Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2 Team Call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
32:50
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Terri Agnew
33:07
Members, reminder to adjust chat to all panelists and attendees.
Berry Cobb
34:07
https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/g.+Draft+Final+Report+-+Phase+2
Berry Cobb
39:01
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2020-May/003368.html
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
53:33
+ 1 Marc
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
55:16
it cannot be commeasurate as it also needs to cover the cost of the overall operation
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
55:20
This is part of the implementation and will be also part of the mechanism concerned with evolving the SSAD
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:00:18
+1 Milton we do not have a global accreditation system for all types of requestors
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:01:35
+1 Milton to the "No" only
Berry Cobb
01:10:49
Link to Rec19 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-npFkABPc-u3To6uYe2v6MTFHlrEOUD5i6x8LrHAJaE/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Margie Milam (BC)
01:19:08
+1 Alan G
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:21:08
the paragraph that Berry is highlighting doesn't address our concern that the GGP will not in our view allow for evolution.
Terri Agnew
01:24:22
Members, reminder to adjust chat to all panelists and attendees.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:25:02
if they are indeed tiny little tweaks that improve things they should have no trouble getting needed support
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:25:26
+1 Alan G and Mark SV. Although I'm optimistic by nature, I don't want to merely have faith and trust in an existing mechanism, I want to make sure that THIS mechanism adequately and fairly represents the interests of the full spectrum of stakeholders impacted by this policy. As Mark SV noted, this is a unique situation and we should not necessarily tie ourselves to existing structures.
Marika Konings
01:26:54
As pointed out, any recommendations from the GGP would need to obtain consensus support from the GGP Team before even being sent to the GNSO Council. And as the manager of the process, the Council is expected to confirm that the process was followed, not redo or change recommendations that are submitted for approval.
Brian King (IPC)
01:29:55
Hand up to offer an alternative.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:31:05
So the requirements are representation and decision making at the same level and power as in the current EPDP and approved by the GNSO. It looks more and more like a "mini continuous EPDP". But the workload is going to be a fraction of the current EPDP and scattered in time so it should not scare us.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:34:31
+1 Alan G
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:34:51
If these aren’t policy topics, then why have we been discussing them for 2+ years?
Marika Konings
01:35:56
To be clear, a GGP is not about policy development. From the GGP Manual: “A GGP may be initiated by the GNSO Council when a request for input relating to gTLDs (either a new issue or in relation to previous policy recommendations) has been received from the ICANN Board or a gTLD issue has been identified by the GNSO Council that would benefit from GNSO Guidance, and it has determined that the intended outcome of the GGP is not expected to create new “Consensus Policy” recommendations including, but not limited to, any new contractual obligations for contracted parties (in which case a PDP would need to be initiated).”
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:36:05
Yes, as Alan G recognizes -- we all agree that this mechanism should NOT deal with policy. Rather, it deals primarily with operational issues.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:36:23
Well the GNSO is where all of this stuff flows so why would the composition be any different regardless if it’s policy or implementation
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:42:05
Yes so ICANN and the community could develop something else…doesn’t seem to me that’s the charge of this group
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:44:00
centralization isn't, but should be, among the 5 points the MfE should have.
Brian King (IPC)
01:47:28
The consensus policy would be that request types that can legally be centralized, or automated, MUST be. If there’s legal ambiguity, they can’t be centralized. But if it’s clear, they MUST be. Happy to collaborate on what mechanism is needed to ensure there’s no tomfoolery around what legal advice and transparency is needed.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
01:47:31
May I respond Janis?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:53:33
I'm interested in participating in the con't discussions on Rec. 19.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:54:08
Amp El Sadr is interested in the evolution group
Marc Anderson (RySG)
01:54:29
I'm willing to continue with the small group on Rec 19
Ben Butler (SSAC)
01:54:34
SSAC is interested in continuing the conversation re: evolution.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:55:31
the advantage of Brian's proposal includes saving time and effort
Brian King (IPC)
01:56:25
I’ll stay with the mechanism small group as well, thanks.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:56:33
I again am interested and willing to continue in the evolution group. (repeat going to all participants)
Janis Karklins (Chair)
01:57:33
Small group on mechanism may meet coming Thursday at 2pm UTC if all are in agreement. If not, then next week
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:06:51
I can also join on Thursday - mechanism small group
Marika Konings
02:09:46
Apologies for any misrepresentation!
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:02
Sorry misrepresentation is too strong a word .. merely misinterpreted and perhaps we could have ben clearer..
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:05
*been
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:16
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh that sounds worse
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:18
lol
Marika Konings
02:13:26
:-)
Brian King (IPC)
02:15:45
2pm UTC Monday?
Brian King (IPC)
02:16:11
Great
Brian King (IPC)
02:16:19
thanks
Mark Svancarek (BC)
02:16:38
bye!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:16:44
Thank you bye all