Logo

2022 GNSO Council Meetings
Osvaldo Novoa
37:36
I am here, my mic is not working
Justine Chew
38:48
I'm here for purposes of attendance @Nathalie
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
39:33
We will follow up with Osvaldo re the audio issues.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
39:39
Noted, Justine 🙂
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
44:24
Emmy award winning presentation on the Program Management Tool (PMT) from Berry and Steve: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/onzwjav4DrOXXntfab_dfvwNccG2DS0SF6wt3S76C2SRzqB8p1crwFJkrI512NAgnpvIgREnJ9_evcg-.0E6nZg9m6fVLsdrw?startTime=1653061545000&_x_zm_rtaid=QtdTbioaRQy55B0lpRB6RQ.1666288812097.f8a514a1491dc5c62a0f9fd3c6f4888f&_x_zm_rhtaid=573
Nacho Amadoz
44:58
thanks for the video link, Steve
Berry Cobb - ICANN Org
45:36
Nothing to add. Thank you.
Osvaldo Novoa
46:11
Sorry, I had to change to my laptop. My audio is working ok now.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
47:14
Councilors: please set your chat to EVERYONE (rather than the default Hosts and Panelists) so all can read.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:55
Thank you Sebastien! indeed just a grammar thing
Jeff Neuman
50:13
Thank you everyone!
Jeff Neuman
50:26
And inform the GAC ;)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:33
Thank YOU, Jeff!
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:01:00
thanks Seb and Greg
Paul D. McGrady
01:04:13
Seb, I think WIPO was saying that the would not use it. While not a gating issue, we should consider getting confirmation from all the providers and if no one wants it just as Staff to cut it from the project. Cutting is easier than adding.
Susan Payne
01:04:36
so, since use of this system is voluntary it doesn't seem to me that there is an issue with UDRP providers - if they do not want to use it then they will not do so
Greg dibiase
01:04:37
agree with Paul- also adding the regsitrars would not expect UDRP verification requests to use it
Paul D. McGrady
01:05:01
+1 to both Susan and Greg
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:27
It was a registrar who first commented that it did not make sense to have UDRP requests come through this system. Per the registrar rep, this would just be duplicative and confusing. So it's a question of utility to registrars and duplicative efforts on their part or not. suggest the Small Team consult the UDRP providers and the registrars about this.
Susan Payne
01:07:55
But why is collection of the requestor's information an issue if they are consenting to that, because they want the system to be effective in delivering data about demand
Marie Pattullo
01:08:24
But surely there is a reason for it - they want to have that info?
John McElwaine
01:08:47
You also could waive/consent to it collection as the data submitter.
Marie Pattullo
01:08:55
And +1 Susan. I'm confused again ;-).
Susan Payne
01:08:58
exactly John
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:09:20
@Susan - as I understand, a requestor may also be providing other information such as evidence or court orders that could contain personal data that does not belong to the requestor.
Susan Payne
01:10:27
@Marika - but they could easily be excluded - if it's a non-participatory Rr then the system doesn not allow for the uploading of such information/evidence. It seems like this should vbe perfectly possible to achieve
Marie Pattullo
01:12:04
Exactly Kurt - we wouldn't have enough data to actually be able to gauge demand if we're not including (for example) requests to less responsive registrars. And as said above we're not talking about "knowingly collecting data for no purpose" as there clearly is a purpose.
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:12:11
I am not a systems person so no idea how easy or difficult this is, but as Sebastien noted, it is something that the small team has been considering.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:12:12
we would expect all that @Kurt mentions to be I the report coming from the small team to help us make the call
Kurt Pritz
01:22:59
What is the timing for the need for a chair? Is the work currently on hold while ICANN consults with the EDPB?
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:23:22
Work is currently on hold as the Council considers these recommendations.
Kurt Pritz
01:24:31
@ Marika - is there an idea of timing of the need for a Chair?
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:24:52
Annex D of the write up contains further details on the registrar survey and the work the Scoping Team already put into it.
Paul D. McGrady
01:25:04
My initial reaction to this is that a pause is in order until a DPA is concluded. Otherwise, I just think we are going to frustrate the next chair and the team. Also, it might put a bit of kindly pressure on Org to get that wrapped up.
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:25:45
@Kurt - that depends on the Council’s decision. If it decides to proceed with recommendation #1 and #2, a Chair may be helpful (although recommendation #1 is an implementation activity which could also be led by staff if the Council thinks appropriate)
Marie Pattullo
01:25:52
Do we have a timeline for that DPA, Paul?
Paul D. McGrady
01:26:09
@Marie - that is a great question for Staff.
John McElwaine
01:26:39
I think there were also constraints on doing an audit pending the DPA
Marie Pattullo
01:26:53
Do we have a timeline for that DPA, Marika? (Paul's wish, my command…)
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:27:13
To John’s point, compliance staff did communicate to the Scoping Team that at this point an audit would not include any questions that would require access to registration data.
Stephanie Perrin
01:27:14
I am also curious about the timeline for the DPA
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
01:28:03
Same here - I don’t know the answer to the timeline question either.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:29:19
Let's wait for that DPA
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:29:39
Let's wait for that DPA
Osvaldo Novoa
01:29:59
+1
John McElwaine
01:30:32
We need to have a clear trigger to "un-pause".
Manju Chen
01:30:35
+1 pause and wait for DPA
Sebastien Ducos - GNSO/RySG
01:30:38
If anyone knows of a good candidate Chair please don't hesitate to bring him/her to our attention
Paul D. McGrady
01:31:09
@John, unpause when DPA concluded?
John McElwaine
01:31:18
Yes
Greg dibiase
01:32:32
I think that makes sense paul
Sebastien Ducos - GNSO/RySG
01:33:19
+1 Paul - having a Chair ready at that point too would make the rest of the process much easier too
Paul D. McGrady
01:35:36
@Jeff, if we say "no" is this a bridge burner? Or, is this a "nice to have" for the GAC.
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
01:37:12
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-subpro-ggp-initiation-request-clean-24aug22-en.pdf
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
01:39:30
FWIW, I believe the intention of task 1 is in order to inform consideration of the next 5 tasks. So in that sense, it’s not an indepedent analysis of the 2011 report and 2012 implementation.
Paul D. McGrady
01:39:32
@Tomslin, alternates makes sense and we just count the one head at consensus call time.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:39:34
I don’t think it is a bridge burner if government can participate as “experts” for task 1 at least
Paul D. McGrady
01:39:42
@Jeff, thanks.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:06
I think Tomslin's suggestion makes a lot of sense. One alternate for each group as a middle ground. I think there is a danger in the SME approach. SMEs need to be evaluated in a very independent manner
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:41:19
But when could an alternate participate? Only when the member is unavailable?
Desiree Miloshevic - GNSO
01:42:17
+1 Anne
Kurt Pritz
01:42:30
Adding alternates really doubles the team. There is a negative result. If there is an alternate, and then the group selects SMEs where the alternate is passed over - that will create an awkward situation
Jeffrey Neuman
01:42:40
I agree with the danger Anne is expressing. That said we can also emphasize that when implementing the program with an IRT anyone from the GAC can participate
Paul D. McGrady
01:43:31
I like 1 alternative who can participate in the work fully but doesn't get his/her head counted for consensus call.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:43:40
I would like to be included to review the letter being sent back to the GAC if possible.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:44
+1 Paul
Paul D. McGrady
01:43:59
@Seb, correct. We can still call for Subject Matter Experts.
Kurt Pritz
01:44:22
I suppose the alternate could apply as an SME, otherwise, will not participate
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:44:22
@Paul, if that's the case, then perhaps "alternate" isn't the best term for the position.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:44:33
Criteria for qualifying SMEs have to be completely neutral and should be open to GAC members as well as others
Desiree Miloshevic - GNSO
01:44:58
@Paul - like the idea, however isn't the 1 alternative a back up if the non-alternate member isn't present.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:45:28
I think it is safe to just say that any group that wants an alternate should have one
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:45:33
That's what I assume too @Desiree
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:45:42
+1 Tomslin
Paul D. McGrady
01:45:48
@Desiree, usually, but in my experience GAC members sometimes work a little differently and share loads. Plus, what does it really cost us?
Mark Datysgeld
01:45:54
Greetings to all Councilors and staff. I have finished teaching my class and I'm now 100% with you.
Paul D. McGrady
01:46:04
@Mark, welcome!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:20
+1 Tomslin and paul is right - only main designee is part of consensus call.
Stephanie Perrin
01:46:34
I think we should steer away from subject matter experts. Surely we all try to appoint people who know what they are talking about to our committees, no?
Mark Datysgeld
01:46:51
Great to see you, Paul. :D
Desiree Miloshevic - GNSO
01:47:48
@Paul, you're right that GAC members work differently - still they'd appreciate our honest feedback.
Paul D. McGrady
01:48:07
Mark - if you could do the talking on our item, I would appreciate it. I'm in a semi-public place and I fear the background noise will be less than welcome.
Paul D. McGrady
01:56:58
@Donna, is this a gating question that has to be resolved before the next round can open?
Jeffrey Neuman
02:06:31
I think that is a question for the board
Donna Austin, Chair IDN EPDP WG
02:09:44
thanks everyone
Paul D. McGrady
02:18:04
nothing to add
Paul D. McGrady
02:21:08
For Item 9, can we just look at the slides on our own and have questions on the list?
Mark Datysgeld
02:21:57
I will take your silence as deep approval for the Small Team to reassemble for letter-drafting :)
Paul D. McGrady
02:22:18
@Mark, I took it that way too.
Mark Datysgeld
02:22:32
Let's try to schedule this ASAP
Desiree Miloshevic - GNSO
02:22:46
@Mark I wanted to really thank you and the small team for making so much progress!
Mark Datysgeld
02:23:15
We were gifted with a great team, @Desiree.
Mark Datysgeld
02:24:10
Staff & leadership, let's please discuss afterwards what is the best method to collect data for recs. 1 and 2
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:24:20
@Mark and Paul, it looks as though when you are writing the letter, you are going to have to avoid the question of the CCTRT Team Recommendation to develop a definition of DNS Abuse. Perhaps that is necessary in order to make progress...
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:24:54
Great work @Mark & Paul. I think the next steps to ask the community is definitely a good way forward
Mark Datysgeld
02:25:10
@Anne interesting point, Anne. We are definitely avoiding definitions, so we might even start with that.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:26:14
Keeping the definition of Malicious domains technical as is written in the report is certainly the way to go @Mark :-)
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
02:26:46
On day 2
Mark Datysgeld
02:27:21
@Tomslin exactly how we are thinking of moving ahead and perhaps keep moving at a decent pace 😂
Paul D. McGrady
02:30:11
I need to drop in 5.
Marie Pattullo
02:30:12
Thanks - we're getting a bit worried about flights for that time of year.
Mark Datysgeld
02:30:19
I'm so absolutely lost in relation to this trip 🤪
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:30:40
@mark happy to clarify any question you may have, please ping me
Mark Datysgeld
02:31:36
thank you, Nathalie 😂 I will hold out for the next email
Greg dibiase
02:31:58
thanks prospective volunteer!
John McElwaine
02:33:00
Confirmed
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:34:04
Great result! Happy for Manju and Mark...
Manju Chen
02:34:10
thank you Mark again, very much!
Paul D. McGrady
02:34:57
I've got to go, but as for Holistic Review public comment by Council, I don't know what we would say that would not be an amalgamation of what our C/SG would say.
Kurt Pritz
02:35:05
The RySG has at least three excellent candidates for the Leadership training. It was suspended for COVID but we all got two years older. Seems ICANN could apply its COVID related savings to an augmented Leadership session
Susan Payne
02:36:01
agree Kurt. Or perhaps run twice a year for a couple of years?
John McElwaine
02:36:14
Can we take one at the SPS too?
Marie Pattullo
02:36:19
Right nw?
Marie Pattullo
02:36:25
Now even? No, sorry.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:36:25
@John, excellent suggestion!
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:36:39
all smile
John McElwaine
02:36:57
@Jeff keep you eyes on the road
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:37:28
@marie you’ll need to send in a zoom selfie very soon so we can add you!
Greg dibiase
02:37:34
lol jeff
Bruna Martins dos Santos
02:37:46
Marie, I feel you!
Bruna Martins dos Santos
02:37:49
Bye all !