Logo

GNSO Council Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Paul McGrady
44:19
GMGAGE everyone!
Lori Schulman
44:45
Morning, Paul et. al.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
44:48
Hello, my name is Emily Barabas and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Those who are not Councilors are welcome to join this session as silent observers. In addition, there will be an “open microphone” at the end of the session and you are all welcome to contribute during this part of meeting. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair.When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on during the “open mic,” please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone during the “open mic.”Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
45:08
Repeating to Panelists and Attendees: Hello, my name is Emily Barabas and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Those who are not Councilors are welcome to join this session as silent observers. In addition, there will be an “open microphone” at the end of the session and you are all welcome to contribute during this part of meeting. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair.When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on during the “open mic,” please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone during the “open mic.”Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
Osvaldo Novoa
46:26
Hello all, sorry I was late.
Mark Datysgeld
46:44
Welcome, Osvaldo. :)
Osvaldo Novoa
47:14
Thank you Mark :)
Maxim Alzoba
53:01
kudos to Berry for tracking all the items the same time
Olga Cavalli
53:14
+1!!
Berry Cobb (GNSO Policy Consultant)
54:02
To note, the program tools can be found on the Council's section of the wiki and are updated monthly. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=150178769
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:00:50
Please note the composition and decision-making is not set in stone - the assignment template in the annex makes clear that changes can be made (with rationale) from the proposed composition / decision-making as outlined in the framework. As Kurt notes, there may be subjects for which a different composition and/or decision-making methodology makes sense.
Mark Datysgeld
01:01:38
Will these compositions be deliberated on a case-by-case basis?
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:02:38
@Mark - the idea is that the committee uses the assignment forms to spell out the assignment, composition and decision-making - in most cases it may follow the “standard’ approach, but it is up to the Committee (with Council oversight) to suggest changes if deemed necessary / helpful.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:03:15
These assignment forms are also to ensure that it is clear to the task force what it needs to do and make sure it is broken down into small and achievable pieces (in line with GNSO PDP 3.0)
Mark Datysgeld
01:03:25
@Marika Thank you for the thoughtful explanation.
Amr Elsadr
01:03:32
<QUESTION>: Why is this being treated as a pilot program when there have been previous groups within the GNSO that have pretty much done this exact type of work? I’m thinking of the SCI and the GNSO Review WG. </QUESTION>
Berry Cobb (GNSO Policy Consultant)
01:04:21
While this resolution shifts things around on the ADR, it does not lessen the quantity of work that is coming the GNSO & Council's way.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:04:46
Audio questions and comments will be taken during the Open mic session at the end of the meeting. Any attendee questions and comments posted in the chat will be read aloud at that time also.
Amr Elsadr
01:05:08
Thanks, Nathalie.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:08
the initial motion was something like 10 days ago
John McElwaine
01:06:42
@Maxim the amendment was something like a day ago
Ron Andruff
01:09:08
<Question>: Is it not time for ICANN to move from FULL consensus to GENERAL consensus (which allows for a majority decision WITH dissenting arguments to better inform the discussions? Getting off of FULL consensus would allow the Working Groups et al to get past 'hung juries' that do nothing but dispirit the members of the work that spent so much time to get no where.
Osvaldo Novoa
01:10:26
+1 Ron
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:10:42
Audio questions and comments will be taken during the Open mic session at the end of the meeting. Any attendee questions and comments posted in the chat will be read aloud at that time also
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:10:56
@Ron - please note that the GNSO Working Group Guidelines have various levels of decision-making methodology. Although full consensus is one of them, it is only limited circumstances used as a limited factor for a group making recommendations (I believe only the Standing Selection Committee currently operates under full consensus requirements)?
Berry Cobb (GNSO Policy Consultant)
01:11:11
@Ron: please refer to the GNSO WG Guidelines and the consensus designations. Full Consensus is not the only option when determing levels of agreement. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_44453/summary-gnso-wg-guidelines-26mar14-en.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:12
Full consensus allows for opinion of SO/ACs to be taken into account.
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:51
and even SSC - can report that there was no consensus, but the positions were this and that
Ron Andruff
01:12:15
@ Marika: I recognize that other levels of consensus are available, but they are NEVER used. Unfortunately...
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:13:11
@Ron - That was not the case for SubPro
Ron Andruff
01:13:27
@ Maxim: General consensus would allow for SOs ACs and all others to work to an end.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:13:32
@Ron - they are, as said, only SSC operates under full consensus requirement, all other efforts will document the level of consensus achieved which may include full consensus when achieved, but if not, will indicate the level of agreement achieved (consensus, significant support / opposition, etc).
Amr Elsadr
01:13:54
The SCI and GNSO Review WG both required full consensus when recommending changes to GNSO OPs/WG Guidelines. I don’t recall any issue ever resulting in a hung jury type of scenario.
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:58
@Ron, if one of SGs in GNSO is against something - it should not be neglected
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:14:34
Even for the Council to adopt recommendations, there is no full consensus requirement (but GNSO Supermajority or simple majority of each house, depending on the applicable voting thresholds as outlined in the Bylaws)
Ron Andruff
01:15:33
@ Amr: As you know, I Chaired the SCI, and I recall many a time we were deadlocked on Full consensus...
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:15:51
@Marika - but that said the Council (as it did for SubPro) may not adopt recommendations from a Working Group that did not have Consensus.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:07
@Ron, the consensus is not always achievable
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:16:27
@Jeff - yes, correct. If voting threshold is not met, recommendations will not pass, regardless of what consensus designation they may have.
Pam Little
01:16:32
The amendment is further safeguards, so I don’t understand the concerns from IPC.
Amr Elsadr
01:17:43
@Ron: I do of course remember your excellent chairmanship of the SCI, then Rudi’s. If there were times when full consensus was an issue, it didn’t happen during my time on the committee (which was about 2-3 years, IIRC?).
Ron Andruff
01:18:51
You missed those days when my dear friend Avri and I were locking horns...? ;o)
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:53
10 days were not enough and it happens
Paul McGrady
01:19:04
@Pam - the question within the IPC was whether or not the new safeguards were sufficient to deal with the problems in the motion itself. It is not that the IPC loved the initial motion but didn't like Kurt's changes and Kurt withdrawing his motion helps.
Paul McGrady
01:19:25
PS: what is the rush on this one?
Kurt Pritz
01:20:55
Iii Paul: I think my amendment added an additional safeguard
Kurt Pritz
01:21:06
“Hi Paul"
Marie Pattullo
01:34:51
Thanks for the explanation. Kurt. Makes sense to me.
Flip Petillion
01:35:46
Thx Kurt
Berry Cobb (GNSO Policy Consultant)
01:35:56
Note, the CCNSO WG on IDNs has already started. https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/idn-cctld-strings.htm
Olga Cavalli
01:36:03
thanks Kurt
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:06
“same entity principle” will need require experts in URS, UDRP and RPMs in general to ensure the proper design
Berry Cobb (GNSO Policy Consultant)
01:36:15
They started meeting Sept. 2020.
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:36
all we can do is to try to sync to some extent with ccTLDs what we do with IDNs (some ccTLDs allow emojies , for example , which is a strong NO for TLDs)
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:37:52
There is also the question of whether this will delay the next round?
Dennis Tan
01:38:22
I’m happy to address the question
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:23
when IDNs effort was discussed - we underlined few times, that it should not delay the round
Pam Little
01:38:34
Karen Lenz from staff has her hand up
Karen Lentz
01:39:09
I am sorry! Accidental hand raise
Philippe Fouquart GNSO Chair
01:39:30
no problem Karen
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:39:56
@Maxim - the council can state that, but what the Board does is another question, right?
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:40:02
Thanks Dennis
Pam Little
01:41:06
versions
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:45:59
Attendee questions noted in the chat, and unanswered in the chat, will be read around during the Open Mic item at the end of the meeting. Attendee verbal questions will also be heard at that time.
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
01:46:48
For the ISPCP we are keen to start the AST as well
Stephanie Perrin
01:46:48
When you say GAC, has Jeff been commenting on their behalf, or have the GAC sent instructions?
Marie Pattullo
01:47:28
Jeff has been very kindly ensuring that we know the GACs POV.
Marie Pattullo
01:48:32
Thanks, Wolf-Ulrich!
Stephanie Perrin
01:48:36
But technically, the GAC have not sent their views, this is your opinion of their views?
Carlton SAMUELS
01:48:41
@Jeff your interventions have been very useful
Marie Pattullo
01:49:00
+1, Carlton.
Tatiana Tropina
01:50:35
Nothing from me
Susan Payne
01:52:00
@Stephanie, isn't that the point of the liaison role - to try to reflect the views of GAC when we don't have formal input, so that if/when formal input comes in it is not a surprise and, ideally, has already been taken on board
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:52:17
Quick Look Mechanism
Brian King
01:53:02
Indeed, Susan.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:53:08
@Stephanie - The GAC is pretty clear about their position in communiques and updates we get.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:53:26
Opportunity for the GAC to indicate whether or not there are expected public interest concerns in relation to the topic under consideration that would allow the GAC to engage at an early stage (either through public comment input or active participation)
Amr Elsadr
01:54:05
@Marika: Wasn’t it “public policy concerns” as opposed to public interest? ;-)
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:54:18
Sorry, yes correct :-)
Stephanie Perrin
01:54:32
I see it as rather a diplomatic role, not a dynamic one. This is not a criticism of Jeff folks, please….but the role has certainly changed radically over the time that I have served on Council, and I think it is entirely appropriate to consider what we need, and ensure balance
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
01:55:00
@Stephanie - Absolutely.
Marie Pattullo
01:55:20
I think it makes complete sense to have GAC involved - they have invaluable insights.
Stephanie Perrin
01:56:10
I live in hope that someday I will hear the GAC chiming in on privacy protection as a public policy concern…..
Susan Payne
01:56:18
@pam - it did strike me today that also the GAC asks the GNSO for comments, responses, etc, on topics they are interested in, it's still doesn't really feel two-way in those meetings. But that may be inevitable nature of the relationship
Paul McGrady
01:56:19
I don't understand what Pam was saying. Was that a call to abolish the GAC Liaison role? I think that would make a mistake.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:56:31
As originally envisioned, the role was very much seen as a one way direction (from GNSO to GAC) as the GAC made clear that no one, apart from the GAC Chair, could represent the GAC views (which is also why the GAC never appointed a liaison to the GNSO). But as some noted, things have evolved since.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
01:57:17
And for clarity, this is just relaying what was discussed at the time in the context of the GAC-GNSO Consultation Group which developed the recommendations for early engagement, including the GNSO Liaison to the GAC role.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:58
Indeed @Jeff we were regular attendees for updates and discussion
Paul McGrady
02:02:06
I believe that GAC involvement in PDPs is a bit overblown. Yes, there are a handful of GAC members who participate, and participate heavily, but they don't represent the GAC officially and as a percentage of GAC members they are a very small fraction. The overall GAC seems very dependent on updates from their topic leads and from the liaison.
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
02:02:54
Paul - yeah they’ve always seemed like they’re reliant on the updates
Stephanie Perrin
02:03:49
The GAC public safety committee has a very heavy influence over the EPDP work in my opinion.
Pam Little
02:04:03
@Paul, the EPDP on gTLD Registration Data is based on a representative model. Are you saying GAC members on the EPDP are there in their personal capacity?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:04:30
To be clear, the GAC receives briefing papers on topics they are following or are planning to discuss at ICANN Public Meetings. They are not just about GNSO topics and have traditionally been prepared by the GAC Secretariat (which is now staffed by ICANN org’s GAC support team.)
Marie Pattullo
02:04:40
I can only see positives with them being involved, and being involved as son as possible.
Marie Pattullo
02:04:47
*soon
Mark Svancarek
02:05:11
+1 Marie
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:37
if GAC can not see or participate in processes, we might face quite strong opposition the policy process
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:44
to the
Stephanie Perrin
02:06:07
The GNSO does not have a problem with transparency….our meetings are open.
Carlton SAMUELS
02:06:08
How you doing brotherman?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:06:41
We did need to "clarify"a few thngs Yes @Jeff
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:06:45
It may be worth seeing the full bullet from the liaison job description in full (“Liaise with ICANN policy staff who may assist, as needed, in the preparation of briefingmaterials and/or responses to questions”) - my recollection is that this is about any materials the GNSO or the liaison may want to provide to the GAC, not any and all materials that go to the GAC.
Stephanie Perrin
02:06:48
So it is a puzzle to me why we need to cater to briefing them, given their degree of participation at the moment
Marie Pattullo
02:06:48
Agree also with Paul's comment above ("I believe that GAC involvement in PDPs is a bit overblown.... etc.)
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:07:17
@Stephanie, Marika will know for sure but I believe that is the case, yes.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:09:59
(Sorry, that was on a different point)
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:10:41
To Jeff’s comments about the accuracy of the briefings to the GAC, the support staffs (GAC and GNSO) are working on developing better work processes, to ensure they know that their GNSO counterparts are available to collaborate in drafting materials, that are as accurate as possible.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:10:51
@Stephanie - I think that Jeff is referring to briefing materials that the GAC support team may prepare for the GAC to inform them prior to an ICANN meeting, similar to how we prepare the GNSO Policy briefings, but I am not aware of any briefing materials we (GNSO policy staff) prepare for the GAC (but the bullet indicates that it could assist with doing so, if it is deemed helpful)
Maxim Alzoba
02:11:16
we might ran out of time
Paul McGrady
02:11:44
Hi Pam, I'm not sure I understand your question. The GAC acts as a collective in the Consensus Advice mechanism under the Bylaws. To the extent that GAC members participate in PDPs, you would need to check with each member to determine whether or not they are acting for the GAC in developing outcomes and participating in consensus calls or if the comments they make and the consensus call positions are personal and they hope that the GAC ultimately adopts their position. I can't speak for each participating GAC member across all the various PDPs, "e" or otherwise. The point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with what I *think* you were saying which is that I *think* you were saying that the GAC is now heavily participating in PDPs so maybe the GNSO Liaison to the GAC is no longer necessary. You didn't really respond to my question in the chat on that, so I'm still unsure what you were trying to convey on that. :-)
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:11:56
@Jeff - as noted, that was the sentiment from the discussions at the time of the Consultation Group, but as you note, dynamics have changed since then.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:12:31
Thanks Marika. Things have changed and I believe the GAC has been very appreciative of the increased communication.
Marie Pattullo
02:12:33
Having the liaison to the GAC is of course invaluable to the GNSO, and Jeff has done a sterling job IMO.
Stephanie Perrin
02:12:45
Can you post the link to that JD please? I agree that this is where we should focus...
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:13:13
Thanks Marie. I do believe this role is vital and should be an active role regardless of who serves in it going forward.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:13:35
It is part of the call for volunteers: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/filefield_48865/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:13:58
Actually Marika that is not the final version
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:14:04
The final version is on the wiki....
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:14:05
Is Agree @Pam. I was going to ask too if we need to review the role of the GAC Liaison role considering th evolution that has been mentioned already
Susan Payne
02:14:17
I think Council would find it valuable to also seek the GAC feedback - perhaps even informally if it might be sensistive. how does the GAC find the role as it currently exists versus, say 2/3 years ago. What do they find helpful? What would they see as potential improvements
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:14:42
Note this is an old call for volunteers, but I think the description has not changed. It is also part of the liaison role description: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-liaison-wg-22feb18-en.pdf
Rafik Dammak
02:14:56
things changed since the role of liaison was proposed, it is definitely good time to review. it is not supposed to be indefinite
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:15:13
Marika - can you post the 2020 call
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:15:18
for volunteers.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:15:28
Will try to find it
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:15:28
That is what we were asked to respond to.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:16:40
I agree with Stephanie. The role can be as active or inactive as the council desires
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:16:44
https://community.icann.org/display/GSSC/GAC+Liaison+-+2020
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:16:59
Thanks Marika
Paul McGrady
02:17:36
I'm not seeing a connection between whether or not the GAC sees the GNSO as an equal and the GNSO Liaison job description. We can add "GAC cultural change" to the liaison job description all day, but changing GAC culture is not within Jeff's power.
Marie Pattullo
02:19:31
The way I see it @Paul is it just makes total sense to have the GAC involved, not only to have their input sooner but also to head off problems/delays way down the path with implementation etc.
Susan Payne
02:20:20
+1 Marie
Stephanie Perrin
02:22:03
What about accuracy? Since we are all keen on distant early warning?
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:23:54
Oh and I agree with Susan that we should ask the GAC about the position description, what they like, don't like, want to add, etc. And if you want to review my performance, ask them about that. I am a strong believer in reviews.
Paul McGrady
02:23:57
@Marie, I agree, of course. No one wants to see 5 years of PDP work or 7 years of ePDP work (snarky, I know) get derailed at the last minute by GAC advice. But we are putting too much on the liaison's shoulders if we think she or he can make the GAC view the GNSO as an equal. I'm not sure we will ever get there (although no harm in trying). We just can't bake something into a job description that can't be done. It is a bit unfair to the job descriptee [sic].
Marie Pattullo
02:24:04
Becky supports the work on accuracy too so that's a good idea.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:25:19
@Paul - I think what Stephanie may be saying is that we can do a better job in communicating the GNSO's position to the GAC and perhaps ask for more access into GAC meetings?
Martin Sutton
02:26:22
There does seem to be slow progress on the part of ICANN to progress Sub Pro efforts after five-years of heavy lifting. In the BRG session yesterday it was clearly frustrating for new entrants who are losing confidence in ICANN to deliver. Please bear this in mind when discussing ODP (if needed) timeline when discussing with the Board.
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:26:27
@Philippe, you’ve missed nothing. Reached out directly to staff.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:26:30
But I will let Stephanie speak for herself.
Susan Payne
02:26:39
Can the proposed input on SAC 114 be shared
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:26:46
Martin - say this during open mic
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:26:47
now
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:26:48
Attendees: To take part in the Open Mic verbally, please raise your hand, we will activate your mic when it’s your turn to speak, please unmute yourselves at that time. Thank you!
Amr Elsadr
02:26:58
@Martin: +1
Stephanie Perrin
02:27:47
Absolutely Jeff, we need them to understand that this is a two way street. We must not put all this on the GAC liaison’s shoulders, they should have a fairly passive role, they should not have to work that hard to get GAC to respond
Paul McGrady
02:28:56
@Jeff and @Stephanie, thanks for the clarification. Jeff is a miracle worker, but we want to limit the number of miracles per year we ask of him. :-)
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:30:15
I agree on the 2-way street and I think it has gotten better (if you have been to some recent GAC meetings). With respect to the role being passive or not, I leave that to you all, but I am fine with taking a more active role (if that is what you want). I do keep up on all council activities as you know. But I understand that not all Liaisons are me and may not want to be in that position. Short answer is its up to the Council. I am here for you all.
Stephanie Perrin
02:30:30
For instance on accuracy….they are oblivious to cost, they just repeat that they don’t want to pay. As a former bureaucrat, I find this remarkably cavalier….budget being the perennial boundary of all public policy interventions. So they need a reminder that ICANN is not a free ride, someone pays for fulfilling their demands, and it is the DNS ecosystem that ends in the registrants.
Paul McGrady
02:30:52
+1 Martin.
Stephanie Perrin
02:31:16
Not to whine about a hardy perennial from the EPDP discussions….
Amr Elsadr
02:31:49
@Martin: +1. Up-to-date and ongoing communication is key. Ideally also, the formal Communication Period recommended by the SubPro WG would begin as early as feasibly possible - not necessarily only 6 months prior to the opening up of the application window.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:31:58
@Stephanie - if that is a unified position of the GNSO, then that would be a message to be delivered. But it would have to be a unified position, right?
Stephanie Perrin
02:33:41
My concerns are basically structural Jeff. I do think things have improved, but I worry that we will have a hard time replacing you, and meeting the heightened service expectations of the GAC. They do not appear to be putting in the same amount of effort, but perhaps I am missing the point….
Stephanie Perrin
02:34:40
Acs have a rather different accountability structure than SGs.
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:34:45
You can start reviewing that feedback Karen just mentioned here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-June/024769.html
Farzaneh B
02:35:24
+1 Stephanie.
Maxim Alzoba
02:35:40
SAC114 is SSAC document
Maxim Alzoba
02:35:49
not GNSO
Kurt Pritz
02:36:00
@Martin: I think the current environment of consolidation is a result of the lack of urgency with which the SubPro implementation is being approached. Large companies, now having developed a TLD strategy, are forced to acquire smaller ones rather than wait for the next round. This serves to diminish competition and choice rather than the opposite.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:36:09
@Susan - please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Council+Active+Small+Teams - so you can also see which of your representatives are participating on your groups behalf.
Maxim Alzoba
02:36:44
the work is not ready, there should be some reasonable level of transparency , not total
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:36:53
@Stephanie - Fair points. As well as the point that it seems like ACs get to "double dip." But the way I look at this is that if we give the ACs every opportunity to participate in the process, we can then argue to the Board that as active participants where there input was considered, the Board has all the ammunition it needs to push back.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:37:04
We need a courageous Board to do that.
Stephanie Perrin
02:37:16
Jeff….we don’t need full consensus to convey positions. I suspect the contracted parties share my views on cost allocations for accuracy….just as an example.
Martin Sutton
02:37:31
Regarding the BRG and new entrants session I referred to earlier, I note the recording is now available: https://icann.zoom.us/rec/play/JRShwSOpYd99e47p0IOXwsLXrxtBE9sZnd5NjJX7mAkDfX15mTbq1fHuqxys9RPPNfTK7Uo5fFC77M0.lmWoUyQl1Uj04IeP?startTime=1623767439000&_x_zm_rtaid=NhGMeFXwSjyxPcH2ruKVkw.1623839346016.a4ee1f19cc2cd306089083c515849044&_x_zm_rhtaid=755
Susan Payne
02:37:34
@Marika, thanks, but if my group doesn't have someone on a particular work effort then I don't know.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:38:05
Attendees: To take part in the Open Mic verbally, please raise your hand, we will activate your mic when it’s your turn to speak, please unmute yourselves at that time. Thank you!
Maxim Alzoba
02:38:13
e-mail is a poor way for collective work on the text
Stephanie Perrin
02:38:18
And I agree with the double dipping approach as long as the Board fully recognizes that the Acs have already had their kick at the can.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:38:21
@Stephanie - I can only communicate official GNSO positions in my role or any other messages the Council gives me permission to deliver. Your point is a good one, but that is a call for the Council :)
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:38:21
Note that all outputs from small teams do go back to the Council for approval so if a group decides not to sign someone up for a small team, they will have an opportunity to review when it gets back to the Council.
Farzaneh B
02:38:26
I don’t know if non-council members can chat here. Tell me off if they can’t. @Jeff no to be honest they don’t do that. We have given them opps to engage with EPDP on WHOIS and they still go ahead and advise the Board contrary to consensus.
Stephanie Perrin
02:39:05
Yes Farzi we can see your chats and it is open.
Stephanie Perrin
02:39:50
And thanks for the support, in my view this is a very important issue.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:40:05
@Farzaneh - you can chat here :) And you have seen the Board has been pushing back more now because they have had the opportunity to participate. We can't stop anyone from saying anything they want to the Board. All we can do is arm the Board with the information they need to demonstrate that we did listen to their concerns and respond. Then the Board can push back if necessary
Susan Payne
02:41:03
@Philippe - it is all very well to suggest that I should rely on my councillors to join all work efforts and update me - but that undermines the whole purpose of breaking up work for efficiency if they have to volunteer for everything. I am simply asking for transparency
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:41:06
People have a right to say whatever they want when they want. All we can do is make good supportable policy and show the board we listened, took their input into consideration, and responded.
Tatiana Tropina
02:41:08
If the GAC had an opportunity to be informed and participated in the PDP and then issues the advice contrary to consensus I do believe that this is something the board should take into account while considering the advice
Tatiana Tropina
02:41:16
Otherwise it’s two bites of the apple
Susan Payne
02:41:52
exactly my point john - if the small team hasn't reported then what IS the council position being expressed tomorrow
Tatiana Tropina
02:41:54
The GAC engagement is therefore very important, however, to me our discussion here was not whether we need this or not, the discussion was what are the gaps, how to improve this, what are the boundaries, etc
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:41:54
@Tatiana - I agree. I also thing the GNSO should respond to GAC or ALAC Advice reminding the Board that those groups DID participate in the process and their input was considered.
Maxim Alzoba
02:41:54
usually there should be a document to be sent, and it is hard to send a half ready item , when the ready one is required
Tatiana Tropina
02:42:03
Should should be done and what should NOT be done.
Tatiana Tropina
02:42:13
And the latter to me is as important as the former.
Heather Forrest
02:42:33
Susan makes an excellent point - the whole purpose of the small teams is to divide up the work amongst the Council reps. How are groups who don't have a rep on a particular small team supposed to get an update on that particular small team?
Heather Forrest
02:42:51
I do think that as a general rule we should be over-achieving on transparency. The optics are just as important as the reality.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:43:02
Rob needs to unmute :)
Stephanie Perrin
02:43:04
+1 Heather
Tatiana Tropina
02:43:17
Heather, this is a good point, but it requires proactivity from both those who are on the groups and those who are not
Maxim Alzoba
02:43:17
@Heather, usually via the participating councillors or from the report of the small team
John McElwaine
02:43:21
@Susan thank you for catching this. We hopefully can get that small team feedback or a draft comment.
Marika Konings ICANN Org
02:43:29
@Heather - updates are typically provided on the status of progress during Council meetings, such as, for example, the accuracy item on today’s agenda.
Tatiana Tropina
02:43:41
It’s just always people who do and own work have to take more and more and more. Fine. But there should be some middle way. IMO.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:43:53
@Heather - I believe we have had too many Councilor only groups and have since you were chair :) You know I have said that over and over. But PDP 3.0 discussions I believe set a bad precedent of only involving Councilors.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:44:01
Which was a mistake (in my view).
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:44:06
But others disagree with me
Heather Forrest
02:44:06
I think Susan was referring to work in progress, @Marika, not just updates (which we know are unable to capture the full nuance of discussions and how decisions are reached)
Tatiana Tropina
02:44:19
And yes there are updates during the meetings, and I am struggling to understand how the small groups would provide constant updates in addition to that
Amr Elsadr
02:44:39
I posted an earlier question during the discussion on the motion earlier. Not a terribly big deal, but am curious about the answer.
Maxim Alzoba
02:44:40
@Jeff, it is not relevant to GAC
Amr Elsadr
02:44:56
Too many “earlier”s in my previous message. :-)
Maxim Alzoba
02:44:58
we do not have results of GAC interim meetings
Kurt Pritz
02:45:34
While I think reminders to the Council to maintain high transparency standards is required and valuable, on the Maslow Need Hierarchy of transparency, we might cast our gaze toward the Board and SSAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:45:47
Bye for now... Thanks everyone...
Kristian Ørmen
02:45:49
Thank you
Carlton SAMUELS
02:45:50
Thank you all. Bye all.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:45:53
Thanks everyone!
Rafik Dammak
02:45:54
thanks al
Susan Payne
02:45:54
@tatiana, updates would be great obviously but I was actually trying to find a way that those who are interested can see what is happening without putting extra workload on a small group of councillors to have to prepare briefings
Olga Cavalli
02:46:05
Thanks to all!
Maxim Alzoba
02:46:07
Thanks all
Amr Elsadr
02:46:31
Thanks, Steve.
Tatiana Tropina
02:47:31
@Susan then we might be thinking about the same :-)
Amr Elsadr
02:47:36
@Philippe: The scope in the framework paper seems to replicate the other groups I referred to, which is why I asked. :-)
Pam Little
02:48:02
Thanks all.
Ron Andruff
02:48:05
Thanks all. Stay safe.
Tatiana Tropina
02:48:06
Thanks all! Bye.
Jeffrey Neuman - GNSO Liaison to the GAC
02:48:08
Good stuff!
Osvaldo Novoa
02:48:12
Thank you and bye all.
Arnaud Wittersheim
02:48:16
thanks all
Amr Elsadr
02:48:24
Thanks all. Bye.