Hi all

Also don’t see Biran

Brian

We are reaching out to him

Hello all

Bonjour à Tous

Jeff will lead through our slides for SubPro, and I will jump in if required,... My laptop and Internet is being a tad flaky right now. I am also in the phone bridge however...

Keith - is there an opportunity for the community to see the detail of these 3.0 proposals that council is discussing

+1 Susan - and to comment on those proposals

Thanks @Keith for that summary, I think that idea of a feedback loop nicely captures what I was alluding to.

More information on PDP 3.0 can be found on page 10 in the Pre ICANN66 Meeting Report: http://go.icann.org/pre66

If required I will jump in

Human nature still tries to prevail in other words ;-)

Reminder for all - Further details about the work in GNSO PDP working groups, as well as other policy efforts, can be found in the GNSO Policy Briefing ICANN66 edition: http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing

Yes there are some useful lessons learned from our experienced in SubPro @Keith

Our massive 'many moving part' aspect of our monolithic work load @Keith yes it is considered and our assumptions will allow OUR work to complete in a timely manner noting what @Jeff is clarifying now on work completed by other activities after we complet and lodge our final reporting

Our pleasure @Keith

Apologies but I have to leave the call.

<Question> With respect to PDP 3.0, we note that the small group of Councilors have discussed and delivered recommendations on 8 of 14 recommendations and is scheduled to deliver more soon. Many of these have not gone out for public comment nor have they involved anyone other than Councilors. We also note that the Board and other leaders constantly refer to PDP 3.0 as a way to address issues of the multi-stakeholder model. Is there a plan to use the multi-stakeholder model, involve others and put the materials out for public comment? <End of Question>

<Question> When are answers to legal questions expected to be received by the EPDP? <End of Question>

@Jeff - there won’t be a public comment associated with PDP 3.0 implementation, but GNSO Stakeholder Groups (SGs) and Constituencies (Cs) are welcome to provide their feedback for the proposed implementation to the GNSO Council via their Council representatives. The wider ICANN community are also welcome to provide input to some specific improvements (ones especially related to GNSO WG participation). More details can be found in the Council response to the MSM public comment: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19/attachments/20191014/90dd0d9d/NextStepstoImprovetheEffectivenessofICANNsMultistakeholderModel-GNSOCouncilComments-0001.pdf

dropping from this zoom room will reappear via mobile app to join another call in a new Zoom room towards top of the hour, Apols I will keep the phine bridge open here though

mute your line if you aren’t talking

@Darcy, we have received answers to all questions we've asked https://community.icann.org/display/EOTSFGRD/EPDP+-P2+Legal+subteam

We're considering asking a couple more, and have not yet finalized further questions.

Thanks @Arial for the response, but that is not sufficient multi-stakeholder involvement.

When we re-did the PDP for PDP 2.0, we had the entire community involved and came out with much better results

Having a small team of Councilors without involving past chairs, past working group members, and those that live the PDP every day is not the way we should be working

As Keith noted previously, when submitting a question,please provide your name and affiliation if you are representing one, start yoursentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>.Text outside these quotes will be considered as partof “chat”.

Improvements related to PDP WG chairs & liaisons responsibilities/roles, for example, have the involvement/input from current/past liaisons/WG leaders. You are welcome to read the Council response to the MSM public comment for detail (implementation documents for improvements): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-multistakeholder-model-next-steps-27aug19/attachments/20191014/90dd0d9d/NextStepstoImprovetheEffectivenessofICANNsMultistakeholderModel-GNSOCouncilComments-0001.pdf

Hear hear re newcomers joining at the end.

with extremely old PDPs we have a risk of people gradually leaving it due to real life :)

Agree with James Bladel on the need to reach the finish line on these PDPs.

Maxim - natural attrition

@Arial - I can state affirmatively that I have not been contacted for my input as a current Chair, past liaison, past WG leader, etc.

Point taken, Keith. But I note that we were “on track” in mid 2017 as well.

And I have volunteered my services for well over a year

Yes, thanks for that Jeff.

new hand

@Keith - That is not the message that is getting out to the community (See Board's messages, see MSM work from Brian Cute), etc. Also, take recommendations on WG Chairs. How can there be recommendations on their activitiy without talking to them

Jeff , we can not even get the costs of MSM out of ICANN.org

@Maxim, we have not forgotten about following up on the Council’s question about MSM costs. I apologize that it is taking a long time.

there was an answer provided by Teresa I think

@Michele, yes; and based on a few Councilors’ responses to that reply, I believe staff have an action item to follow up on.

Jeff is NOT alone in his concerns BTW

@Michele - yes I speak at public meetings, but that is AFTER recommendations are delivered.

I should have a right to address the attack on me

Jeff, I'll come back to you after we wrap up the RPM Q&A.

@Phil, I agree that the data on the UDRP is better but we still don't have uniform data from the different providers. We have no data on how many individual names have been the subject of UDRPs, for example, because not all of the providers give that data point

thanks

I report back to the BC on 3.0 and of course would take their comments back; Jeff, all SG/Cs can dop the same & your (everyone's!) input is of course really helpful. As Rafik said, we're in this to take the practical learnings we've all seen/experienced & move forward.

*do

Jeff - I’m not in the “small group"

@Jeff - and Avri and I were chopped liver? :)

@james i often think of myself as chopped liver.

Ewww, liver. Ewwwww. (Nothing personal).

I haven’t eaten liver in years

Have you tried it chopped? It’s still awful.

depends how you cook it

A shout out to ICANN support staff. without their tireless efforts none of these PDPs could function.

@james - you really don’t eat meat

Liver with bacon wrapped around it is good. Because bacon makes everything better (unless you are a vegetarian)

Jeff - haven’t tried that

though American bacon is too thin for my taste

bye all

Thanks, Bye

Thanks all

bye all

Bye!

Thanks all