Hello all…

Hello all

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

Hi everyone

Hello all, took me to get connected.

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

Hi All Welcome to the Council meeting

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

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

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

Noted for attendance Phlippe and Sebastien

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

Thanks Nathalie.

Thank you Nathalie

I confirm

And attendance noted for Osvaldo Novao too

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)

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

as well

new hand

Ok Maxim

@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.

Got it

thanks!

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.

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

How we can prioritize efficiently? Do we have any rank beyond Effort level?

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

@james and story points too :)?

Well.. if it works it works =)

And yes seeing that now Berry thanks

as long as it is **Properly** sized of course

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

old

Nothing Im aware of

Not that I know of.

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

@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?

I did I did

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

15 September 2020 - information will be sent shortly

Thanks Ariel!

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

I thought it got fed into that somehow

-thanks Berry

Hand raised

It now makes sense

Yes

How many minority statements in total?

5 so far - 2 more expected

Thanks Marika

And minority statements DO NOT mean dissenting statements

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

maybe just statements?

because minority to me sounds like dissent

Ok got it =)

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

Osvaldo - exactly

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 ;-)

we are loosing Rafik

ok so not just me then Keith

last couple of minutes

indeed

Last minute

Ok now

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

?

yes

Apologies I'm slow....

No comment

:)

I’ve been drinking a lot of coffee

I haven't

@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.

thanks Michele

only one ☕

3 weeks now of remote meetings!!

Two motions seems cleaner just from my 2c

No coffee. It’s 1 am … :(

(Thanks Marika)

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

I hear you @Maxim!

It has been a mammoth task indeed!

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

@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?

You should already have a calendar invite in your inbox.

@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).

Yes kudos to Rafik

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.

Yes awesome Rafik :) thanks Pam for bringing this

+1 to what Pam just said

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

+1 Rafik

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

at least now

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

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

why do we expect the same people to have different outcome this time?

@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.

Who will Chair?

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

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.

There is no reason to expect the same pace, deadlock situation has no momentum to support

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

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

The proposal contemplates replacement of members (if they are burned out).

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

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

Sorry!

there is no momentum in stale situation

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

@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

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

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.

Accuracy no problem, as it’s something different

Totally agree @Maria get onto the work ASAP

Re-starting EPDP — no.

Yes Accuracy goes into our normal pipeline

sorry my damn auto correct is an issue this morning @Marie

If we start accuracy now, I don’t have a problem with this

Michele :-)

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

Is there a new text from B&B about accuracy? pushed by whom?

If the timing is removed from the proposal then the framework takes a different form

(And would garner more support)

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.

Think you know the BC's opinion, Keith ;-).

I need a GDPR Accuracy =/ ICANN Accuracy Tshirt =)

What size? ;-)

Secrets!

Send me a DSAR

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

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

John, your microphone doesn’t appear to be connected?

@John, you are unmuted and can hear you

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.

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

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.

@Terri operator error.

Agree @marie

Glad audio worked eventually.

old

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

than those who are not fluent with the process

Ok so it wasn't due to exclusionary criteria or anyting similar

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

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

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

why do we think that SSC can not do the formal selection?

Its not a skills/cv analysis kind of selection like the SSC does

Its much more nuaced than that

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

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

if the group can not describe in words what is required - it is an issue

+1 James. And don't think it's really Council's remit.

Yes exactly but not an issue just a reflection of the complexity

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

Yes this is not an enumerated council role in the bylaws

3 weeks is a bad idea, what is going to be next time? 6 weeks?

50 weeks ICANN 70-2021 rolling meeting

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

I was giving us 2 weeks for Council SPS =)

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...

We know the pain now after KL meeting

noting the UTC+2 is only 2 weeks out of 3

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

it will help to compensate lack of flights to have the same jetlag

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

Marie I am not sure actual humans exist anymore:(

Sorry but I have to leave now.

says Tanya the jetsetter

Bye all!

++++ @Marie

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

Or legs, Tanya. No one has legs. We exist from mid torso upwards.

Marie, oh that. Yes

Don't make me out your current location =)

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

:D no no. It doesn’t exist, James!

Cheryl. I’d say, months.

Bye for now

are we looking forward to see winter annual quarantine time?

Bye all

bye all

thx

Thanks Keith, bye all.

Thanks all

See you