Logo

051040011 GNSO Council
Flip Petillion
34:58
Nathalie - I am here
Terri Agnew
35:35
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Flip Petillion
35:35
Bizar - I was asked to enter data at logging in
Terri Agnew
36:05
Councilors: please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat. Attendees will not have chat access. The raised hand option has been adjusted to the bottom toolbar.
Maxim Alzoba
37:59
old
Maxim Alzoba
40:30
congrats to all participants and Leadership Teams of both RPMs and SubPro
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:05
Thank you @Maxim
Mark Datysgeld
41:25
Thank you all of the involved for the hard work put into these initiatives.
Carlton Samuels
41:53
@ Maxim +1
Nathalie Peregrine
42:14
Welcome Osvaldo!
Osvaldo Novoa
42:55
Hello all, sorry I’m late. I’m on summer holidays and didn’t notice the time.
Nathalie Peregrine
43:10
We’re happy you made it :)
stephanie perrin
50:29
It is snowing here Osvaldo, please don’t make me cry!!
Osvaldo Novoa
51:56
@Stephanie sorry to hear that. Here is really nice, enjoying the beach with my grandsons.
Maxim Alzoba
52:03
it is almost always snowing here, so it is an alternative summer here
John McElwaine
52:17
Has a chance to discuss my amendment been denied by the Chair"?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
52:55
Please note that many of the Councilors have not seen any "amendments"
Carlton Samuels
53:48
The Chair
Carlton Samuels
54:02
s voice is really not coming across too clearly
Pam Little, RrSG
54:03
yes
Pam Little, RrSG
54:06
I have seen it
Marie Pattullo
54:21
Yes, they were sent out on the list, John.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
54:22
Sorry, my bad....
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
54:31
I apologize
Nathalie Peregrine
54:36
Council mailing list archives: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2021-January/024376.html
Carlton Samuels
54:39
The amendments were posted and several exchanges were on the list
Maxim Alzoba
54:39
18th Jan it was
Tatiana Tropina
54:55
18 January at 16:34 Amsterdam time it was received in my mailbox
Nathalie Peregrine
55:04
Also posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-amended-motion-18jan21-en.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
55:59
friendly or not it is up to the original author
Maxim Alzoba
57:48
it is up to a controller, not up to third party to the consent and agreement
Maxim Alzoba
58:04
it is a view, not shared
Flip Petillion
58:08
Hi Sophie - I do not recall we discussed at IPC how we would vote if a vote is to be made today on topic 4 EPDP - what is the IPC position please? - Would you know? Thanks ! Flip - I can ask John as well but he is presenting now
Maxim Alzoba
59:41
the revisions were aimed to remove optional tag and to take decision power out of hands of contracted parties, effectively making ICANN a controller (or GNSO or IPCBC)
Marie Pattullo
01:01:02
Very appreciative of all the work that Pam and John took on here - thanks, both.
Marie Pattullo
01:02:22
For the record, the BC supports John's proposed amendments.
John McElwaine
01:03:29
That's my understanding of the process
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:59
for the record, CPH does not support the amendment sent by John and we do not see it as a friendly.
Tatiana Tropina
01:05:27
NCSG cannot accept these amendments either
Kurt Pritz
01:07:58
Please make it clear we are voting on the amendment
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:05
What we are voting for?
Mary Wong
01:09:00
To be absolutely clear, the vote is whether to accept the proposed amendment as part of the motion.
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:55
@Mary, what were the numbers for the voting in NCPH?
Mary Wong
01:15:10
Apologies, Maxim, I don’t have the numbers but I think they will be published by the GNSO Secretariat after the whole vote is done.
Nathalie Peregrine
01:15:37
Correct Mary!
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:49
there were few years of concultations
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:58
all items well discussed
Terri Agnew
01:16:52
Resolutions will be posted here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions/2020
Terri Agnew
01:17:04
With vote results linked
Terri Agnew
01:20:12
Reminder to mute when not speaking
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:56
thanks to IPCBC for voting
Kurt Pritz
01:24:30
Thanks Pam and John for working together on Rec7. It was a lot of hard work over the holidays that might have would up in agreement.
stephanie perrin
01:25:20
I would like to vote for this motion, but would also like to make a comment
Tatiana Tropina
01:25:42
3 hands, in fact :-)
Kurt Pritz
01:25:46
Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:28
it is a bad idea, RPMs is a consensus policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:15
and all Registries and Registrars will have to oblige to the results of the implementation despite of SubPro
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:28:02
@maxim - I disagree. This phase of RPMs only deals with future introductions of new gTLDs
Mary Wong
01:28:40
@Stephanie, the Minority Statement is not an objection to the recommendation.
Marie Pattullo
01:29:19
Thanks Mary.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:22
@Jeff, if it passes as a Consensus Policy - then no
Ariel Liang
01:29:26
Indeed, the recommendation itself received “consensus” support from the WG.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:26
for RPMs
Marika Konings
01:29:55
@Jeff - the GOP note that: “The GNSO Council must direct the creation of an Implementation Review Team (IRT) to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy, unless in exceptional circumstances the GNSO Council determines that an IRT is not required (e.g. if another IRT is already in place that could appropriately deal with the PDP recommendations.” So similarly to how the Council did for EPDP Phase 2 priority 2 items, it could indicate that a new IRT might not be needed if it can be handled by another one (or visa versa).
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:30:15
I am non-voting of course and cannot recommend making any changes to the motion. But, perhaps just deleting the word "RPM" in #2 so it just states "an Implementation Review Team"
Mary Wong
01:30:18
Please note that the Recommendations Report that the Council will need to approve will, as a matter of course, include a note that a minority statement was filed.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:25
Motions are to be sent by Councillors , am I right?
Marie Pattullo
01:31:10
Again, thanks Mary - fully agree.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:31:41
@Maxim - I am not bringing a motion but rather asking a question.
stephanie perrin
01:31:42
The dissent is rather clear. Have I stated the issue improperly?
Pam Little, RrSG
01:31:52
+ Kurt
Carlton Samuels
01:32:11
@Kurt +1 about finding a way to take advantage of learning something from these
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:57
first Stephanie
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:33:38
RPM Phase 1 is for new TLDs
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:33:44
NOT Consensus Policies
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:20
RA of all new gtLDs require it, so it is for new gTLDs and for the next round too
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:31
and SubPro for new new gTLDs (next round)
Pam Little, RrSG
01:35:57
Thanks Mary. Very helpful
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:07
@Jeff, For the sake of clarity - if GAC has any items related to SubPro or RPMs?
Mary Wong
01:36:20
You’re most welcome, glad it was clear and helpful!
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:26
if not, we do not have a lot of time
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:36:36
@Maxim - The language developed in connection with the RPM Phase 1 will go into the Applicant Guidebook. It would be a waste of resources to have two separate teams, but its not my call.
Marie Pattullo
01:37:15
Especial thanks to the RPM co-chairs for all their work over the years!
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:15
@Jeff, then it is for the future discussions
stephanie perrin
01:38:04
Nevertheless, my point to the Board remains. Whether you call this an objection or dissent or statement, it puts ICANN policy in a position of being ahead of the law in matters of trademark protection of word marks.
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:27
thanks all
stephanie perrin
01:38:37
I do not see this as being in the best interests of the policy role that ICANN plays
Mary Wong
01:39:31
@Stephanie, the question of what is, and isn’t, a word mark/text mark was extensively discussed in the Working Group. One fundamental problem is that there is no internationally agreed, universal definition of “word mark”. Another challenge is the need to maintain equity of treatment for marks from all jurisdictions.
Emily Barabas
01:40:22
The webinar is scheduled for 28 January at 20:00 UTC
Philippe Fouquart
01:40:44
thank you Emily.
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:52
there should be a public comments before the Board makes their decision - so anyone can post their concerns
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:29
and Advisory Committees can and I assume will give their advice to the Board in due course
Carlton Samuels
01:43:44
@Mary For many years some of us are on record bemoaning that the RPM conception of marks ignores what we call "local" marks. As it is right now, most marks in emerging economies are simply ignored.
stephanie perrin
01:44:08
That is heartening. I think it is important from a much broader policy perspective.
Marie Pattullo
01:45:46
Mary - do we have a timeline for RPM phase 2 kicking off, please?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:45:54
The governments are on the record supporting the RPMs and will I am sure want to support the RPMs in the future. I will make sure that they are aware of the passage this this report and that it is heading to the Board.
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:28
Thanks, Jeff
Mary Wong
01:46:46
@Carlton, the need to ensure that the Trademark Clearinghouse (and the RPMs that run though it) do not discriminate as regards what jurisdictions a mark obtained its trademark status. It really is up to individual trademark owners to decide if using the TMCH and the available RPMs makes sense for its brand and business.
Philippe Fouquart
01:47:02
And I now see Paul (McGrady) in the observer list - my apologies for not associating Paul as one of those who supported council on this as a liaison....
Philippe Fouquart
01:47:06
on RPM
Mary Wong
01:48:07
@Marie, I believe the question of re-chartering RPM Phase 2 is on the Council’s Action Decision Radar :) … and, as such, will need to be considered in light of all the other work that is “in the queue” (as to priority, urgency/timing, resources required, etc.).
Marie Pattullo
01:48:21
Thanks Mary!
Kurt Pritz
01:48:30
I thought there were two recommendations that did not receive consensus (where one was added after the original designation) or was that made clear in the last bullet?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:48:48
That was in the bullets
Kurt Pritz
01:49:17
Ok - I was halfway through the comment when the last bullet came up
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:51
why does ICANN need somehow irrelevant experts (knowledge of the industry is minimal outside of it)?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:52:19
@Maxim - I would be happy to answer that at the Webinar if you would like
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:58
please add it to QA if possible, it might be a good piece of info
Pam Little, RrSG
01:53:35
Thanks Flip
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:36
Thanks Flip
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:43
Thanks, Flip
Flip Petillion
01:54:02
Thank you, you are most welcome.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:54:04
Thanks Flip. And @Maxim - We will add your Q to the Webinar and address it then
Kurt Pritz
01:54:55
Can someone put in here the ByLaw sections that Flip mentioned? Also
Kurt Pritz
01:55:14
….also the sections from the PDP Manual
Berry Cobb
01:56:23
Link to PC and Draft FY22 docs: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-opplan-budget-fy22-26-2020-12-17-en
Flip Petillion
01:59:35
Kurt: Annex A1 - Section 4, 5 and 6 / Manual 12 and 13
Kurt Pritz
02:00:08
Flip: thanls
Kurt Pritz
02:00:12
thanks
John McElwaine
02:00:20
If any Councilors on the SCBO have any questions concerning their section of the Comment, please feel free to email me.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:00:49
Thanks @John
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:01:13
Thanks @John
stephanie perrin
02:06:57
+100 Kurt
Mary Wong
02:08:03
@Kurt, correct - a ODP (or a potential ODP) is not intended to supplant org responsiveness to a PDP Working Group in relation to operational information requested by that Working Group. As you know, org staff from our Global Domains Strategy function already follow all the PDPs.
Mary Wong
02:09:38
I can also clarify that the liaison is not intended to narrow or limit the community consultation process; it is intended to provide a clear channel for org-community (esp GNSO) communication.
Mary Wong
02:10:44
@Marie, correct - that is most certainly not the intention from org.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:11:09
The slide was an oversimplification
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:11:22
the ALAC is concerned over that point as well FYI
Maxim Alzoba
02:11:37
ODP slide has a potential for the endless circle in the last slide
Marie Pattullo
02:12:03
Thanks all - I think it is just a communication point, so that it's clear.
Maxim Alzoba
02:12:26
and given no time limits or number limit to the iterations, it might take a lot of time
stephanie perrin
02:12:46
It is an important point though, and since lots of researchers and community rely on the slides, perhaps important to change the slide to make it clear
Philippe Fouquart
02:12:49
Indeed I mispoke (too)
Marie Pattullo
02:12:53
Aye, but simple slides are easy to remember ;-). Especially if it opens a possibility for an endless complaint loop.
Steve Chan
02:12:56
FYI, Mary and I liaise with our staff colleagues working on the ODP. If there is a desire to communicate some of these concerns in an informal manner, we can do so.
Mary Wong
02:13:02
@Jeff, yes - org did not intend to limit who should be the liaison as that should be the GNSO’s decision.
Steve Chan
02:13:36
As Philippe noted, the deadline for feedback is tomorrow.
stephanie perrin
02:14:36
If something is clearly misleading, will we not accept a clarification after the deadline? Just an innocent question....
Maxim Alzoba
02:15:17
after the deadline only zombie clarifications
Maxim Alzoba
02:15:38
pardon for poor sense of humor
Mary Wong
02:15:42
Yes, as Steve mentioned, we can certainly mention these concerns to our colleagues who are finalizing the paper (esp as similar concerns were voiced during the webinar).
Marie Pattullo
02:16:07
That would be great Mary - thanks so much.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:16:50
There is only 1 meeting left in FY 2021
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:17:01
October is FY 2022
Mary Wong
02:17:35
First Work Track meeting will be on 15 Feb.
Marika Konings
02:18:49
As a reminder, you can find the proposed messaging here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZJjYNh12Jq5gN3YLv8CQHZM2jjAkloh2/edit
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:19:33
Good idea Pam
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:19:35
they also have SubPro on the Agenda
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:20:28
And the small group recommendations are all procedural
Kurt Pritz
02:21:23
Yep thx
Pam Little, RrSG
02:21:27
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/chair-s-blog-the-year-ahead-and-a-preview-of-the-january-workshop
Pam Little, RrSG
02:21:58
“Saturday, 23 January, will begin with a session dedicated to addressing the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as the proposed Operational Design Phase, and will end with a session focused on New Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) Subsequent Procedures (SubPro).”
Steve Chan
02:23:30
The intention was to just have it as an FYI to Council
Maxim Alzoba
02:23:33
we might ask if anyone has objections
Pam Little, RrSG
02:23:58
No, something else
Carlton Samuels
02:25:17
Have to drop off folks. Thank you Chair. Thanks all. G'bye.
Maxim Alzoba
02:25:40
I think YES
Pam Little, RrSG
02:25:54
To PDP WGs, the answer is yes
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:26:08
Just trying to think outside the box
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:26:16
since Councilors are very busy
stephanie perrin
02:26:27
So are EPDPers
Kristian Ørmen (one.com)
02:26:46
Thank you
Flip Petillion
02:26:47
Thanks ! See you next week at the webinar
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:26:49
Bye for now then...
Pam Little, RrSG
02:26:52
Thank you, all
Tatiana Tropina
02:26:57
Thank you! Bye
Juan Manuel Rojas
02:27:01
Thank you all, Bye!
Maarten Simon
02:27:03
Bye !
Tom Dale
02:27:06
Thanks all. Bye!
John McElwaine
02:27:15
Bye