Logo

EPDP-Phase 2 team call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
32:51
Members - please select all panelists and attendees for chat option
Berry Cobb
39:29
The numbers Janis put forward, assumes that we will not conduct Tuesday's sessions. But it is still an option.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
42:32
Once again, this is amazing work by Berry!
Berry Cobb
44:39
Thanks Mark, not just me, but all support staff.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
44:57
Huge props to staff for sifting through the mountains of comments to sort them out. I bet they had tons of fun.
Brian King (IPC)
45:03
Fantastic work, and thanks to our amazing staff.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
45:25
Kudos to staff
James Bladel (RrSG)
45:55
Agreed, great work!
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
46:11
Fantastic work to staff on this!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
46:34
Great work staff, thank you
Franck Journoud (IPC)
47:39
To be clear: you're not selecting comments/edits (e.g. "this edit is kinda like this other one, so we'll only look at this one and not that one"), just sorting them - correct?
Franck Journoud (IPC)
48:32
(reposting to all attendees) -- To be clear: you're not selecting comments/edits (e.g. "this edit is kinda like this other one, so we'll only look at this one and not that one"), just sorting them - correct?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
48:59
Good question Franck
Berry Cobb
49:32
correct - the only comments that are not included is 'support' (without any text) and 'no opinion'
Berry Cobb
49:45
we do not copy/paste all comments, if they are similar, there is no need as the same sentiment is conveyed.
Berry Cobb
52:31
staff/leadership will review each Wednesday the responses to determine what needs to be discussed
Franck Journoud (IPC)
52:34
Thanks Berry. When you say "similar", is that true for edits as well? Because 2 edits that are seemingly similar can actually have an important difference (e.g. if I use "immediately" in my edit while yours says "without undue delay")
Berry Cobb
52:40
and where there is no need to discuss because everyone agrees, or it is not deemed a major issues
Berry Cobb
53:47
It's not quantity, but quality.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
53:53
@Caitlin: Thanks. Was hoping this would be the answer to my question.
Berry Cobb
54:11
all proposed edits are captured separately - even if they concern similar sections (only when people suggested the exact same edit are they grouped)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
54:45
Thanks again, Caitlin.
Franck Journoud (IPC)
54:57
Thanks Berry (for answering my question - and because I think that's the right way to handle and present edits)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
55:46
Agree with Franck, thanks for the clarification
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
56:04
The recommendations are like our children Janis all equal :)
Volker Greimann
58:01
I do not see any groups as opposing. some are just wrong...
Berry Cobb
58:18
I'd like to emphasize again the timing of this - we need input by Tuesday to allow staff and leadership on Wednesday to review the input and see what are comments / issues that require plenary discussion, propose specific language to address concerns and see where changes can be applied as no concerns have been expressed.
Berry Cobb
59:12
Only if new information is provided would it cause to go back.
Berry Cobb
59:53
Staff will load in individual comments as they come in. We will then add those comments that offer new meaning/ideas/understanding to the Discussion Draft.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:01:11
Hi. Can Beth bacon be promoted to panellist please.
Alan Woods (RySG)
01:01:49
NVM - done :D
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:02:00
Thanks, Alan. All fixed! Thanks team
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:02:22
@Janis: Ah…, thanks. That sounds great.
Berry Cobb
01:04:17
The EPDP Team can also look at the comments and see if there is anything new! Please keep us honest. ;-)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:04:57
We will do our best to do that, but sometimes our information is not necessarily taken seriously, nor treated as “new”
Beth Bacon (RySG)
01:08:39
Thanks, Berry.
Berry Cobb
01:09:42
As Janis noted earlier, we will setup the schedule of review on the least controversial recommendations. The hope there is the late comments will have little to none for moving backwards.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:10:23
In the meantime, as Margie suggested on Thursday, groups that haven’t submitted comments yet may try (to the extent possible) to include their arguments during the review process, pending their own submissions being delivered, correct?
Berry Cobb
01:11:46
Link to goog doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t_0pPy3ZQqOC-if91JfW5u80OIafHSKLpaMQguZe_qM/edit#
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:16:11
Without wishing to re-argue this case, a 24 hours turnaround is an implementation issue. There needs to be language in the policy that permits deviance and focuses on reasonable efforts.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:16:59
How we could possibly set metrics before we have a working model continues to mystify me.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:17:10
(Yes I know RDAP is working)
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:22:04
That was WHOSE idea?
Berry Cobb
01:22:33
@Milton - the GNSO Council Standing committee was added here based on your comment submitted early on. There's also a disclaimer note in the intro, that if no agreement can be had here, a likely default is EPDP.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:27:14
We went to a lot of work to develop the GGP Manual. Time to use it.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:28:14
I was new to ICANN at the time, but the confusion at ICANN between policy and implementation was…..breathtaking. That was a good process, in my view, and very necessary.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:28:21
b and c can coexist right?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:29:45
right, Marc. He has put his finger right on the problem.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:30:32
totally agree with Marc
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:30:41
We need to have a common, shared notion of what kind of changes are in scope
Brian King (IPC)
01:30:42
+1 Marc, that's a key consideration
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:30:49
+1Marc
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:31:08
+1 Marc
Brian King (IPC)
01:31:09
in fact, we might evolve some things differently (e.g. SLAs vs. automation types)
Berry Cobb
01:32:11
One component for this group to consider is the amount of overhead required in resource requirements for both the community and for staff support.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:33:06
Don’t we have unlimited resource Berry :)
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:33:15
Don’t forget cost allocation. Big Black Hole
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:33:54
( I see Berry and I had similar thoughts. His comment was more diplomatic)
Volker Greimann (RrSG)
01:34:06
known unknowns?
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:37:09
Alan -- muted?
Chris Lewis-Evans (GAC)
01:39:05
+1 Alan all about the scope, will make the choice easier
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:40:04
The sound is breaking
Berry Cobb
01:41:19
An IRT will be formed regardless of the outcome on the MEchanisim to implement the SSAD. But typical IRTs do have end dates once the Policy Effective Date (PED) is determined.
Georgios Tselentis (GAC)
01:41:33
+1 Thomas
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:41:34
We definitely need an IRT, but that is separate from what will be an ongoing process on operational issues.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:41:46
GGPs can always be very narrowly scoped to address emerging issues very quickly…, so long as no new obligation is imposed on Contracted Parties.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:42:07
Thomas raises and excellent point There will be pushback that rises to a significant level long before it is settled in Court.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:43:05
Excellent points Thomas!
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:45:49
I am sorry I was disconnected
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
01:46:50
Mark brings up a good point…different topics likely will need to take a different route
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:47:11
A standing committee as is by definition does not deal with implementation issues
Margie Milam (BC)
01:48:16
+1 Hadia
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:51:42
so, to summarize, we have not actually agreed on what is within the scope of “evolution”
Berry Cobb
01:52:04
Note, though that while the GGP can be spun up by the Council, it does still require a charter to govern its ops.
Brian King (IPC)
01:52:05
Right, Milton.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:52:21
I think we have to work through a few hypotheticals to see how we are going to sort these into buckets, as Mark SV admirably put it.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:52:34
@Laureen: That’s correct. A GGP has never been used, similar to the EPDP, until this EPDP.
Margie Milam (BC)
01:53:02
+1 Laureen
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:53:49
Amen, Alan!
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
01:53:54
@AlanW: +1000
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:54:02
Some of the examples that Thomas raised clearly will require policy changes, others not. The GNSO Council would have to decide which ones require a PDP, which could be managed through a GGP, which the IRT
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:54:51
A court case that throw out a line of reasoning which we relied on would require a pdp in my view, and I for one believe we should be anticipating this.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
01:55:07
+1 AlanW, that is part of the "sorting" exercise I was proposing
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
01:55:09
And preparing for how we would respond in a timely manner
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:56:24
Thanks Amr -- appreciate those insights.
James Bladel (RrSG)
01:57:16
Ultimatums aren’t helpful.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:57:46
@Amr - I did not say we have to agree to something, I said we need to honor what we agreed upon.
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
01:58:23
@Amr I am sorry that you saw my words as such, no offense intended for sure
Brian King (IPC)
01:59:23
@Volker, I just meant that any GNSO Councilor could initiate a GGP tomorrow, i.e. that it's already an established thing. Per Amr's earlier comment, we're not defining a new mechanism.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:59:57
I will volunteer too.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:00:20
I volunteer as well.
Brian King (IPC)
02:01:23
Happy to do it.
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:01:34
Include me as well please
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:02:14
I don't think "happy" is the right word... but am willing. ;)
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:02:38
@Hadia: Thanks. Appreciate that. Probably just a misunderstanding.
Berry Cobb
02:02:54
link to DD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zw_CDmZ1xID-RnqKPuvEgRs6nUNCCc7Eq0T5CfukFlU/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Brian King (IPC)
02:02:54
@Marc, I'll put you down as "kicking and screaming" :-) thank you, in any event.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:05:34
Extra hor. line in 1st item
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:08:39
Who gets access to the audit reports?
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:09:07
Will there be public and confidential audit reports? Who is in charge of determining what gets published?
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
02:13:26
Hopefully, most reports should be automatically generated, but there is STILL work to create the ability to do a specific (automated) report, and there is still work for periodic review that a report is working properly.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:13:35
Can we stop expecting Ignored or any of the’BAD’ things are the reason for reporting.
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:15:37
Reports should be there to focus on improving efficiencies and helping understand the demand, the way the system is working. This immediate focus on how the CPH are wronging every one is frankly tiresome.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:16:02
Statistics are non-judgmental. "Bad" is a judgement. "didn't meet SLA" is not a judgement.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:16:37
Transparency of statistics is key
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:16:46
But yet that is all you focus on …. The reports may be non-judgmental … but the framing is certainly not.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:17:11
I mentioned that the current framing is unproductive
Margie Milam (BC)
02:17:22
We need to be specific - otherwise the IRT won’t do know what to do
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:18:10
@Milton: +1
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:19:10
Hopefully the requestors would be willing to be public, transparent and granular. CPs seem to be concerned about that.
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:19:37
+ 1 Milton
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:20:32
+1 Milton to transparency, objective results do not hurt
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:22:18
they are legal persons, eh?
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:22:35
well, if they are not, no disclosure of course
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:22:54
Regardless of whether they are legal persons or not, they may be entitled to confidentiality
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:23:23
Certainly not advocating the the personal information of natural persons who are SSAD users be published, or improperly disclosed.
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:23:38
Same for registrant info in any reporting done.
Berry Cobb
02:23:45
It seems the takeaway to fulfil this recommendation for the final report is more about listing down principles and by what lens they may be used (public, access by CP or Requestor for their own use, Compliance, Audit).
Berry Cobb
02:24:06
and less about creating a list of what should be reported on.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:24:09
+1 Berry
Brian King (IPC)
02:24:23
Sounds right, Berry.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
02:24:54
Correct Janis -- LEA requests would likely need to be confidential
Alan Woods (RySG)
02:25:10
Sorry guys . I have to drop.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:25:30
+1 Franck
Marc Anderson (RySG)
02:29:37
good points Amr
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:29:40
Good point, Amp.
Beth Bacon (RySG)
02:29:45
Amr.
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
02:30:08
Sorry I have to drop, but let me say that we certainly need to consider the impact of data that is reported / published.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:31:28
There are many legitimate reasons for organizations to request confidentiality, which we have not discussed. That does not really impact the value of decent audit logs being published.
Matt Serlin (RrSG)
02:31:31
I need to drop now…thanks all
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:31:46
@Stephanie: +1
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
02:31:50
I am also v interested in measuring workload on contracted parties in a meaningful way
Brian King (IPC)
02:32:35
Thanks, all.
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:32:47
just a note that aggregate data on number of requests does not violate much confidentiality. E.g., saying UK LEAs made 200 requests does not mean saying that they requested for x domain name on x day, etc
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
02:33:06
the actual request remains confidential
Mark "marksv" Svancarek (BC)
02:33:18
+1 Milton
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
02:33:31
Thank you all bye for now
Amr Elsadr (NCSG)
02:33:31
Thanks all. Bye.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:33:39
Thanks and bye - and stay safe!