Made it just in time =)

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Welcome Matthew to the call!

Thanks!

I can introduce the topic but I may not be able to read the motion. Thank you Rafik for doing this.

Apologise for my delay in joining

Welcome Cheryl!

+1 it'd be helpful.

(thanks Berry)

Yes much appreciated

Hello all, sorry I’m late.

Welcome Osvaldo!

A reminder to all councilors to please set their chat dropdown menu to All Panelists and Attendees for observing attendees to be able to follow the exchanges.

FYI WS2 implementation planning is continuing, including with the new Planning function under Xavier.

@James - I just emailed the MPP file to the list in the meantime.

Welcome to Becky and Matthew, the GNSO's appointed Board members. We very much appreciate your participation.

Also welcome to today's attendees/observers. Thanks for joining!

Agree - Thank you to the hard work of the CCWG on Auction Proceeds.

How many "can't live with" items are there, Rafik?

Originally there were 41 but the group has managed to work their way through quite a few.

Thanks Marika - so some are still outstanding? Do you know how many?

but there may be a few were no agreement can be found - and where the group may need to agree to disagree.

Thanks.

For today’s meeting, we have a cluster of 6 items that are all related to the same topic, as well as one other item related to another recommendation.

Marie- So if voting would not extend the reconvening of the group past September it would be acceptable to you?

after Tatiana

I just don't think we need that dependency Greg - of course it would be great if we can get delivery/discussion/voting in short order but it doesn't need to be tied to it, I don't think?

I can only speak for the BC reps, Maxim.

but if it doesn't result in delay, what is the specific downside of voting that you are concerned about?

+1 to Maxim, we are already burning people out to the extent of them leaving ICANN

there is no value in discussing the same items again and again without any changes in input data.

I have been following the EPDP . I cannot exclude a logical conclusion. There are folks dedicated to keeping the thing prolonged by the recurring arguments. And it seems to me someone needs to bell the cat

As we say in the intro to the next steps doc, the issues were in the charter & need to be looked at properly with, for example, the new legal vs natural report. We've always seen this issues as important.

When do we call time and get on with it?

all items were discussed in full

Yes we need to manage time correctly & respectfully, but no - this is not a "business as usual" items, these aspects are part of the EPDP and have been from day one.

not agreed upon is not ‘not looked into’

also we need to take into account COVID and how it is affected the capacity of the community members

to participate

Shifting too quickly into “EPDP3” will not give time to assess what worked/did not work/needs changing in terms of procedure and structure.

there might be no EPDP 3

Agreed. Actions or decisions made in regards to ADR, many will require a marker to point back too.

Aug is a vacations month, so it might be not a good idea

Would like to see observers admitted to that track, important for transparency and accountability etc

We previously had struggles on the Spec11 working group wit that I would like to see that avoided in advance

Correct, there is overlap and that's the subject of the Board's resolution from Kobe on IDN Variants.

THanks Ariel. Thanks Keith.

Here's the elevator summary pitch of the items: Informal:

URS Procedure Items:1. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance2. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance3. Addressed by draft WG recommendation4. Addressed by draft WG recommendation5. Not yet addressed - add as implementation guidance6. Not yet addressed - add as implementation guidance7. Not yet addressed, Reference Purpose 6-PA5 lawful basis8. Better addressed by IRT - add as implementation guidanceURS Rules Items:1. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance2. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance3. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance4. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance5. Terminology update - add as implementation guidance6. Addressed by draft WG recommendation7. Addressed by draft WG recommendation8. Better addressed by IRT - add as implementation guidance

Each item tracks to the details in the Wave 1 report.

Apologies, everyone, but I have to continue driving. I still have few hours ahead of me. Take good care, friends.

Drive safely, Erika!

Thank you Erika!

Thank you Nathalie! And thanks for all the help today.

Thanks Erika!

Keith, Marie … thanks!

The RPM WG’s prelim recs address a few of the issues to some extent. There will likely need to be some procedural discussions that may result (as Berry said) in terminology updates. Staff has some suggestions on that which, as John noted, we will be discussing with the WG chairs on Monday.

Got you. That makes perfect sense. Thanks Berry!

Can we add them to the operational track in the ADR

@James all Rec27 items will be tracked to conclusion within the RDS Program, until we reach 100%.

And I believe the proposed next steps are that it's not.

@Marie - I forgot to mention, while redline terminology updates are not a decision to be made by the Council, there will be public comments on these redlines for the community, SGs/Cs to provide comments to any of the proposed changes.

new hand

Just for note, Bylaws say SO/AC nominates a slate of proposed panel members, Board to confirm.

Thanks Becky

To the extent that the community agreement is that a community group should be constituted, it is up to the GNSO how it wishes to appoint a rep to that group - which may be the SSC if you choose. That’s an internal GNSO selection issue but we are not at that stage yet.

The IRP IOT does not have current authority for panel nominations, and technically Board/Org selects members in consultation with SO?AC

the slate nomination is very very important and does require a specific skill set

This is the draft response open for Council comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12oTOgCo6Z98QZoMj1fA0sWfETe8m1BFn-hIjy8qumyo/edit?usp=sharing

Agree Becky, we would need to actively vest them with that role from our side. And doubly agree on its importance.

old hand

+1 Becky. So if the decisio is to use the IRP IOT members (wholly or in part) and/or a community group (including IOT members if so desired) that is the vehicle for which the community may wish to use for the consultation.

deadline for comment on GNSO draft response is this Friday

I think that at this point the choice of vehicle is up to the community. I believe that the community could designate the IRP IOT, but would need a process for doing so.

Many thanks! I will still be here (and in the GAC liaison job) until ICANN69.... :)

I think Mary, Becky and I are saying the same thing.

Thanks Julf for all the work done

Thank you Julf !

and of course, it might be appropriate for Board/Org to further consult with SO/ACs regarding composition of IRP IOT if that is the way the community wants to proceed, to ensure that the group has the necessary skill set and expertise.

Nope it was valuable for them both to be here too!

thanks for inviting us, this has been extremely useful for me

thanks all and bye

Thank you all!

Thanks Keith - thanks all

Thank you all

Thanks all!

Thanks all, bye

Thanks Keith, thanks all, bye.

Thanks ALL