
49:32
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

57:23
Hello all, just joined... was asleep, it's 3:00 here.

58:22
ALL: Please set your chat to EVERYONE so all can read the content.

58:26
Welcome Mark!

58:59
Oi Mark

01:00:20
Hola Olga, Nathalie.

01:04:38
To review the proposed updates as well as new documents in detail, please review the document that Olga shared with the Council earlier this month: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20220208/eb0488b6/CCOICIProposedUpdatesWGSA-7February2021-0001.docx

01:08:13
The language that "allows" anonymity is worded in such a way that if you choose not to be anonymous, then it is only ICANN staff that sees your name

01:08:21
Which I thought was a little weird

01:08:28
It is probably just a wording thing

01:09:06
I did look at the text

01:11:02
I don’t think the group intended for the names of respondents to be published?

01:11:26
But if respondents are ok with disclosing their name, they should have that ability

01:11:27
But it is a question that could be asked as part of the survey - if you provide your name, do you also consent to your name being included in the summary report that is published?

01:11:34
For example, on SubPro, I wanted my name attached to my response

01:12:42
So, right if someone wants to be anonymous, then let them be anonymous. But if someone wants their name disclosed, then let them do that as well.

01:14:04
I guess the problem is if it’s a small group and more people choose to have their names disclosed than those who choose to be anonymous, than there’s no such thing as anonymity anymore

01:14:30
Thanks, Jeff - I’ve made note of that suggestion, as well as the suggestion by Justine so that the CCOICI can consider it.

01:16:21
I think Manju is making a good point about sample size and the prospects of anonymity

01:17:07
Thx Olga for chairing this CCOICI

01:17:09
Thank you @Olga, @Marika. please let me know if you need to put in a written form of my earlier intervention.

01:17:19
*need me to put in

01:17:41
thanks all who participated and special thanks to GNSO staff

01:19:18
Yes, thank you for volunteering on behalf of the GNSO Council, Olga! In addition, each Stakeholder Group has been asked to appoint a representative to the Community Coordination Group.

01:19:48
+1 to Olga

01:20:00
thanks!!

01:23:55
@Justine - I’ve taken note of it, but of course, if you prefer to provide a written version of it for sharing with the CCOICI, that is of course fine too.

01:24:04
Just to highlight (again) that this presentation and update focuses on the GNSO Council and your previous prioritization exercise regarding the community-related recommendations (as Ariel and Alp have noted). We are working with each individual SG/C on their implementation of those recommendations that are relevant to them.

01:27:35
Thanks Mary for clarifying the context of the update focus

01:32:28
With thanks to Ariel and Alp for these excellent slides, we hope this presentation makes it clear which of the Work Stream 2 recommendations directed at the community are those that are for individual SOAC groups (including the GNSO Council and the individual GNSO SG/Cs) to implement, and which are the ones for which community implementation will be coordinated by the proposed CCG (as Alp is now describing).

01:33:37
Is this work part of the prioritization exercise or is this not included in that? In other words, is this work we have already committed to do? I only ask because there is so much on our plates.

01:34:26
@Jeff, this is not part of the Prioritization Framework as it is already work in implementation, and has been prioritized for FY22 and FY23.

01:34:45
The Council prioritized this?

01:34:54
or the Board prioritized this?

01:36:01
It was identified by org as a priority for FY22 in both the draft and final FY22 budget; and currently continues to be the case in the draft FY23 budget (due to the importance of completing all work that the Board, org and community committed to as part of the IANA stewardship transition).

01:36:37
There are lots of WS2 recommendations that have not been acted upon. Why these ones?

01:37:44
@Jeff, implementation work on all WS2 recommendations are currently in progress. This update focused on those that are directed at the community. There are, as you know, other recommendations directed at the Board and the org. ICANN org’s Implementation Operations team has been providing periodic updates on all the implementation work and its progress.

01:38:04
Like 7.2.2?

01:39:30
@Jeff and everyone, here is the latest update from ICANN org on overall WS2 implementation, which includes a link to a summary report: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/update-sharing-recent-icann-work-stream-2-implementation-progress-22-12-2021-en

01:41:08
THanks @Mary. But I am confused as to why these are the recommendations that we are working on and not other ones in WS2 which are important.

01:41:58
@Jeff, this is focused on the WS2 recommendations directed at the community.

01:42:05
I am aware of what Xavier published. But I am not sure why something like 7.2.2 was not selected. 7.2.2

01:42:24
The Policy Team supports the community groups’ implementation of those recommendations (i.e. all SOs, ACs, SG/Cs, RALOs).

01:42:31
@Mary - understood. BUt there are others that are directed at staff which have not been addressed.

01:42:39
I was just wondering what the status of those are?

01:42:54
I can ask that during the IMplementation Reviews session.

01:43:18
Yes, apologies that we are not able to address this question directly today, Jeff.

01:43:22
this seems to be quite a load

01:46:56
it does not have to be a top priority

01:47:07
We can review the list within the committee

01:47:54
this will require all members to read + output from our constituencies

01:48:13
@Maxim, to add to Ariel’s comments, it’s for each community group to decide how urgent and/or important it is to implement each recommendation that’s applicable to it.

01:48:28
Its not the council that I worry about. It is that ICANN Org is so far behind on so many things that implementing this may be a drain of those resources that have to implement other Review Team recommendations.

01:48:37
And as a reminder, all GNSO SG/C have a representative on the CCOICI. No next call has been scheduled at this stage as it completed its work on the WGSA for now.

01:49:11
You are correct @Olga

01:49:14
that is why I am not sure if this needs to have more importance than other already worked on items

01:49:15
WGSA?

01:49:34
typical reaction time seems to be 2 weeks

01:49:45
What does WGSA stand for?

01:49:49
WGSA = Working Group Self Assessment

01:50:07
@Emily - thanks! Lots of acronyms ;)

01:50:12
at least it should be full next week

01:53:03
@Jeff and everyone, if you are interested in a fuller progress report on all aspects of Work Stream 2 implementation (including those recommendations directed at the Board and org), you may wish to refer to the Implementation Operations team’s presentation to the WS2 community shepherds from last month’s call: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=186778780&preview=/186778780/186778786/WS2-IT%20l%20slides%20-%2027Jan22

01:53:09
FYI - As Council Leadership is aware, GNSO Council Leadership is meeting with GAC Leadership to discuss the items to put on the agenda for our GAC/GNSO bilateral. That meeting takes place next week. Once that is completed, we will forward the agenda of the Council / GAC Bilateral to the Council.

01:54:02
It would be GREAT if we could get some volunteers from the Council to take the lead on some of those subjects so that Council Leadership does not have do all of the talking.

01:55:24
Please if possible prepare a list of all the meetings and times for the week and send it to the GNSO councillors in advance.

01:55:46
+1 to Desiree comment

01:56:06
@deisree, yes this will be sent out shortly.

01:56:31
@nathalie thank you

01:57:10
@Philippe All good 🙂

01:57:10
I am happy to do whatever is needed.

01:58:34
I would like to convey the message that the ALAC welcomes Council's gesture in re-instituting the practice of ALAC-GNSO Council bilateral sessions at ICANN meetings. The ALAC is looking forward to it.

02:02:26
Thank you Justine, noted. Likewise, the GNSO is looking forward to the session too.

02:03:15
Reminder: Topics for the ICANN Board are due tomorrow

02:03:41
I have no views on this topic, but want to state for the record that I am still awake. :-)

02:05:04
To confirm, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team Update and SubPro ODP

02:05:11
I have views, but while I am awake, I regret to say not inclined to dive into a deep discussion on methodologies for improvement....

02:05:47
With great sympathy for those who routinely join in the middle of the night.

02:06:16
Thank you @Stephanie :-)

02:07:15
Sorry… Happy to field this in a minute

02:07:40
You are welcome Justine! And it is great to have that meeting with the ALAC!

02:08:23
Tuesday 10 May 20:00 UTC

02:13:51
I think you covered it all for me @Philippe

02:14:41
we've all been there Sebastien :)

02:14:53
Happy to help!

02:15:31
@Paul, it’s mainly about ensuring I deliver 🙂

02:19:53
Go ahead Steve

02:21:45
good summary

02:21:56
good summary

02:24:03
Document here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/subpro-odp-high-level-timeline-14feb22-en.pdf

02:33:39
Anticipating Board approval, correct. But, it may be worth it so that we are not delayed another 12 months.

02:36:37
And it may not be just Applicant Support. In theory, there is work that needs to be done on (a) Appeals (b) Pre-Evaluation Program, and a couple of other discreet subjects.

02:36:53
Yes, thanks Steve.

02:37:33
And I agree that the scope should be very tightly bound.

02:38:18
Thanks Jeff for clarifying that it is not only Applicant support. I had assumed only Applicant support was in scope for such work outside the IRT

02:38:38
it will not be possible

02:38:58
reopening issues is not a good idea

02:39:26
Discreet or discrete, Jeff? e.g.?

02:39:51
I'm pretty sure it's discrete

02:40:52
Another small team with invited external members like SSAD ODA?

02:42:06
Its late Stephanie for me. I meant distinct ;)

02:42:48
THe original group that worked on this issue in 2010 was called JAS (joint group on Applicant Support) or something like that.

02:42:50
extinct

02:42:53
It was not a formal pdp

02:44:23
If we get caught up in process and formalities, we lose sight of the purpose, which is to do the work that needs to be done. And I see no reason for formal representation, but rather a need for a diverse group of individuals that have experience with dealing with grants, financial support programs, etc.

02:45:04
that is the more important than having 1 or 2 people from every SG, C and Ac, etc.

02:46:14
As this will be my last GNSO Council Meeting as councillor, I would like to thank you all, both council and staff, and also a special thanks to Nathalie for your support during the last two years. I will continue my work within the ICANN community but will soon belong within ccNSO instead of GNSO.

02:46:22
Thanks Jeff! I was afraid we were anticipating some controversial applications…..

02:47:05
Thanks, Kristian!! It’s sad to see you leave here, but it’s good you will still be around!!

02:47:24
All the best, Kristian.

02:47:27
Thanks, Kristian! and good luck in your ccNSO endeavors

02:47:44
Thank you, Kristian - and good luck with the ccNSO!

02:47:56
good luck Kristian!!

02:48:02
thanks all

02:48:05
by all have a nice day!

02:48:10
Thanks all!

02:48:13
thanks all

02:48:14
Bye all!

02:48:17
tx