Logo

IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team - Shared screen with speaker view
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
13:25
Sorry I was a tad late
Dennis Tan
13:38
all good Jeff, thanks for joining
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
13:42
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
14:10
Agenda page: https://community.icann.org/display/GNSOIDNEPDT/2021-04-13+IDNs+EPDP+Charter+Drafting+Team+Group+call
Ariel Liang
14:45
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit#
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
14:54
Welcome Maxim!
Maxim Alzoba
14:55
hello all
Ariel Liang
17:30
Just a reminder that the members may also be called upon to state their group’s position during the meeting, so it is not just limited to consensus call
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
17:36
at the beginning of the section it states that there are Members and Participants
Maxim Alzoba
18:40
+1 for this model 1 Chair + VC
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
19:17
support Chair and VC
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
19:24
Support it too
Maxim Alzoba
20:01
it is going to be an SSC selection process, most probable
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
20:02
That's my understanding Edmon
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
20:11
Independent means that you cant take positions regarding the subject matter
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
20:25
you can't push an agenda as the Chair
Maxim Alzoba
20:29
with call for volunteers
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
21:30
@Donna - other than an agenda of getting the work done )
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
21:33
:)
Edmon Chung
21:47
yes thats perfect
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
23:30
As the vice chair is selected by the group, I believe they can be a participant but should not be a "Member"
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
24:19
I would agree with that Jeff
Edmon Chung
24:30
i think i agree with jeff, but i am cognizant that we may not have a alot of people to chose from...
Edmon Chung
24:55
ah that makes sense jeff
Maxim Alzoba
24:59
I would agree with Jeff
Edmon Chung
25:04
agree with jeff then
Edmon Chung
26:22
yup thats clear and agree
Ariel Liang
26:45
yep
Ariel Liang
28:57
In-depth knowledge?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
29:15
We should be clear about this. You do not need to be from a Registry or Registrar
Dennis Tan
29:38
Jeff, agreed
Edmon Chung
30:28
change to "understanding' instead of "direct experience"?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
30:56
Understanding or Knowledge is fine
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
31:36
I don't like the term "expertise" because I don't know how to qualify that
Maxim Alzoba
31:37
I do not support first clause about experience in idn policy efforts (there is none so far)
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
31:58
Perhaps change the overarching sentence to: The WG Chair is expected to have experience and expertise most of the following areas:
Maxim Alzoba
32:03
I mean this one is the only one
Maxim Alzoba
32:35
in GNSO policy is a defined ltem
Edmon Chung
32:37
small letter policy is fine
Edmon Chung
33:07
agree "expertise" is overkill
Maxim Alzoba
33:26
even understanding of the previous idn related ICANN efforts
Maxim Alzoba
33:33
would be better
Maxim Alzoba
34:01
chair is the leader in consensus finding and process means
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
34:35
Rather than Expertise and Experience, I like knowledge or understanding better. Experience means you have to be with a contracted party (or have been with one) and there is no qualifying entity to make one an expert
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
37:15
Again, lets drop the term expertise.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
38:29
Expertise and experience in Chairing WG is as important, if not more important, than expertise in the subject matter.
Maxim Alzoba
38:52
+1, @Donna
Ariel Liang
40:46
none
Ariel Liang
42:07
Leadership review is a new item that stems from PDP 3.0
Maxim Alzoba
42:15
it was about feedback
Maxim Alzoba
42:29
like lessons learned e.. t.c
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
47:16
I think there was a survey done for SubPro, but I have not seen the results
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
48:45
It was used after the group submitted a final report
Maxim Alzoba
49:37
it is a safety mechanism
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
50:49
discretional makes sense. There shouldn't be a review when there's no need for one
Maxim Alzoba
52:42
pdp 3.0 finished way later than subpro charter
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
53:09
The survey for subpro did have a number of questions on the leadership
Maxim Alzoba
53:59
I think with each new pdp some feedback is going to be collected
Maxim Alzoba
54:42
from perspective of what was good, bad, what worked well e. t. c
Maxim Alzoba
55:38
liaison role is already described I the GNSO documents
Edmon Chung
57:13
do we need to specify ariel and steve? :-D
Maxim Alzoba
58:08
gds are providing services to cph, so it sounds logical
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:04
and it might make feedback... maybe as invited participants?
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:34
there will be an ODP too
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:02:18
CPIF is a little loose on the language. I would like it much more explicit in this charter
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:25
participants not members
Steve Chan
01:04:35
I don’t think staff should be referenced as Members
Steve Chan
01:04:40
As Donna is saying
Ariel Liang
01:04:58
Members have responsibility in consensus call…don’t think it would be staff’s role
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:00
members are from SO/ACs
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:05:22
Make them "non-voting" members
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:29
ICANN does not create policies
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:41
Jeff, participants should be enough
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:05:43
The point is that we should have it explicitly spelled out that they have to have representation
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:02
participants have obligations too
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:07:26
I think the way its represented is adequate.
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:51
I have doubts about participation from the tech side of ICANN in policy creation
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:41
quite different from their usual work (and I do not think they are great fans of paper work)
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:09:32
For those of you that remember SubPro, it was a nightmare dealing with the Draft Final Report comments because we had so many comments that could have been represented months/years earlier
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:09:53
Lets figure out the best way to solve that issue please.
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:37
thanks all, I have to drop soon
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:11:51
The Council should set an expected end date, but everything else should be in the first deliverable from the Working Group
Edmon Chung
01:12:51
thx all, bye
Ariel Liang
01:12:59
Thanks all
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:13:02
bye all