Daft q: no hand up option?

Participant icon-> raise hand

Not sure the webinar format has it

Hello all.

I have a box that says Raise Hand

I see raise hand button at the bottom of participants list, Marie

Hello, my name is Steve Chan and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. When submitting a question or comment that you want the session leaders to address or for me to read out loud on the mic, please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a </QUESTION> (or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>). Questions and comments must be submitted in the Q&A pod to be considered. Text entered in the Chat pod will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.We will have an open mic at the end of the meeting where non-Council participants can raise their hand to be added to the queue to be able to speak. Once you are called upon, you will be permitted to unmute your microphone and you will be able to ask your question or make your comment.Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards

Ah! Was in "attendees" tab. Sorry. Not enough coffee yet.

Same for the "hand", here. (but we can't post Questions)

(I think)

I am here

Panelists can reply to Q + A

Click the panellists tab at the top. Philippe.

but we can’t ask questions

reply but not post, can we?

Yes

we’re in webinar mode

thanks

@carlton presence noted, thank you!

@Nathalie, much obliged

@staff Proxy incoming for Farrell we also cannot contact him, I will take his proxy, Stephanie filing it now.

Noted, @james. This will only count if we receive it ahead of the vote start.

Yup rushing it in now =)

The GAC keeps bringing up its disappointment that SubPro referred DNS Abuse to the Council. Likely to be in Communique. Would love to hear Council's thoughts on this.

Welcome Goran and all!

Not yet

Here is the Resolved clause:

I will hand it to you Pam after the vote. My mistake.

Proxy form just came in now.

Thanks Nathalie

Ah well =) An attempt was made.

Sorry James!

Reminder to all to please type your questions in the Q&A box to the left of this chat.

You can find the full Project Package of the EPDP-P2 that accompanied the PCR which provides details of the project status/health, accomplishments and project plan. This is produced monthly. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2020-June/023745.html

My concerns match with Tatiana

Resolved:The GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of a Preliminary Issue Report, for delivery as expeditiously as possible, on the issues identified in the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper, to assist in determining whether a PDP or series of PDPs should be initiated regarding changes to the Transfer Policy.Resolved:The GNSO Council hereby requests the preparation of a Preliminary Issue Report, for delivery as expeditiously as possible, on the issues identified in the Transfer Policy Initial Scoping Paper, to assist in determining whether a PDP or series of PDPs should be initiated regarding changes to the Transfer Policy.+1 Tatiana - The Council should communicate clearly to the EPDP Team that this extension is solely for the delivery of the SSAD Final Report.

Thanks Keith so let’s communicate this *clearly*

Yes I think that clarification and clear instruction from Council is needed along with the approval notification

+1 Tatiana

@david - yes of course, but please post the All Panelists And attendees.

If it is a question though, please use the Q&A box.

would like to remind councillors of the vast scope of work of that PDP and the huge complexity of the issues, which certainly contributed to its failure to make headway. The EPDP can not be expected to finally resolve some of those issues, within the same process intended to work quickly and expediently on specifics. Other parts of the community may have issues they are focused on, but the Council has the special role of managing process, and please help keep this under tight control and actively manage it. Thanks.

new hand

*sorry, missed the start of that - as a past vice-chair of the RDS PDP, I would like to remind councillors..

From the ALAC Reps on EPDP and At-Large's Consolidated Policy WG perspective the WHEN and the HOW of the path forward for the Priority 2 Issues is of critical concern

Agree, Cheryl.

FWIW, at the moment it does look like the majority of the so called priority 2 items will be addressed in the priority 1 Final Report (without requiring further deliberation) but there are a couple of issues such as legal/natural (awaiting study results) and feasibility, for which time may be needed to understand whether or not consensus recommendations are possible.

And we have a proposal on thje table of council to consider for those items

A tight time frame on response for the framework would certainly be appreciated @Keith (again on behalf of the ALAC

And Yes I have been specifically briefed on this matter for this meeting

Persoanlly I am also sitting with Option 2 at the moment also

I trust Rafik to manage with an Iron hand

Well done Rafik, trusting your support always.

Process: we have a responsibility to manage (see op procedures). We need to get this right.

Happy to volunteer for the small team, Keith.

happy to be counted in too.

I am in too (small team)

@Marie, @Philippe, @Sebastien, staff has noted this, thank you all.

I will volunteer for the small team

@John, also noted, thank you.

I also volunteer for the small team

@greg, noted, thanks!

Fundamental ByLaws amendments are required to address the final nature of grants made - so that Request for Reconsideration and IRp cannot be used to challenge grants.

It is a Council small team to develop a consolidated approach to address the remaining EPDP Priority 2 topics

No problem

Webinar is on Tuesday 7 July 2020 at 12:00 UTC, please email gnso-secs@icann.org to RSVP

Hear hear

Yes, well done.

Additional information about the webinar here: https://community.icann.org/display/CWGONGAP/2020-07-07+-+Webinar+-+CCWG+new+gTLD+Auction+Proceeds+Final+Report

Excellent question Michele

Fiduciary responsibility will always kick in as a potential.

Right

When CCWG participants who polled were counted, the number voting for mechanisms other than A was 10 as opposed to 8 for Mechanism A. In other words, the fact that there were 2 other mechanisms (B & C) resulted in a "split" of votes as between the two more independent mechanisms. This resulted in the CSG Minority Statement questioning the stated "preference" for A.

fiduciary duty might require the Board to use money despite of text in such documents

True Keith and James. But there are ways to firewall, and we need to find them

The amount of Auction Proceeds transferred into the ICANN Reserve Fund as a result of the Board-adopted strategy of replenishment was $36 million.

ICANN Org took the position that it would allocate proceeds in "tranches" for purposes of grantmaking, not allocate the entire remaining amount. The budget in the tranche for each year would be subject to Empowered Community powers over the Budget. At least that was the discussion in the CCWG.

The community chose not to go ahead with the external model that would have created the easiest firewell but yeah if ther are mechanisms they can be evaluated in implementation

The replenishment strategy also included approximately $32 million of funds to allocate to the Reserve Fund from operational excesses to be generated by ICANN org.

Over an 8-year period.

I am happy to support that small group work on CCWG WS2

Thanks James, noted

Nathalie,I'd like to join in me for that small group for WS2

Good idea Tat!

@Juan Manuel, noted, thank you

The Council may wish to connect with the new Planning Function being established under our CFO Xavier Calvez, in relation to implementation planning.

I echo Toms concerns about overlapping work in this area, personally I think that the evolution work needs to be paused pending the existing community driven activities.

re item 6 noting a) the minority statement (the first part, ie consensus evaluation) and b) obvioulsy a CCWP =/= PDP, I was wondering whether PDP 3.0 improvement #4 (in substance) could have been of "some help." Or whether that wasn't fit for purpose. Just a thought...

ICANN org is currently developing a more detailed implementation plan as well, in line with the initial implementation assessment. We will obviously provide the Board and community with updates as required by the Board resolution.

Is it MSSI? I am very sorry if I am confusing who’s responsible for this within ICANN Org, but I think coordination will be crucial :-)

On the HR issues in the GAC meeting running now the HR WG presented to the GAC a 'tool' for possible SOAC use for self assessment *as they see it*

@Tatiana, implementation will largely be coordinated by Xavier’s Planning Team though the work will likely be cross-functional in nature for ICANN org, including Policy and MSSI, for instance. It was indeed MSSI that supported the CCWG and WS2 development work.

Thank you, Mary!

It sure is @Tom :-)

@CLO, a top read.

Very convoluted, but it *really needs sorting*

Thank you @Tom, we tried ;-)

Probably not a best seller on Audible, though.

Thanks Keith. My note explains the request.

@james, it is not the former.

Good thanks Mary!

I g=had assumed the latter

there's no suggestion the IOT would be the panellists. Indeed there are many disqualifying criteria, which many IOT members would be excluded by

Exactly my concern!

Thanks for allaying

Thanks James and Susan.

The Bylaws require ICANN to consult with the SOACs to establish the process for selecting the panel. Final selection will be done by the Board so, as Keith noted, the question is how the community wants to handle the selection process.

I personally am fine with the IOT serving that function

The public comments received indicated support for a “representative group” of community representatives. This could conceivably include a role for the IRP IOT and it is up to the community to determine the group’s composition as well as how it will work with ICANN Org and the external expert to move forward with selection of a slate of potential panelists.

looks quite small

Don't readable... its a shame!

to properly work on this - documents need to be provided at least 2 weeks in advance of the special meeting

so we could discuss it with SG

This is just a preview, Maxim. No decisions required.

Slides are not moving

I meant when we decide to have a meeting , something should be presented as documents in advance

Engineers now happy - slides of blueprints graphics ;-).

it looks like design of the presentation , do we have to approve it? the data is more important

And sorry, Berry might want to add a thing or two

all good for now. will wait til dedicated.

to say something about it - it would be nice to have it

It looks quite small because it is quite big. The challenge is how to make it smaller…

sending it to us , we can use our displays :)

Sorry for the slide snafu :(

And I have a question on this in the Q&A

We will be discussing DNS Abuse with the Board later today as well.

Thanks Keith - Let Cheryl and I know if you want/need our thoughts.

because we obviously have a few ;-)

I agree....and the reality is that we are already addressing DNS Abuse

Lots of sessions, the CPH Framework, the bilateral discussions between CPH and ICANN Org....

I would say that that is a good start to addressing....

Yes SSR is a part of OCTO

Thanks John

wasn’t 100% sure

Thanks Pam - happy to work with you as ever!

Thanks, Marie

Sebastien asked for 2min

there’s a hand in the chat from a participant as well

I'm back. VPN dropped briefly

@lawrence, you will need to unmute your mic

I thought we were not taking audio interventions

Only using the QA pod

@James - why would that be the case?

@james, correct during the meeting, but during the open mic, we are accepting audio interventions

that is what I thought as well but his hand went upanyway

@James, we are at the Open Microphone portion of the agenda.

We always have that for public Council meetings.

ALL COUNCILORS, please take a quick 5 min break and then log into the ICANN Board and GNSO Council Zoom room for sound checks.

Thanks Keith

Nathalie do the attendees know that once you inmute them they often still have to unmute themselves?

I assumed we had restructions due to the zoom audio bombing iussues previously

Thank you all.

Thanks you all

thanks all

Thanks Keith, thanks everyone.

Thanks alot Team

thanks all se u in 15mins

thank you all

Thank you all

THanks..

Bye for now