Welcome Everyone

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

Hello all

Welcome Herb. Thanks for being with us today .

Kudos to all participated in work of the PDPs finished, and especially to ICANN staff, without whom it would be impossible

As a reminder, attendees do not have access to the chat nor to their microphones but are more than welcome to type questions and comments in the Q&A pod situated on the bottom toolbar of the Zoom room.

By clicking on the Live Transcript icon on the same toolbar, you can access closed captioning, either as a full transcript, or in subtitle format.

We have to deliver our Recommendations Report to them after this next meeting

When will the RPM Phase 1 Report and Recommendation be published for Public Comment?

@John, Policy staff is coordinating with Board Operations and GDS staff to ensure that the timing is as optimal as possible, to enable comprehensive Board review in a practical time frame

(Note that the Bylaws require the Board to meet to consider PDP recommendations as soon as feasible, and preferably not later than the second Board meeting after it receives the Recommendations Report. In practice, staff tries to coordinate the public comment proceeding to allow the Board time to discuss and review the Report and the public comments received in good time.)

As Mary is noting, no date certain at this stage, but likely in the relatively near future.

Thanks Steve!

Thanks @Mary and @Steve

Hand up

Several councillors are having issues accessing (or seeing!) the Hand Raised icon, if this is the case, please type “hand raised” in the chat and you will be placed in the queue.

As a reminder, attendees do not have access to the chat nor to their microphones but are more than welcome to type questions and comments in the Q&A pod situated on the bottom toolbar of the Zoom room.

I wish attendants had access to chat. Would be much more transparent. We are part of the community just like everyone. Hopefully the org. will really look into this, as it has been saying for so long it will.

The Board has deferred consideration of IGO Curative Rights Recs 1-4 (in its resolution of Oct 2020), in view of its current consultation with the GAC on previous IGO PDP recommendations and pending completion of the Work Track.

Developing a work plan for the IGO Work Track is a matter of priority, so we should have a much better sense of timeline in the near future.

@Mark - this webinar is designed for GNSO Councilors, so the Zoom is structured like a standard GNSO Council meeting. We can discuss changing this in the future if the Council would prefer.

I would like to see us not move to the "representative model" for every PDP. But that seems to be the direction we are heading. I think there are many benefits to an open model (or at the very least a hybrid model). We should be encouraging more participation in PDPs even if consensus is measured by representatives.

March 22

There seems to be the assumption that the reason previous PDPs took too long was because there were too many members. In the case of SubPro, that was not the case from my point of view.

How are the decisions taken to staff a PDP by representative vs open vs something else method?

The ICANN70 session on the Transfer Policy PDP will take place on 22 March at 19:30 UTC

SubPro took too long because of the onerous charter with 40+ subjects.

In addition, we hope all questions and comments will be reflected in the Q&A pod, which is an effort to replicate the traditional open mic session that is held at the end of the face-to-face working session, and which is usually allotted for 10 minutes.

Hand Up

@Caitlin thank you very much for the clarification. It is not my personal understanding that this is a normal Council meeting. It would be a good opportunity to interact with the community within this context, rather.

follup up Q

hand up

@Mark, @Susan, thanks for this; It's a fair question to ask, and indeed as Caitlin mentioned we sort of carried over the default working method for Council. But given that this is both intended for the broder community and councilors, it's a change worthwhile considering for future succh policy updates.

Resending to all panelists and attendees: This webinar is designed for GNSO Councilors, so the Zoom is structured like a standard GNSO Council meeting. We can discuss changing this in the future if the Council would prefer. In addition, we hope all questions and comments will be reflected in the Q&A pod, which is an effort to replicate the traditional open mic session that is held at the end of the face-to-face working session, and which is usually allotted for 10 minutes.

Sorry all. I wanted to put into the Q&A pod my question, but I cant

From my role of ALAC to the GNSO Council what @Jeff has raised is INDEED of great interest to the At-Large Community and we have made the same :observation" with some degree of concern... Note in my personal capacity I have also been involved in a goodly number of PDPs ;-)

SubPro had 200 and was manageable from Cheryl and my perspective

If it's not a representative model (and I agree that shouldn't be the norm) the members/votes can't be measured by "representation" a there anyone volunteering is doing so in their personal (professional) capacity, not on behalf of their SG.C

*SG/C

PANELISTS: Please set your chat to PANELISTS AND ATTENDEES for all to be able to read your comments, thank you!

ok makes sense

overpopulating the WG is a bad idea

Again, SubPro had 200+ members and it was not overpopulated. The amount of people was not the issue

Hybrid models should not be ignored as an opportunity to explore of course ...

If we limit all representation to "on behalf of" a SG/C, by default we lose a lot of the reason as to why people get involved at all in PDPs. But of course it depends on the subject,

I don’t necessarily agree with what Jeff said. I think each PDP should be taken on its own merits and needs

Indeed it does @Marie, thus the at least 3 models (and variations) you could explore

@Jeff, with the active number way lower hundreds subscribed, not sure

@Mary, nobody prevents people to join the groups backing up the work

@Maxim - we do not need all representative models.

@Jeff, it is up to the Council

As said, subject-dependent. But closing to reps only = closed shop IMO.

@Kurt - Sure each PDP should have its own merits. But every PDP and ePDP that has been launched in last couple of years has been representative. (ePDP Phase 1, 2, 2A; IGO Curative Rights Work Track, now Transfers)

@Jeff, may be due to a huge time taken by the Open groups

@Maxim - of course its up to the Council. But one can disagree with the Council, right

@Jeff, it is your right

This is the workplan to the IDN EPDP Drafting Team: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mD0soQAd-OfPQCiY5aHls3HVltq0CtSu8aAlZ5zQlAk/edit#gid=0

I think we are scheduled to go to the top of the hour if there are any questions

+1, Jeff

Yes I think we have to clarify on the form indeed. I would say, we better think about this.

Bye for now...

Thanks you

Thank you all, great update.

Not here until 21 UTC??

Thank you all

thanks all

Thanks All

Thank you all