
43:12
Hello all…

43:17
Hello all

43:52
Apologies not sure you heard my "I'm here".... :)

43:59
Hi everyone

43:59
Hello all, took me to get connected.

44:04
I have a very limited connection, therefore, please bear with me if it drops me from time to time.

45:25
Hi All Welcome to the Council meeting

45:40
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

46:23
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

47:18
My apologies. I missed the roll call, but I am here.

47:32
Noted for attendance Phlippe and Sebastien

48:03
Please remember to set your chat drop down to ALL PANELISTS AND ATTENDEES to allow all to follow the chat content.

48:11
Thanks Nathalie.

50:23
Thank you Nathalie

50:43
I confirm

53:03
And attendance noted for Osvaldo Novao too

01:00:45
Did we ever do anything with the capacity analysis that was done a while ago I think by you Berry? (I may be reaching back into history with that though)

01:01:46
However some things like our SubPro PDP are seeing the end of project

01:01:49
as well

01:02:51
new hand

01:03:11
Ok Maxim

01:03:29
@James - the prototype I had for SPS, was just that. I'm starting to explore how we can accomplish that with the PMT, but the tool presents different challenges.

01:04:07
Got it

01:04:09
thanks!

01:04:54
I'd note that the ADR does help to prioritize because there are some up coming decision on how to handle upcoming work. Like PolicyImp Review or EDDP/ERRP. We'll be looking for formal decision on when to address them. The key is to look at the ADR into the 3-6 month range.

01:07:23
We could also investigate something like TShirt Sizing incoming work so that even without detailed community capacity analysis we have a rough feel for what is ongoing vs incoming

01:07:31
How we can prioritize efficiently? Do we have any rank beyond Effort level?

01:08:08
@James the last column is a first attempt at those t-shirt sizes. Work in Progress.

01:08:09
@james and story points too :)?

01:08:34
Well.. if it works it works =)

01:09:15
And yes seeing that now Berry thanks

01:09:36
as long as it is **Properly** sized of course

01:10:12
Yeah that's the nice thing about tshirt sizes they just have to be rough instead of tailored =)

01:10:18
old

01:10:35
Nothing Im aware of

01:10:45
Not that I know of.

01:10:54
Not really. Not sure these conversations would have taken place without you, Keith, if you are in the group

01:11:17
@Berry: I sort of interpreted the last column of the radar was somewhat a reflection of the poll on priorities from the Cs we did early this year - was I mistaken?

01:11:45
I did I did

01:12:14
@Phillipe - No sir. Just my quick thumb in the wind guesstimate....no science behind it for now.

01:12:41
15 September 2020 - information will be sent shortly

01:12:56
Thanks Ariel!

01:13:32
@Berry thnks there we are - so basically that piece of work is still "hanging in the air" then

01:13:47
I thought it got fed into that somehow

01:14:14
-thanks Berry

01:17:21
Hand raised

01:18:41
It now makes sense

01:18:42
Yes

01:23:10
How many minority statements in total?

01:24:18
5 so far - 2 more expected

01:24:27
Thanks Marika

01:26:03
And minority statements DO NOT mean dissenting statements

01:26:04
@James, Not sure if they should be all be categorised as “minority” statements though.

01:26:31
maybe just statements?

01:26:43
because minority to me sounds like dissent

01:26:55
Ok got it =)

01:28:05
I always thought that if you submit a minority statement regarding a report it was because you had some dissent with its content.

01:29:11
Osvaldo - exactly

01:29:32
Officially it is a minority view which is defined in the PDP Manual as: “Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.” But over the years it seems to have taken on a different meaning and there are no specific guidelines on what it can or cannot include. Maybe something to look at for PDP 4.0 ;-)

01:29:57
we are loosing Rafik

01:29:59
ok so not just me then Keith

01:30:07
last couple of minutes

01:30:17
indeed

01:30:42
Last minute

01:30:44
Ok now

01:36:36
So "consider" here means for council to vote separately on those two sets

01:36:39
?

01:36:41
yes

01:36:44
Apologies I'm slow....

01:36:51
No comment

01:36:56
:)

01:36:59
I’ve been drinking a lot of coffee

01:37:09
I haven't

01:37:11
@Philippe - it may just mean voting on individual resolved clauses or having separate motions - we are still figuring that one out. Both approaches seem viable.

01:37:13
thanks Michele

01:37:36
only one ☕

01:37:45
3 weeks now of remote meetings!!

01:37:51
Two motions seems cleaner just from my 2c

01:37:57
No coffee. It’s 1 am … :(

01:38:04
(Thanks Marika)

01:38:10
3 weeks of ICANN meeting is too much for normal people :)

01:38:32
I hear you @Maxim!

01:39:24
It has been a mammoth task indeed!

01:39:37
Please note that the date for the webinar is 3 September (not 4 as it says on this slide) - apologies for any confusion!

01:40:22
@Marika - I thought that your "minority view" quote above (3.6 operating procedures?) was about consensus designation of the WG, so not about these minority statements as submitted?

01:40:32
You should already have a calendar invite in your inbox.

01:41:40
@Marie - yes, it is linked to that. It also says: “Documentation of Minority View recommendations normally depends on text offered by the proponent(s).” This is what has become what we now refer to as minority statements (I believe).

01:42:16
Yes kudos to Rafik

01:42:24
As described in the PDP Manual, these are supposed to focus on alternative proposals / recommendations that only got minority support, but it has become much broader over the years.

01:43:14
Yes awesome Rafik :) thanks Pam for bringing this

01:43:15
+1 to what Pam just said

01:43:22
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/epdp-phase-2-team-publishes-final-report

01:43:51
+1 Rafik

01:45:44
Yes I agree Rafik - and I still think that "minority view recs" aren't what we're dealing with here.

01:46:00
at least now

01:47:01
And of course kudos to the entire Team/Staff for the hours/months/years of blood, sweat & tears.

01:53:28
Proposal on screen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FMSpEJHWdnNhEtnY7O7mRIHunAyx6tRR/edit

01:53:44
why do we expect the same people to have different outcome this time?

01:54:23
@Maxim - note that the legal/natural study came in after the EPDP Team finalized its report so it has not been reviewed by the EPDP Team.

01:55:06
Who will Chair?

01:55:44
accuracy - Bird and Bird sent it on 9th APR 2020 , it is few months ago

01:56:37
As the Council already directed the EPDP Team not to further consider accuracy, it did not consider the B & B response but it is expected to feed into the scoping effort.

01:59:04
There is no reason to expect the same pace, deadlock situation has no momentum to support

01:59:14
The proposal does foresee reconfirming membership and allowing for updates / changes, as appropriate.

01:59:39
That's why we said there could be changes James; I know that many members do want to continue, given their expertise & the momentum.

02:00:16
The proposal contemplates replacement of members (if they are burned out).

02:00:34
A little respite over the upcoming "Meeting Season" might be important to consider in any planning for those that choose to continue as well

02:01:58
Then how far does this urgent work get pushed out, Cheryl? We have the momentum/expertise that we risk losing.

02:02:34
Sorry!

02:02:40
there is no momentum in stale situation

02:03:32
But there are 2 track here - the remaining phase 2 items are one thing; accuracy is another, and not linked (now) to the EPDP.

02:03:53
@MAria I did not indicate not starting as you plan but rather over the meeting weeks there may need to be a respite focussed work plan

02:03:56
I assume that we will need to vote on the next steps in the September meeting correct?

02:04:36
Why can't we set up the call for volunteers for the scoping team on accuracy? That doesn't have to be the same people even.

02:04:57
Accuracy no problem, as it’s something different

02:05:00
Totally agree @Maria get onto the work ASAP

02:05:09
Re-starting EPDP — no.

02:05:24
Yes Accuracy goes into our normal pipeline

02:05:38
sorry my damn auto correct is an issue this morning @Marie

02:05:43
If we start accuracy now, I don’t have a problem with this

02:05:59
Michele :-)

02:08:03
Accuracy keeps being pushed back, James. So I don't agree that it would be a "normal" (read, months from now) start.

02:09:53
Is there a new text from B&B about accuracy? pushed by whom?

02:13:18
If the timing is removed from the proposal then the framework takes a different form

02:13:34
(And would garner more support)

02:14:08
Accuracy is in the GDPR, Maxim, and the European Commission itself disagrees with the chosen route of the EPDP Team, as you know. This isn't about Bird & Bird, and as accuracy was taken out of the EPDP to be dealt with holistically, then let's do that.

02:14:49
Think you know the BC's opinion, Keith ;-).

02:16:03
I need a GDPR Accuracy =/ ICANN Accuracy Tshirt =)

02:16:22
What size? ;-)

02:16:33
Secrets!

02:16:41
Send me a DSAR

02:16:57
In the GDPR accuracy is the right of data subject, and that’s what B&B said, and I read the GDPR many times and frankly I haven’t seen anything else than that there. Of course I’ll leave this to the substantive discussion of that PDP on accuracy

02:17:07
For the record: BC is comfortable with the proposal and wants it as soon as is practicable.

02:17:49
John, your microphone doesn’t appear to be connected?

02:18:03
@John, you are unmuted and can hear you

02:18:20
That's why it would be great to get a scoping team of experts together on accuracy, Tanya, so that when the PDP is kicked off we have the widest/most holistic list of things to consider.

02:19:15
(Scoping team not just being councillors - all GNSO - and beyond - expertise needed!)

02:19:15
Marie, I personally have no problem with starting the scoping team on accuracy no matter what my opinion on accuracy is. My problem was with restarting EPDP asap.

02:19:43
@Terri operator error.

02:19:47
Agree @marie

02:20:16
Glad audio worked eventually.

02:24:02
old

02:25:44
nothing prevents IRP IOT members to apply and most probably they have better score in the selection process

02:26:00
than those who are not fluent with the process

02:26:19
Ok so it wasn't due to exclusionary criteria or anyting similar

02:27:09
qualifications - should be in the call of volunteers, and SSC just formally review applications and tries to find a consensus

02:31:19
as always, it’s up to each community group how they gather feedback on the draft ToR from their members

02:31:45
I'm with James here - I don't think the SSC is the right channel here.

02:32:19
why do we think that SSC can not do the formal selection?

02:32:50
Its not a skills/cv analysis kind of selection like the SSC does

02:32:55
Its much more nuaced than that

02:33:37
if the call for volunteers text is clear enough, it should not be an issue.

02:34:03
The people we appoint to make these selection for the board to consider will need to have a very complex and difficulat skillset.Totally disagree this is not a simple call for vol with a list of skills

02:34:28
if the group can not describe in words what is required - it is an issue

02:34:53
+1 James. And don't think it's really Council's remit.

02:34:56
Yes exactly but not an issue just a reflection of the complexity

02:35:39
@Marie, is it an opinion supported by the reference to Bylaws or GNSO procedure?

02:36:36
Yes this is not an enumerated council role in the bylaws

02:39:33
3 weeks is a bad idea, what is going to be next time? 6 weeks?

02:40:04
50 weeks ICANN 70-2021 rolling meeting

02:40:34
It’s good that we have only 52 weeks a year so it won’t be more than that

02:40:50
I was giving us 2 weeks for Council SPS =)

02:41:02
Yes number of days and blocks are spread out over 3 weeks but of course working in UTC+2 is still a challenge for sore remote participants in certain timezones… that has to be accounted for as well...

02:41:22
We know the pain now after KL meeting

02:41:37
noting the UTC+2 is only 2 weeks out of 3

02:41:45
So it’s a sort of shared pain that we own too (-ish)

02:41:53
it will help to compensate lack of flights to have the same jetlag

02:41:56
Yep, and staring at a screen for 10+ hours just isn't the same as looking at actual humans.

02:42:17
Marie I am not sure actual humans exist anymore:(

02:42:26
Sorry but I have to leave now.

02:42:32
says Tanya the jetsetter

02:42:36
Bye all!

02:42:47
++++ @Marie

02:43:14
James. Former jetsetter, me — can’t claim that anymore :)

02:43:15
Or legs, Tanya. No one has legs. We exist from mid torso upwards.

02:43:25
Marie, oh that. Yes

02:43:31
Don't make me out your current location =)

02:43:50
:-) I rarely get out of my slippers these days ;-)

02:44:00
:D no no. It doesn’t exist, James!

02:44:20
Cheryl. I’d say, months.

02:44:48
Bye for now

02:44:50
are we looking forward to see winter annual quarantine time?

02:44:52
Bye all

02:44:53
bye all

02:44:55
thx

02:44:55
Thanks Keith, bye all.

02:44:56
Thanks all

02:44:58
See you