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

So trolling Keith is not allowed

Welcome All

years

Apologies for joining late - had zoom issues

Welcome all!

hi everyone.... greetings from India

We will have a Q&A session after we receive the updates.

Agree, Jeff.

hello all, thx Phil

I think we are still on the prior slide?

I feel like I need to launch an ISP service in the US

Michele I'd be happy to discuss that with you :)

hi I am venkatesan from india

Do Michele :) and you'd be welcome within the constituency (althgouh I know/suspect blackn would qualify already anyway... :)

Welcome Venkatesan!

Sarah - white label? :)

thaml uou

thank you

Hello all this is Ching Chiao (CCWG-AP co-chair). Sorry for being late .

Welcome Ching!

Individual comments may have been loast because of the comment format in Google Forms was very unweildy

can I speak later ?

Yes, we will have a Q&A after the updates from PDP WG leadership.

thank you, please reminde me

@Venkatesan, there will be a Q&A session at the end of the presentations, you will then be invited to raise your hand and you’ll be put into the question queue.

for me video is not there I think the admin has to give rights

for video

There is no video for this call, it is taking place via audio or chat only.

please inform me when my turn comes

The sub groups have excellent chairs and so far have been very efficient even without extra process rules

@Paul - As staff reported, 12 individuals provided comments to almost every single question in the google form, besides the comments from 38 organizations and 5 ICANN groups. All comments are organized in the comment review tool: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Phase+1+Initial+Report+Public+Comment+Review

Of course, alternative methods have also been provided for commenters to submit comments via the Word form equivalent of the Google Forms, and there was individual commenter who used that method to submit comments

cudos to the pdp leadership for being on track

My Internet is back...for the moment

no sound

audio go?

also no sound

we don’t have hold music?

tut tut

Phil’s internet came back. That’s the problem :)

well yes when in doubt blame a lawyer

just silence Michele

How boring

reflective

Apologies for the audio issue.

EPDP team members for IP constituency have been very communicative & have engaged in full discussions of how to move forward. Working hard over here.

good evening everyone and sorry for delay

Welcome Laxmi!

Thank you Nathalie

Much appreciated @Cyntia - same for the BC. Medals deserved all round.

More detailed information about GNSO’s policy effort can be found in the GNSO Policy Briefing ICANN68 edition: http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

If you would like to ask a question, please click on the Hand Raised icon at the bottom of the Participant List, and you will be placed in the question queue.

@Ariel, Yes that is a very helpful resource, as always.

Thanks for the review, Tom!

Just jumping back to the last item before connection was lost: I appreciate the challenge of deadlines but I think it is worth mentioning that as a multistakeholder model greater emphasis should be placed on developing shared engagement and relying on expected norms rather than rules which you would find in a coercive top-down environment. We had the same issues in the IGO/INGO WG where it was impossible to get overarching issues discussed and time was consumed interminably by process shaping. Paul McGrady sets an excellent example in subgroup B of the RPM working group and I think we could all learn from his approach.

Many thanks Keith for noting, acknowledging and updating everyone on this ..

Thanks Manal!

Related to what Jeff just said, one of the questions posed in our Initial RPM Report was whether the URS should become a Consensus Policy for legacy gTLDs. Community feedback on that will be reviewed by the full WG.

Thanks Rafik

Thanks @Keith for recognising the importance of the remaining issues from Phase 1 which do need to be dealt with in short order.

It does thanks Jeff.

and it's fine for people to record "reservations", it's another to expect that they are accomodated.

(in public comments)

It helps

thanks Jeff.

+1 Marie

For community members who may not be familiar with the overall GNSO PDP lifecycle, it may be helpful to remember that once the policy development phase concludes in the GNSO, the approved policy recommendations are then sent on to the ICANN Board for its consideration. These steps are mandated in the ICANN Bylaws. If the Board votes to adopt the recommendations, the process then moves to the implementation phase (as Keith mentions). This last phase is managed by ICANN org at the specific direction of the Board, in consultation with a community-based Implementation Review Team (again as mentioned by Keith).

Thanks Mary

To be clear. The PCR is only for the SSAD Final Report which is part of the Priority 1 critical path.

I don’t see three options in the EPDP PCR.

Thank you, Mary!

John - it’s in the doc that Rafik shared

@John - the options are in the priority 2 framework document that Rafik shared (not the PCR)

but the extension + the “path forward” doc seem to be discussed at the same time which is causing confusion

Thanks

thank you very much for the opportunity provided by the host. am leaving for urgent work.

Thank you!

Thanks, all

If you are interested in learning more about GNSO policy effort, you are welcome to read the GNSO Policy briefing ICANN68 edition: http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

thanks all

@Thanks Ariel

Thanks everyone

Thanks and bye to all

Thanks and bye .

Bye all

Thanks and bye

Thanks everyone, bye

Thanks to Everyone and talk to you during the virtual Policy Forum at ICANN68

Thank you all. See you in Zoom…

Thanks Keith, thanks to all WG chairs. Bye all.

Thanks and bye all !

Thanks for a good update

Thank you all!

Thanks!

Thank you all, bye

Thank you

Thank you