

@Paul - just Love your characterization of this issue as a "bridge that can be quickly and easily crossed". Wonderful optimism on your part!

@Anne - optimism is my thing! :-)

I think Jeff made a very practical proposal on resolving this issue within the Sub Pro process.

On DNS abuse, ultimately we need to identify where we can implement standard, enforceable policies (via contract) on issues where there is agreement it is within ICANN's remit... if there is no hook for contractual improvements, there's no use having endless dialogue and ICANN's role in all this will be lost

there is a need to avoid DNS abuse and non DNS related internet abuse being conflated

+1 Maxim, drawing that bright red line is something that could have been addressed as a risk in a PIA

It is another unresolved definitional problem

I doubt there is any low hanging fruit out there, but who knows

To those who could not attend, I recommend watching the recording of the Plenary DNS Abuse session (that explained malicious v abused domains) that immediately preceded this meeting. I learned quite a bit how parties handle different abuse types differently.

Thanks Kurt, hard to cover everything at these meetings.

So recommendations of relevancy very much appreciated.

@Mark D. - re Closed Generics - the specific narrow issue is bound to be the GAC Consensus Advice that a Closed Generic must "serve a public interest goal". (This is not the same as the TLD operating in the Global Public Interest. It is specific to the string applied for and the details of the Application.) There were three models discussed in Sub Pro. As Paul mentioned, some Sub Pro participants advocated no such restriction on CG applications. Then Jeff proposed a way forward and in addition, several other members backed a third model. Presumably those three models would be the starting point for the cooperative effort requested by the Board.

@Kurt - agree. That was a very interesting session. Part of a very rich week on DNS abuse content.

Agreed @Kurt and if anyone can get a look at the chat room in that DNS Plenary, it was very very rich and substantive.

+1

You’ve been missed in the GNSO, Lars.

@Anne thank you for the explanation

Karen and Lars have great teams! Plus Lars I do love the graphics you use on your slide ;)

@Jeff, 100%

Don’t worry Lars, i try to block that out too

This is a great presentation and I think worth the time we went over.

Rather than just surveys, perhaps scheduling a few 1:1 meetings with members of the IRTs to discuss how things went. Surveys do not provide the greatest feedback IMHO

Yes, 100% support earlier ODPs / implementation

I certainly support the ODPs, which we acknowledged was fact finding/research, at an earlier phase

In future meetings, I think this type of presentation is very useful and would be great to do this with other teams that interact with the GNSO.

Thank you @Lars, but you didn't have any your signature graphics in the slides ;)

adding some timelines to the presentation would be really good

Thanks Lars! Great job!

I believe there is a lot of interaction between the GNSO Policy staff and the GDS teams. So that does take place, but perhaps Paul is suggesting that some of that interaction (which we know is going on) is brought out into the public.

Berry certainly has excellent scary spreadsheets to work from….adding another consultation column to revise estimates

On timing and volunteer expectations I note that the Phase 1 EPDP Policy took 6 months. Yes the Phase 1 EPDP IRT will take almost 4 years. (3.75 years if we believe the IRT will complete in Q3 2022). Not to mention the IRT will go into enforcement 18 months after approved. Something is broken.

Berry has the best, scariest spreadsheets!

So, at each ICANN GNSO Council meeting, perhaps a spotlight on different GDS teams like this one

*Yet (not Yes)

Yes that work could indeed be well referenced in this @Stephanie

@Paul: +1 :-)

Excellent presentation, timely implementation is key

@Alex - Sometimes implementation can understandably take longer than the policy development, but yes this IRT has been taking quite a long time.

+1 Stephanie - the checks and balances are in the GNSO Operating Procedures

Yes I agree

@Lars - agree, those kind of exit poll questions make sense. We already have a process on the "did we get it right" kinds of questions (reviews).

And those discussions during the PDP would be the best solution

@Lars, I'd like to know if there's anything GDS thinks GNSO Council can do to help you help us.

Lars is correct that the questions would have come up during implementation. That is why I say the ODP is doing implementation work. The Final Report assumed IRT and SPIRT and provided mechanisms to deal with those questions.

@Kurt - upstream! :-) Love it.

It is indeed a problem. Certainly we are guilty of vague wording in the Charters we produce, in the interests of moving forward

I have to agree (for what that is worth) @Jeff

Absolutely agree and support having those conversations during the PDP. If we did, we wouldn't be going to the GAC now for an "agreeable position" on closed generics. That would have been dealt in the PDP

One thing we have done during this ODP is that the ICANN ODP team has access to the Google Doc where we are drafting our answers. And if they have any questions, they can bring them up while we are drafting the answers as opposed to waiting until after the answers are submitted.

This can and should be done during the PDPs

[And by “this ODP”, I mean SubPro ODP]

@justine. thank you for the question. maybe that is something we can start discussing during future meetings.

The question is, who bears the responsibility for pulling these issues out, and reporting to the council. Sounds like the liaison, already a burnout role IMHO

Here is the response from Goran that Flip just referenced: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-fedorov-02mar22-en.pdf

Thanks Flip. Important questions.

Apologies, I have to leave for the IDNs EPDP.

ICANN Bylaws do not seem to be in favour of the Internet separation (personal comment)

Doesn't ICANN's response to Ukraine necessitate that ICANN do something about RUNet, because it is de facto fragmentation of the Internet?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50902496

If you would like to comment, please raise your hand and we will prompt you to unmute your mics.

I always have questions, but since we are way over, I will not ask any - to everyone’s relief

Great meeting of the GNSO Council! Thanks all.

thanks all!

thanks all

Take care all, stay safe and be kind

great call! thanks all

bye Thx

Thanks all. See you at The Hague!

Thanks all

Many thanks!

Thanks all

Thanks Philippe!

bye

Thanks All

Bye all