
30:59
Jeff and I thought we would humanise the Webinar mode as much as we can

31:13
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

31:16
Are we still in Kuala Lumpur?

31:40
As much as we have been all along @Greg

32:42
And you will notice you get a reconnecting message as your promoted to panellist just let that run... … ...

33:05
Members: please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat

33:29
@jim figured it was better to have slots in your calendar and cancel if needs be

33:30
ok - just in case placeholders. thanks

33:39
YUP

35:12
Go for it Paul.

38:18
Can't hear Alan

38:53
I heard his audio, ok @Anne is @Jeff coming through clear?

39:21
Jeff was very clear. Alan was in a cave

40:04
Agree - have not seen this chart of concerns and mitigation at all

40:51
I think this just brings together some of the discussions into a simple document for reference and review together

41:03
Just a rejig into a format to hopefully allow for easier reckoning SO let's just review it now

41:04
I have only just had sight of it too

41:54
Thanks Alan

42:10
Thanks @ALan hopefully that will increase your audio volume/clarity

42:31
Thanks @Greg

43:43
Good catch @Paul

49:40
Can we do a horizontal split?

49:56
or 2/3 :1/3

50:34
(if we need to reflect back onboth docs again

52:54
Transparency is Key here I think

56:48
Suggest that when staff "encounters an issue" during the implementation phase, they need to advise GNSO Council and the SPIRT of the change.

01:00:30
Yes to Change Log

01:00:43
@Cheryl, I agree. Transparency.

01:01:02
If it is on a wiki page then you can set to "watch the page"as desired

01:01:25
But yes subscribe to updates is a good add as well

01:01:50
COuncil could receive reports to its monthly meetings of course

01:02:16
as part of its overall Management of stuff processes

01:08:16
That was my thinking @Jeff more information re changes and note the Caagory /Action

01:09:15
All changes logged would be helpful, especially for review purposes and considering any course corrections in the future

01:09:49
Noted Justine

01:11:45
I like Escher however @Paul

01:11:55
The simple way to explain it is Standing IRT

01:11:56
I noted it to staff @Justine

01:12:24
Yup

01:13:31
GAC seems concerned they will have no role in the SPIRT input

01:13:59
SO some reassurance was and *is* required ot seems

01:14:06
Would be great if the GAC would appoint a SPIRT rep

01:14:42
@Jeff, good idea to reassure the GAC even more

01:17:01
Agree@

01:17:07
+1 Jeff - it should be in this box as well

01:20:33
Agree - the change log can be an oversight tool across different SO/ACs

01:20:49
Noted @Rubens

01:20:55
Good idea

01:21:37
A lot of churn in GAC Membership

01:22:36
Always difficult for newcomers and we have to take that into consideration

01:22:50
indeed @Annebeth

01:23:22
Or as an Appended Doc

01:23:37
I think it is useful as a supplement

01:23:53
And avoid all the acronyms

01:23:56
+1` to Annebeth's comment

01:24:02
+1 Annebeth

01:24:18
It should aid understanding

01:26:20
we may end up with VERY long rationale in some cases

01:26:44
Just be sure that it is as easy for all to understand. This is complicated, and many will feel it is easier than long explanations

01:27:26
AGree with "Annebeth- the chart is a good approach

01:27:38
we do have some packages to run throught yet

01:27:53
:-)\

01:28:47
Could you make it bigger?

01:31:46
No, I agree

01:32:02
great!

01:33:02
+1

01:33:04
Thanks!

01:34:22
seems a good correction

01:34:31
I think it is wise to do that

01:35:11
note to ensure cisistency

01:42:22
Exactly @Justine

01:42:31
No objection

01:44:04
Thanks Rubens

01:44:39
Yes the general rule applies

01:44:43
Change wording to make it clearer?

01:44:47
or should do

01:45:03
Seems to be some misunderstanding here

01:45:29
That was what @Justine requested Annebeth a edit in annex

01:48:46
Does “bearing the costs accordingly” cover this?

01:49:07
I dodnt think that's handled in AGB but may be in the provider rules of procedure

01:49:08
Yeh, sounds right

01:49:12
yup for me too

01:50:50
ok

01:50:58
Great

01:50:59
ok

01:51:00
fine

01:53:29
friendly amendment @Justine??

01:54:18
so we can be explicite here

01:54:49
A good change to make it clearer

01:55:16
Good point @Jamie we need to address that timing point

01:55:48
+1 Jamie

01:56:11
+1 Jamie. It might be necessary to discuss it once more in the WG?

01:56:25
in so far as it does not delay the commencement of CPE

01:56:35
Can we ask for some qualifiers for this and come back to it for review at a next weeks call then? Noting the TIME

01:56:52
@Cheryl, agree

01:57:56
NEXT CALL:Monday, 29 June 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

01:58:19
RE private resolution of contention sets, apparently 90% were resolved before auctions of last resort. So 90% private resolution

01:58:38
Bye for now! Thank you for an interesting session.

01:58:40
Thanks everyone GREAT progress again today Stay SAFE make SMART Choices

01:58:48
Bye for now

01:58:48
Thank you