Logo

13 June 2022 - Atlantic [GAC] (PM) - Shared screen with speaker view
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
21:28
thanks
Gulten Tepe - ICANN Org
22:44
If you intend to speak or present during this session, please be encouraged to conduct an audio test by reading out the brief text below;“Hello, my name is ______________ and I am participating during this session in a speaking role. I am testing my audio and my speaking pace to confirm whether all language service providers are able to hear me clearly. If you would like me to repeat this test, please let me know. Thank you.”
Imran Hossen
24:10
Hi all
Julia Charvolen - ICANN Org
24:44
Hello, my name is Julia Charvolen and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote GAC participants.GAC Members who wish to submit a question or comment that you want to be read aloud on the mic, please type your question or comment in English and 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.
Julia Charvolen - ICANN Org
25:00
Time permitting, we'd like to get to all comments and questions, but we will give priority to comments and questions from GAC members.Be assured that if we don't have time for reading all, the chat transcript is preserved in the meeting records.This session includes “live” interpretation in the 6 UN languages, plus Portuguese.All chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards ofBehavior: https://meetings.icann.org/en/expected-standards-behavior.
Herb Waye
25:04
Greetings from the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombuds team is available virtually and in person at this hybrid Policy Meeting. Our office is in Rio Grande 1 and our Zoom link for the virtual office is on the Main Meeting page in Conversations. Wear your masks, social distance, and ask permission before shaking hands or hugging. Stay safe and be kind.
Paul D. McGrady
35:05
+1 Jeff - we should look at all of our tools and not just the one that takes the longest.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:55
GNSO Guidance Annex 5 is likely most appropriate to this process. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-5-ggp-manual-24oct19-en.pdf
Paul D. McGrady
39:15
1 member from ALAC and 1 alternate, I think
Paul D. McGrady
40:45
GGP is the "sports car" of the GNSO
Paul D. McGrady
46:32
Applicant Support seems like a natural fit for the GGP since there is very little (any?) resistance to the idea. Other topics may not fit as easily. We are all still talking it through. Our meeting this week is going to be interesting and full!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:42
The distinction relates to whether or not the issue results in a change to the RA or RAA. If Consensus Policy with a capital "C" has to be developed and contracts will be affected, it has to be an EPDP or a PDP. If no contractual change to RA or RAA, GNSO Guidance can apply even if it's a policy matter. GNSO Input Process is more designed for Implementation Advice from the GNSO. ICANN ByLaws and GNSO Operating Procedures were modified to provide for GNSO Input, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO EPDP a few years ago based on the Final Report of the Policy & Implementation Working Group.
Jeff Neuman
55:37
So with this issue (DNS Abuse), the process MAY need to be a PDP or ePDP If the intended outcome is mandatory contractual commitments on existing TLDs or existing registrars. It the intended outcome is voluntary best practices or guidelines, then the GGP may be used.
Griffin Barnett
56:31
My understanding is that there are other ways to effectuate contractual amendments aside from PDP
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
57:08
those are B2B of ICANN with CPH
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
57:34
it is in the text of RA and RAA and available of ICANN website
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
57:40
at
Jeff Neuman
57:41
@Griffin, the only other way is through the Amendment processes in the agreement which require bilateral negotiations (or trilateral if both registries and registrars)
Griffin Barnett
58:20
Right - but those processes exist, that was my only point
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:52
+! Jeff. Would be great if this DNS process could incorporate evaluation of a possible development of an Article 40 Industry Code of Conduct which could represent a "safe harbor" with a balancing of interests in the community. This possibility is referred to in the EPDP Phase 2 results.
Jeff Neuman
58:57
@griffin - yes. I didn't mention that because that does not involve the community until a proposed agreement is reached.
Griffin Barnett
01:00:54
Sure... and I recall an SSR2 recommendation (not yet implemented) about having a negotiation team to represent other community interests in such a context
Paul D. McGrady
01:02:41
@Jeff - kind of. If the idea for an amendment comes out of a community process (like this DNS small team) than it does include the community. I understand the community won't be at the negotiation table, but it is entirely possible for contracted parties to act on a community idea if they wish (and I think the community would be grateful if any amendment(s) solve longstanding problems).
Jeff Neuman
01:02:56
@Griffin - the irony of that proposal is that it would require a PDP to get put into place ;)
Griffin Barnett
01:03:33
If ICANN accredits gTLD Ry and Rr, and part of that accreditation requires registration data verification obligations in furtherance of ICANN's SSR mission, surely ICANN has a legitimate purpose in obtaining registration data to conduct contractual oversight of those verification obligations
Griffin Barnett
01:04:07
@Jeff - is that true? For a bylaws-mandated review team rec? Not sure about that...
Jeff Neuman
01:04:27
Bylaw Review Recommendations have no effect on contracts.
Jeff Neuman
01:05:42
I should restate that Review Recommendations have no mandatory impact on any existing TLDs or the existing accredited registrars.
Griffin Barnett
01:06:56
Yeah just talking about how the negotiations themselves are conducted not necessarily the specifics of amendments to the contracts, in the context of a bilateral/trilateral negotiation
Jeff Neuman
01:08:03
A "trilateral" negotiation process would be a material change to the exiting contracts which do not contemplate any other mechanism to negotiate agreements other than a bilateral negotiation. Thus, to get that implemented, the contracts would have to be changed.
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:16
In the first Whois Review Team, we found that increased privacy would increase accuracy. Some of the inaccurate registration data in the early days came from the lack of privacy and the need of some, including those engaged in active and controversial free expression, needed some protection for themselves, their organizations and families. Now with GDPR, we have more privacy (and more accurate data).
Manju Chen
01:15:40
great insight, Kathy!
Jeff Neuman
01:16:30
@Kathy, do you have any statistics to back up your thesis that the data is more or less accurate?
Jeff Neuman
01:17:06
I am not being critical...just would love to see if there is any backup for that.
Griffin Barnett
01:17:49
I think it's a fair point Kathy (and agree with Jeff that data on that point would be great)... at the same time we'd think it's still important to ensure proper verification of registration data, including oversight by ICANN under existing RAA, which requires completion of DPAs between Rr and ICANN for data sharing... also important that data that IS ultimately disclosed via SSAD etc. be accurate to avoid frustration of purpose of disclosure after going through all those steps to get to that point
Emmanuel Oruk
01:18:28
very interesting discussion
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:20
@Jeff: The first WHOIS Review Team recommended mechanisms for reporting mechanisms for inaccurate data. What we can see is very limited use.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:21:31
6 weeks seems to be am estimate for design
Yuko Yokoyama - ICANN Org
01:22:39
ICANN Org currently estimates that it will take about 6 weeks to do the Design Paper drafting
Nigel Hickson UK GAC
01:23:26
So after 6 weeks; who decides whether the design phase should have further work on it?
Jeff Neuman
01:24:22
One of the questions for ICANN Org is what will that 6 week process have on the SubPro ODP given the overlap of some of the individuals involved.
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:17
@Griffin, as you know, the Registrars agreed in the current Registrar Accreditation Agreement for a verification process of email or telephone number (choice of registrar). This resulted in domain names and websites of hospitals and other important nonprofit organizations going down (as reported by Tucows, your former employer). because registrants did not know about the follow-up questions/verification. As always, we should be careful and balanced in our approaches.
Yuko Yokoyama - ICANN Org
01:25:27
@Nigel - The GNSO Council and the Board will need to consult on how to proceed after the Design Paper is delivered
Paul D. McGrady
01:25:30
@Jeff - in the last session ICANN Org said that while there would be some overlap, that doesn't mean that the SubPro work stops entirely. Seems like a good investment of a short amount of time to solve a problem that has been plaguing our community.
Jeff Neuman
01:26:04
@Paul - that doesn't answer the question :) Its sort of a non-answer
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:26:34
thanks all
Jeff Neuman
01:26:42
ok, does "no pens down" = "no delay". And whether this is a good investment or not is for the community
Paul D. McGrady
01:26:51
@Jeff - I may not be doing their response justice. I encourage you to listen to the recording. It was helpful.
Jeff Neuman
01:27:16
Perhaps that can be recapped during the council meeting
Paul D. McGrady
01:27:32
Also, agree that it is for the community, thus the word "seems."
Griffin Barnett
01:27:34
@Kathy - the verification requirements are what they are, and not responding to whether or not certain registrants had issues with verification, but I never worked for Tucows… not sure where you got that from - maybe I'm misunderstanding the comment
Julia Charvolen - ICANN Org
01:27:46
thank you we will resume in 30 mins
Gulten Tepe - ICANN Org
01:54:39
We will start shortly
Gulten Tepe - ICANN Org
01:54:48
Thank you very much for your patience
Vernatius Ezeama
01:55:28
noted with thanks
Julia Charvolen - ICANN Org
02:20:25
GAC Members participating remotely, if you wish to share your feedback with the audience, please raise your hand we would love to hear your input
Annebeth Lange
02:25:01
I was a GAC Member for Norway from 2000 to 2007, so if anyone wants to know how it was “in the old days”, just seek me out during the week. Much has changed, and absolutely to the better.
Carl Frank
02:29:49
Nico!
nico
02:33:01
Hey!! yes, that´s me...
Carl Frank
02:33:25
Good to see you, though I'm remote.
Manal Ismail
02:37:27
@Annebeth lovely seeing you here :) !! Thanks for joining and offering to share your experience .. Great days as well :) !!
Susan Chalmers
02:49:25
+1, Tracy!
Luisa Paez (Canada GAC)
02:57:39
Thank you for a wonderful 'GAC social' session!
SHI YOUNG CHANG
02:58:04
Thank you, nigel for the wonderful social session.
Ian Sheldon - GAC Australia
02:58:19
Thank you for organising this! Great session!
Carl Frank
02:58:29
Thanks!
Gulten Tepe - ICANN Org
02:58:55
Thank you everyone