Logo

IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team - Shared screen with speaker view
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
19:38
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Jeffrey Neuman
20:04
can you put the google doc link in the chat?
Ariel Liang
20:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit
Jeffrey Neuman
20:27
thanks :)
Ariel Liang
20:33
No problem
Maxim Alzoba
23:01
I am not sure that no limits is a good idea with the hybrid model
Maxim Alzoba
24:07
so some reasonable limit like 30 might be enough (and I doubt we see more than 20 in reality)
Jeffrey Neuman
24:13
@Maxim - I think we should try it without a limit. I think we need to test it out before artificially putting a limit. If it doesn't work, then we at least have some data for future PDPs
Edmon Chung
25:04
1+1 and no limit seems to make sense
Jeffrey Neuman
27:19
@Maxim - How do we know that?
Jeffrey Neuman
27:59
The chair has to measure consensus by quality, not quantity
Edmon Chung
28:30
the open model has been a hallmark of GNSO though...
Jeffrey Neuman
28:32
the reps will have to represent the views of their entire group
Dennis Tan
28:34
and consensus call is only for members, not participants
Edmon Chung
28:54
we are not "limiting" to one
Edmon Chung
28:59
just at least have 1?
Edmon Chung
29:04
so we have some participation?
Jeffrey Neuman
29:20
A good chair/leadership team should be able to cut through all of the discussions
Maxim Alzoba
30:13
how does such unlimited group ensures that the time is consumed reasonable?
Jeffrey Neuman
30:28
@Maxim - that is the role of the leadership team
Jeffrey Neuman
31:06
The number of "Members" needs to be limited. The number of participants do not need a limit.
Jeffrey Neuman
31:56
Ultimately I would prefer a completely open group.
Maxim Alzoba
31:56
if the email exchange starts in the group of 40 it is way different than in group of 20
Steve Chan
32:38
@Donna, that would just be an open model then
Jeffrey Neuman
32:42
That's the definition of the Hybrid model
Edmon Chung
33:00
+1 to both donna and jeff
Edmon Chung
33:19
but i may be completely getting it wrong
Edmon Chung
33:21
:-D
Jeffrey Neuman
35:55
2 plus 1 is fine too
Maxim Alzoba
36:06
2 plus 2
Maxim Alzoba
36:23
1 can not replace 2
Jeffrey Neuman
36:41
I am not sure we need 2 alternates. A Paricipant can always be upgraded to a Member by the SG/C
Maxim Alzoba
37:39
more hurry, what danger do we see in same number of alternatives?
Jeffrey Neuman
38:10
I don't like giving people a higher elevated status and make them feel less important
Maxim Alzoba
38:52
how that is tied with the alternative seat status?
Donna Austin
39:09
I would have no objection to an 'open' model for the this PDP because I don't think there is going to be a lot of interest in participation.
Maxim Alzoba
39:34
ssac might not participate but post the SAC document later, like with subpro
Jeffrey Neuman
42:30
And presumably there will be participants that can be elevated if the need should arise
Jeffrey Neuman
42:59
So 1+1 or 2+1 is fine IF the Council does not want the completely open model.
Jeffrey Neuman
44:10
I did not agree with the Council only PDP 3.0 group.
Maxim Alzoba
44:11
@Jeff, what particular danger do we see in 2+2?
Jeffrey Neuman
44:35
I disagree that the size of the group necessarily impacts the timeline.
Jeffrey Neuman
44:48
The Charter is the Number 1 thing that has an impact on the speed of the group.
Maxim Alzoba
45:09
there are more than one factors, it also depends on composition
Jeffrey Neuman
45:34
Look at us. We are a VERY small group and it has taken us 4 months so far on coming up with a charter.
Edmon Chung
45:57
hmm but making it open i doubt would have extended the timeline too much :-P
Jeffrey Neuman
46:13
I agree Edmon
Maxim Alzoba
46:17
this task is not of the highest importance
Edmon Chung
47:15
i see it as a "hybrid" as it there is a "requirement" of "at least some participation from each stakeholder group", but otherwise we should leave it open
Maxim Alzoba
48:05
+1 @Donna
Jeffrey Neuman
48:07
Good Point Donna. Which is why I don't think we should have alternates since participants can be elevated
Ariel Liang
48:08
To answer Donna’s question, this is the role description of the alternate: Alternates will only participate if a Member is not available. Alternates will be responsible for keeping up with all relevant WG deliberations to ensure they remain informed and can contribute when needed. Alternates are also required to have similar levels of expertise as members.
Donna Austin
52:47
@Steve, if a participant can also serve as an alternate that might overcome some of my concern. Thanks for the reminder on social loafing.
Jeffrey Neuman
56:14
I have not heard anyone on this call disagree with the notion of an "Alternate" lso being a Participant.
Jeffrey Neuman
56:30
Does anyone disagree that "Alternates" should be Participants?
Jeffrey Neuman
57:14
If no one disagrees, we can then change that language and move on.
Donna Austin
57:31
Important considerations Dennis
Steve Chan
57:34
FWIW, from the staff side, that makes logical sense to have alternates be able to participate substantively if there are also participants.
Donna Austin
58:32
@Steve, I agree.
Donna Austin
58:57
Agree Edmon that maybe we can do without alternates for this PDP
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:35
I think the "minimum" creates a perception of inequality. You will get complaints that a group like the "registries who have time to be members" will have an advantage. I personally disagree with that argument, but perceptions are important.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:00:55
We don't define quorum
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:05
except perhaps for a Consensussss Call
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:09
Consensus call
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:28
Quorum has always been at the leadership discretion
Ariel Liang
01:01:33
Jeff is right
Edmon Chung
01:01:56
@jeff... i see... hmm
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:28
But a general rule is that no decision is made on one call. You have a call plus time to discuss on a list and then a second call
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:43
This protects somewhat against a small number of people making decisions
Donna Austin
01:03:08
Sorry all, I lost connectivity for a minute or two.
Edmon Chung
01:03:13
ok if quorum is not a big issue, we can go with 3+1 with a consensus call model based on any response from each stakeholder group does not need all 3
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:26
not necessary consensus call can not be conducted offline
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:34
leadership is not for the replacement of the WG in terms of decision making.
Edmon Chung
01:05:36
hmm but woudnt 1 make the person more elevated?
Edmon Chung
01:05:39
than having 5?
Donna Austin
01:06:35
I think the point is here that we won't have a lot of people wanting to be involved in this PDP.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:56
outside person should not have the same weight than the SOs in terms of consensus
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:07
that
Donna Austin
01:08:12
There is a distinction with the participant/alternate. Participant can do so in their individual capacity whereas if they stand in as an alternate they will do so representing a member of a group.
Edmon Chung
01:08:35
@donna, why is that so?
Edmon Chung
01:08:41
i would see them as same?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:01
@Donna is right, which is why I don't think we need alternates. Just Members and Participants
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:15
A Participant can be elevated at any time
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:23
Edmon, representative represent the SO, it is like title
Donna Austin
01:09:24
An alternate is appointed by a group. A participant does so in their individual capacity.
Edmon Chung
01:09:30
i see ok
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:57
So do we really need Alternates in a Hybrid model?
Steve Chan
01:10:13
For the purposes of the consensus call?
Steve Chan
01:10:19
Unlikely, but there if needed?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:46
When the Consensus call comes, the SG/C can always find a person to elevate to a Member at that time
Jeffrey Neuman
01:11:21
I am fine with 1+1 or 2+0
Donna Austin
01:11:30
With a consensus call it doesn't matter how many members a group has, wouldn't they only get one vote so to speak?
Edmon Chung
01:11:42
1+1 makes best optics
Steve Chan
01:12:12
That rationale for having more than 1 member is to help share the load…
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:21
Yes Donna, but if there is a split view within an SG/C, that is also taken into consideration. But hopefully the one person can/will represent those views.
Ariel Liang
01:12:24
Donna - yes, the charter can include language as: “, for the purpose of assessing consensus, groups that do not fulfill their maximum membership allowance should not be disadvantaged.”
Ariel Liang
01:13:58
Yes we will do that
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:08
thanks all
Donna Austin
01:14:25
I think its a case that a participant can also serve as an alternative if the group that appoints agrees.
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:42
+1 @Donna
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:00
+1 Donna
Edmon Chung
01:15:19
thx bye