The Google doc where we are collecting responses is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hg468obYDwylFQ6q-3AX6m7UxZvNY1EXGpBFJ-WVd_0/edit?usp=sharing

He is a noncom rep

Under AOB, I would like to discuss the new logistics of travel to The Hague, and that liability waiver that ICANN is demanding we sign. I agree with Michele’s blog on that subject…..

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1buufalOjubifqZJoPLqF4wBaIUxHKLWor7NvILtnrKg/edit

Happy to edit for English, but count me out in terms of content on this one….relying on you and the others for knowledge of this rather arcane topic

from what I read in draft, it just needs formatting and editing to be submitted as statement . content is fine

At least he had the decency to recuse himself. Not sure that happens across the board, mentioning no names of course….

I’ll try to format it to a statement tomorrow morning and hopefully can have people edit it before the Council meeting

We can add ‘we need solicit feedback from broader community’ to our statement?

I honestly think it’s slightly stronger if we send this as a letter to the GNSO leadership

Dunno what @rafik and Kathy think from previous experiences and so on

Bc I also remember we discussed writing a letter to the Board for it to be publicly acknowledged

I agree with Bruna. Important to get things on the record visibly

Also, If sent as a written communication the council will have to comment on that. My concern is that just a statement will be on the record but not addressed

usually sending letter means gnso council should respond

Exactly

GAC will keep asking this same approach every-time for every topic they want to push

Eactly

Exactly

GAC said yes bc that’s mostly GACs suggestion haha

Indeed 🙄

One of Jeff’s counter-arguments to our ‘this is opening doors for GAC reopening issues’ is that ‘closed generics is different’

What a well developed argument haha

As in closed generics didn’t really have a ‘policy recommendation’

@manju quelle surprise :D

CCOICI

So it’s not ‘re-opening’ issue ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It’s me again! Im your substitute

Manju you are making me feel guilty

Please dont, you’re on the SSAD ODP small team, that’s a real battlefield

We never had too much friends anyways

This is why we have to be friends with each other. It is a. Lonely life out there on these committees

Im putting my hand up for AOBs regarding next meeting

So no Dutch triple kissing Hello?

Doesn't look like it

ICANN should use the IGF in Katowice as a Good example it was well organized with all the safety checks and that was in December

This is the meeting announcement: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/registration-for-icann74-policy-forum-in-the-hague-netherlands-is-now-open-31-03-2022-en

Yes, liability waiver afaik is regarding covid situation and so on

I tried to do registration but doesn't let us because we will be funded travelers

Really, Juan?!

We should do trough Funded Traveler's link provided by staff

Yes, funded travelers need to wait for the link from staff to register.

@Andrea when will we receive the link? I have to have proof that I’m traveling to get my 4th vaccine

I will check on that Manju. The names of funded travelers are due this week.

Thanks!

You're welcome!

Very true, and I am not suggesting they should be liable

For me after attending the IGF in Katowice, it was very straight forward on how the UN did, so ICANN should consult them

thanks all

Thank you all!

Thanks !!