Logo

2022 GNSO Council Meetings
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
49:32
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Mark Datysgeld
57:23
Hello all, just joined... was asleep, it's 3:00 here.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
58:22
ALL: Please set your chat to EVERYONE so all can read the content.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
58:26
Welcome Mark!
Olga Cavalli
58:59
Oi Mark
Mark Datysgeld
01:00:20
Hola Olga, Nathalie.
Marika Konings
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
Jeffrey Neuman
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
Jeffrey Neuman
01:08:21
Which I thought was a little weird
Jeffrey Neuman
01:08:28
It is probably just a wording thing
Jeffrey Neuman
01:09:06
I did look at the text
Marika Konings
01:11:02
I don’t think the group intended for the names of respondents to be published?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:11:26
But if respondents are ok with disclosing their name, they should have that ability
Marika Konings
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?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:11:34
For example, on SubPro, I wanted my name attached to my response
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Manju Chen
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
Marika Konings
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.
Stephanie Perrin
01:16:21
I think Manju is making a good point about sample size and the prospects of anonymity
Flip Petillion
01:17:07
Thx Olga for chairing this CCOICI
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:17:09
Thank you @Olga, @Marika. please let me know if you need to put in a written form of my earlier intervention.
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:17:19
*need me to put in
Olga Cavalli
01:17:41
thanks all who participated and special thanks to GNSO staff
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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.
desiree_miloshevic_evans
01:19:48
+1 to Olga
Olga Cavalli
01:20:00
thanks!!
Marika Konings
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.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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.
desiree_miloshevic_evans
01:27:35
Thanks Mary for clarifying the context of the update focus
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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).
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:34:45
The Council prioritized this?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:34:54
or the Board prioritized this?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:36:37
There are lots of WS2 recommendations that have not been acted upon. Why these ones?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:38:04
Like 7.2.2?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:41:58
@Jeff, this is focused on the WS2 recommendations directed at the community.
Jeffrey Neuman
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
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:42:24
The Policy Team supports the community groups’ implementation of those recommendations (i.e. all SOs, ACs, SG/Cs, RALOs).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:42:31
@Mary - understood. BUt there are others that are directed at staff which have not been addressed.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:42:39
I was just wondering what the status of those are?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:42:54
I can ask that during the IMplementation Reviews session.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:43:18
Yes, apologies that we are not able to address this question directly today, Jeff.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:43:22
this seems to be quite a load
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:46:56
it does not have to be a top priority
Olga Cavalli
01:47:07
We can review the list within the committee
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:47:54
this will require all members to read + output from our constituencies
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Marika Konings
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.
Marika Konings
01:49:11
You are correct @Olga
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:49:14
that is why I am not sure if this needs to have more importance than other already worked on items
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:15
WGSA?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:49:34
typical reaction time seems to be 2 weeks
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:45
What does WGSA stand for?
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:49:49
WGSA = Working Group Self Assessment
Jeffrey Neuman
01:50:07
@Emily - thanks! Lots of acronyms ;)
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:50:12
at least it should be full next week
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
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
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
desiree_miloshevic_evans
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.
Olga Cavalli
01:55:46
+1 to Desiree comment
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:56:06
@deisree, yes this will be sent out shortly.
desiree_miloshevic_evans
01:56:31
@nathalie thank you
Sebastien Ducos
01:57:10
@Philippe All good 🙂
Jeffrey Neuman
01:57:10
I am happy to do whatever is needed.
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
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.
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:02:26
Thank you Justine, noted. Likewise, the GNSO is looking forward to the session too.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:03:15
Reminder: Topics for the ICANN Board are due tomorrow
Paul McGrady
02:03:41
I have no views on this topic, but want to state for the record that I am still awake. :-)
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:05:04
To confirm, EPDP Phase 2 Small Team Update and SubPro ODP
Stephanie Perrin
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....
Stephanie Perrin
02:05:47
With great sympathy for those who routinely join in the middle of the night.
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
02:06:16
Thank you @Stephanie :-)
Sebastien Ducos
02:07:15
Sorry… Happy to field this in a minute
Stephanie Perrin
02:07:40
You are welcome Justine! And it is great to have that meeting with the ALAC!
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:08:23
Tuesday 10 May 20:00 UTC
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:13:51
I think you covered it all for me @Philippe
Philippe Fouquart
02:14:41
we've all been there Sebastien :)
Paul McGrady
02:14:53
Happy to help!
Sebastien Ducos
02:15:31
@Paul, it’s mainly about ensuring I deliver 🙂
Paul McGrady
02:19:53
Go ahead Steve
Mark Datysgeld
02:21:45
good summary
Mark Datysgeld
02:21:56
good summary
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:24:03
Document here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/correspondence/subpro-odp-high-level-timeline-14feb22-en.pdf
Jeffrey Neuman
02:33:39
Anticipating Board approval, correct. But, it may be worth it so that we are not delayed another 12 months.
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:36:53
Yes, thanks Steve.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:37:33
And I agree that the scope should be very tightly bound.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
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
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:38:38
it will not be possible
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:38:58
reopening issues is not a good idea
Stephanie Perrin
02:39:26
Discreet or discrete, Jeff? e.g.?
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
02:39:51
I'm pretty sure it's discrete
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
02:40:52
Another small team with invited external members like SSAD ODA?
Jeffrey Neuman
02:42:06
Its late Stephanie for me. I meant distinct ;)
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:42:50
extinct
Jeffrey Neuman
02:42:53
It was not a formal pdp
Jeffrey Neuman
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:45:04
that is the more important than having 1 or 2 people from every SG, C and Ac, etc.
Kristian Ørmen
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.
Stephanie Perrin
02:46:22
Thanks Jeff! I was afraid we were anticipating some controversial applications…..
Thomas Rickert
02:47:05
Thanks, Kristian!! It’s sad to see you leave here, but it’s good you will still be around!!
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
02:47:24
All the best, Kristian.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:47:27
Thanks, Kristian! and good luck in your ccNSO endeavors
Marika Konings
02:47:44
Thank you, Kristian - and good luck with the ccNSO!
Olga Cavalli
02:47:56
good luck Kristian!!
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:48:02
thanks all
Olga Cavalli
02:48:05
by all have a nice day!
Paul McGrady
02:48:10
Thanks all!
Antonia Chu
02:48:13
thanks all
Thomas Rickert
02:48:14
Bye all!
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:48:17
tx