Logo

051040011 GNSO Council Extraordinary
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
40:25
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Maxim Alzoba
40:50
Hello all
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
41:38
Full agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+08+April+2021
Mark Datysgeld
41:41
Hello, Maxim. Let's all enjoy our favorite thing: extraordinary meetings.
Berry Cobb
47:19
Link to homework matrix: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_yvx7lsJSgHSdl3MO2-xEmXP28gpSfSWOoFWlIhwPZI/edit
Berry Cobb
47:42
Again for all..... Link to homework matrix: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_yvx7lsJSgHSdl3MO2-xEmXP28gpSfSWOoFWlIhwPZI/edit
Berry Cobb
48:19
And next steps briefing doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eKKyMtP9ZTiSaJLgZb6ctxU_C2T9yP_y/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs
Maxim Alzoba
50:03
new hand
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
51:29
The document states that the Council should confirm that the ePDP recommendations are intended to have no impact on ICANN org's implementation of the PPSAI recommendations. My question is whether there are member from that ePDP that can opine on that question. I am not sure how this Council can "confirm" the inention of the ePDP recommendations.
stephanie e perrin
52:48
I certainly share Maxim’s concerns
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
56:09
That makes sense Marie
Carlton SAMUELS
56:11
@Marie +1. I agree the IRT would be an appropriate vehicle to pronounce of ePDP matter
stephanie e perrin
57:10
There is a very clear bandwidth problem here folks. If you want the folks on the IRT to know what they are doing, you need the same folks that are slaving on the EPDP>
Carlton SAMUELS
57:56
@Steph. The usual practice is for some of the ePDP shuffle to the IRT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:07
I am confident that from the constant feedback ALAC gets from its Representation in EPDP that what @Marie and @John outlined re IRT role would likely get ALAC support and suspect they would be keen to contribute
John McElwaine
58:44
I don't think that we can assume there is not the bandwidth. RPM is done. SubPro is done.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
58:50
My understanding from reading all of the documents from the PPSAI IRT work, they were very close to being done. There were draft accreditation contracts circulated and they were cose
Marie Pattullo
58:52
I'd really want us to ask the PPSAI IRT first - they should be the ones giving input before we ask others to be involved and/or to take their work over.
Maxim Alzoba
59:10
@John, those will go into ODP and will consume bandwidth again
Maxim Alzoba
59:22
short new question
Marie Pattullo
59:25
I don't think it should be another group under the EPDP - we have a PPSAI IRT already.
Maxim Alzoba
59:32
relevant to the item
John McElwaine
01:00:12
@Marie agree completely. The IRT has carried this along way and have the best knowledge
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:00:28
Ending an IRT is not something that was done too often either ;)
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:38
do we know how many PPSAI IRT members are still around?
stephanie e perrin
01:00:53
Legal compliance is what we are talking about here folks.
Sebastien Ducos
01:00:54
@Karen - I don’t recall that being asked either
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:00:58
@Maxim - define "are still around"
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:01:01
:)
John McElwaine
01:01:16
@Maxim I heard no bandwidth issues raised with the Trasfer Policy PDP just 2 weeks ago.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:17
want to continue at least
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:21
those who
Pam Little
01:01:26
“It is also within ICANN org’s discretion to determine how to structure the PPSAI IRT, but the GNSO Council could recommend close collaboration with the EPDP-P1 IRT in an effort to ensure the work is harmonized. To that end, perhaps ICANN org could consider constituting an independent sub-group of the EPDP-P1 IRT since many current members of the EPDP-P1 IRT also participated in the PPSAI IRT, and ostensibly possess requisite knowledge of both sets of recommendations.”
Carlton SAMUELS
01:01:26
The IRT restart ought not to be a clean slate approach. First estimate total effort, then harvest what exists and move from there
Marie Pattullo
01:01:30
First step is to ask just that, no? They are the Team - out of respect at the minimum we should ask them!
Pam Little
01:01:55
“It is also within ICANN org’s discretion to determine how to structure the PPSAI IRT, but the GNSO Council could recommend close collaboration with the EPDP-P1 IRT in an effort to ensure the work is harmonized. To that end, perhaps ICANN org could consider constituting an independent sub-group of the EPDP-P1 IRT since many current members of the EPDP-P1 IRT also participated in the PPSAI IRT, and ostensibly possess requisite knowledge of both sets of recommendations."
Marie Pattullo
01:03:09
Collaboration Pam, yes - but no to discounting the PPSAI IRT as is. There just isn't a good reason for that.
Berry Cobb
01:03:53
Roster from PPSAI IRT: https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/IRT+Volunteer+List
stephanie e perrin
01:04:07
I am on the IRT. I am not discounting them or their work. However, there needs to be a rather fulsome reexamination of what they are doing in the light of final policy, IMHO.
Mary Wong
01:04:16
It will certainly add to staff workload overall, esp (as Steve noted) our GDS colleagues but also Policy (esp considering that a new EPDP, potentially accuracy work and RPMs Phase 2 remain on the GNSO’s near term plate).
stephanie e perrin
01:04:17
If and when we get a final policy.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:04:27
Here is a list of those that were on the PPSAI IRT: https://community.icann.org/display/IRT/IRT+Volunteer+List
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:44
what I see - many people changed their jobs in the list
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:05
in the last few years
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:06:14
It was a very large IRT
Marie Pattullo
01:06:22
So we ask them. We tell them we're unpausing (is that a word?) and ask them to reconfirm if they wish to be involved.
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:24
then we should clearly add it to the text - about the volunteers burnout
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:07:59
@Pam - According to the papers, ICANN org wants us to first "confirm" that the ePDP recommendations are intended to have no impact on their implementation of PPSAI. But we cant really do that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:47
ICANN should not manage volunteer bandwidth .. it is our job to regulate the load
Carlton SAMUELS
01:10:50
@Stephanie, I have to agree that a) we must settle some matters first and b) operating mode will limit throughput and create the sense of stress.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:10:54
Do we have any idea as to how much is really left to do with PPSAI? Is it just finishing the Privacy Proxy Accreditation Agreement and incorporating any GDPR-related provisions, or is it much more
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:25
bandwidth is not about feeling, it is about simultaneous work
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:31
to be done
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:13:00
And the GAC has certainly expressed its view that this work is important to them to complete.
Marie Pattullo
01:13:24
No - the PPSAI IRT!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:37
And again I am confident the ALAC At-Large would agree with the GAC here @Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:40
so far there were no words about cancelling progress
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:14:53
Bandwidth is also about prioritization. And the GAC, ALAC, BC and IPC believe that this is high priority
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:20
@Jeff, different groups have different priorities and it is natural
stephanie e perrin
01:15:46
Maxim is precisely describing the issues. If you want knowledgeable folks to carry through from one process to another, it is best to allow breathing space and facilitate the mentoring and cross fertilization between volunteers.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:11
switching between the processes too often is not good for the health
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:17:43
@Stephanie - But you are talking about the "Policy" behind PPSAI. We are only talking about the implementation. The PPSAI Policies are still Consensus Policy. Its about implementing it in a way that complies with GDPR
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:19:58
I would like to hear from staff their estimated level of effort to complete the IRT's work from their standpoint and the community's standpoing
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:20:01
standpoint
Marie Pattullo
01:21:06
Yes - let's ask the PPSAI IRT. And yes, on record again that restarting should be in the near term.
Caitlin Tubergen
01:21:33
Although this may not completely answer the question of intent, the EPDP Team did confirm to ICANN org that apart from the labelling recommendation, it did not intend to make any further recommendations in relation to P/P.
Mary Wong
01:21:43
Just to note (as Pam just mentioned), the primary challenge for PPSAI implementation at this stage is more about consistency with EPDP policy recommendations, which were developed subsequently. Hence the request that the Council (which, as you’ve discussed, you may first need to get input from the IRT, EPDP team etc.) to confirm that the EPDP recs are not intended to impact further implementation work on PPSAI.
stephanie e perrin
01:23:05
Jeff…common sense would dictate that you make sure the policy is compliant with GDPR and the new policy before you implement.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:23:24
@Mary - I just don't see us getting that confirmation. I think that staff needs to tell us where there are inconsistencies and then we can figure them out. But a blanket confirmation doesn't sound realistic
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:39
+1 , to avoid it being void due to the conflict with the law
stephanie e perrin
01:24:08
I was on that PDP, and I can assure you, my updates on what the new law and the existing laws meant in terms of the policy were not necessarily getting the attention of the group, much to my dismay.....
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:24:21
@Stephanie - of course procedures have to be compliant with law in general. Which is why I would think ICANN org would build that into their level of effort
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:43
@Jeff, they have to be compliant, not just in general
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:27:28
@Maxim - we are not disagreeing. I am not sure, however, that the ePDP team has to address those issues of law. Presumably in the development of the Privacy Proxy Accreditation Agreement, ICANN has lawyers that are reviewing the agreement. They can also be tasked with ensuring that those agreements and the obligations are compliant
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:18
@Jeff, they have not answered it so far , so building something on not finished work is troublesome
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:09
and it is not for ICANN but for the particular contracted party to decide about the law violation
stephanie e perrin
01:29:34
+1 Maxim
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:30:00
Actually Maxim, these would be new agreements. So technically, there are no other parties under contract.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:30:24
There is no such thing as an accredited Proxy/Privacy Service Provider....yet.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:33
@Jeff, ICANN can not force Registries and Registrars to violate the law , even with the new contract
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:30:53
@Maxim - no one is saying that they can.
stephanie e perrin
01:33:16
At a minimum, since we are spending time speculating on the validity of the existing PPSAI policy….the elision of privacy and proxy services does not stand up under the transparency requirements of GDPR. Requires significant explanation as a workaround (read cost for providers) because there is no clarity in the policy. That is not properly an implementation issue, it requires policy amendment.
Tom Dale
01:36:04
@Marie, +1 re scoping team
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:36:13
+1 Marie.
Mark Datysgeld
01:36:15
+1 Marie
Marie Pattullo
01:37:49
Yes!
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:38:22
When I hear "Studies", I have nightmares of this: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/whois/studies
stephanie e perrin
01:38:23
Since it has been a few years since the latest study on accuracy, I have no objection to a new one as long as it looks at the tangible benefits of increased accuracy requirements. I have not looked at those studies with a critical eye in a number of years, but I do not require such a cost benefit analysis.
Marie Pattullo
01:38:28
Let them review all that we already have and ask them if we need such a study - or any study.
Karen Lentz (ICANN Org)
01:39:00
@Jeff to your earlier question on level of effort and PPSAI work, we can come back on that.
Marie Pattullo
01:39:33
+1 John.
Kurt Pritz
01:39:36
I am unclear on Marie’s comment about the volunteers are “in place” - don’t we need to form the scoping team - help!
stephanie e perrin
01:39:41
The needs survey that was sent out to law enforcement during the WHOIS II review was heavily weighted in the opinion direction, asking law enforcement what they wanted, not what tangible proofs of utility resulted
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:41
Before the study we need to agree on a definition of Accuracy (from ICANN contracts or from GDPR).. and we so far do not have it
Marie Pattullo
01:40:15
That's what the scoping team is for, no? To define the scope?
Carlton SAMUELS
01:40:24
@Maxi BIG =1! This is my struggle with the talk of accuracy if we don't settle on what it means!
Mary Wong
01:41:15
To Jeff’s note earlier about the previous (2011-2013) WHOIS studies, while those were not about accuracy per se, they could be useful references for preliminary scoping work.
stephanie e perrin
01:41:22
Quoting myself “I do not require such a cost benefit analysis.” That was meant to be “I do not recall”. The cost benefit analysis is definitely required.
stephanie e perrin
01:42:09
Data minimization includes minimizing response burden.
John McElwaine
01:42:11
Is there a requirement of accuracy under GDPR? Can someone explain that to Council?
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:35
Accuracy inICANN contracts is a definition from that contract and not necessary the same as in GDPR law
Tatiana Tropina
01:42:39
John, certainly there were discussions on the EPDP who the accuracy refers to — data subject or wider
Tatiana Tropina
01:42:57
So Maxim has a point here because there was a discussion and even a question to B&B
Tatiana Tropina
01:43:09
As far as I recall
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:43:10
@Stephanie - Cost/Benefit analysis are not necessarily helpful because that is completely dependent on whose behalf are you performing the analysis.
stephanie e perrin
01:43:16
Data is not collected for the benefit of third party requestors
Tatiana Tropina
01:43:45
Steph, agree, and in GDPR accuracy is certainly not the right of the third party
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:57
it is a legal question and collecting opinions does not answer it - it gives just bunch of opinions
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:44:16
@Stephanie - perhaps I did not state it clearly. But the costs/benefits of this to you is different than the costs/benefits to someone else.
stephanie e perrin
01:45:03
It is time for my reminder, usually emitted at every meeting, that the GDPR was written to protect the human rights of individuals. As such, the rights of the individuals ought to be in everybody’s minds as we seek compliance with it.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:45:12
Are we looking at the costs/benefits to (a) registrants, (b) those that use the rdds, (c) contracted parties, (d) civil liberty organizations....
Marie Pattullo
01:45:52
"If the data's not accurate, it's worthless". +1000, Carlton!
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:37
And we need to add a question - how we ensure that what we want is not in violation of GDPR
Olga Cavalli
01:47:07
Good point by Carlton
Marie Pattullo
01:47:12
We ask the scoping team to do it, IMO.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:47:17
@Stephanie - Are you conflating "costs/benefits" with "compliance"? No one is saying that we should ignore compliance with the law. But that is not a cost/benefit analysis
Olga Cavalli
01:47:41
+1 to Marie
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:42
GDPR Accuracy is the right of the person …
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:59
ICANN Accuracy is the requirement of the ICANN.org
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:18
same word - different meanings
Olga Cavalli
01:48:20
Audio?
stephanie e perrin
01:48:54
Reminder that we are overloaded at the moment.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:48:56
I think we already have people that have volunteered for the team, right?
John McElwaine
01:49:13
Agree
Marie Pattullo
01:49:17
Right, Jeff.
Olga Cavalli
01:49:18
Agree with Marie
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:06
+1, EPDP phase a2 should be finished soon (at least we heard so)
Greg DiBiase
01:51:07
agree with Kurt
Carlton SAMUELS
01:51:12
The security and stability of the DNS requires the overseer collect, curate and maintain a defined dataset. Oversight demands that action beginning with that data requires accurate data to be purposeful. The question is in this context, what does accurate data look like to us? And, can we be in a position to affirm the data is accurate.
Tatiana Tropina
01:51:20
Agree with Kurt, too
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:37
Agree with Kurt
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:17
does it mean that the load of our members is not important?
Carlton SAMUELS
01:55:37
It is a full time job Stephanie!
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:50
When was the call for volunteers?
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:01
Aug 2020?
Marie Pattullo
01:57:01
Why is providing accurate data hard? Typing my own name correctly takes as much effort as typing that of a cartoon character...
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:57:33
@Stephanie - Every group has their very important issues. And we need to respect each group's high priority issues. Whether that is Data Accuracy, SubPro, Transfers, Human Rights, etc.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:39
@Marie, the question is to whom
Marie Pattullo
01:59:10
"In relation to #1, the staff support team reached out to all GNSO SG/Cs as well as ACs to assess interest in participating in an accuracy scoping team. To date, the following groups expressed an interest, and bracketed numbers indicate groups that provided an indication of the # of reps they would like to assign: BC (2 members), RySG (2-3 members), GAC (4 members), ISPCP (1 member), IPC, RrSG (1 member)."
stephanie e perrin
01:59:33
We are very lucky that we have Bird and Bird, in my opinion. Deciding on what level of accuracy is required is not a trivial question. Registering Mickey Mouse is pretty simple, but handling verification of name address and phone number is not.
stephanie e perrin
02:00:36
Response burden, as I have pointed out, particularly when updating of information is solely for the benefit of third parties, is a huge issue
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:59
if the person has ID with the name of Mickey Mouse .. it is accurate enough
Carlton SAMUELS
02:02:23
...as would be Johnny Twit, Tree 47, Limb 9, Sherwood Forest.....
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:02
there were cases where people changing their names officially to really weird names
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:20
were changing in their IDs
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:03:32
Personal view for what it is worth - It is imperative for the GNSO Council to weigh in on SAC 114. It presents a challenge to the ability for the GNSO to develop policies with respect to new gTLDs and goes WAY beyond their mandate
Carlton SAMUELS
02:04:58
@Jeff, to be fair, they made an effort to justify by an expended reading of what "security & stability" means.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:05:18
@Carlton - while providing zero evidence
Carlton SAMUELS
02:05:20
*expanded
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:49
SSAC waited for 5 years … and then suddenly decided to say NO without any basis (no facts basing on which it was driven .. only words of belief )
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:06:24
And the SSAC filed comments several times during the PDP and not once ever did it state that adding new gTLDs was against ICANN's mission
Maxim Alzoba
02:07:08
GNSO is about factually based policy making , not just believe based
stephanie e perrin
02:08:38
Do security guys ever push for more and more users of a system? Innocent question, I have just never seen it….
Carlton SAMUELS
02:09:07
@Jeff: I have since 2007 caucused and worked with a few of the folks on the SSAC. I consider them serious and reasonable people. Maybe we could invite them in for a discussion?
Maxim Alzoba
02:09:16
The quality of SSAC advise is in decline and stepping more and more outside their field of expertise and remit
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:10:07
To clarify, I believe everyone should read the transcript from the SSAC Public meeting on March 25th.
Carlton SAMUELS
02:11:11
@Steph: I would not consider myself a cybersec expert but know enough to be at least educable. From my years as a CIO I have always seen my security folks consider load as a security containment factor.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:11:56
If you read the transcript: https://cdn.filestackcontent.com/content=t:attachment,f:%22I70CUN_Thu25Mar2021_SSAC%20Public%20Meet-en.pdf%22/yzknk9hTSu2MLVbrx9XP, you will see that the SSAC Chair admitted that their Executive Summary did not reflect their actual conclusions.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:13:09
Despite the fact that the SSAC states that ICANN's mission would be violated if ICANN added new TLDs, they admitted that they had only intended to raise questions and did not intend that the program should not continue. This was confirmed on page 27 by the ICANN Board Liaison from the SSAC
Tom Dale
02:13:59
It might be better for Council to discuss these matters with SSAC before we think about telling the Board that SSAC is not doing their job properly.
Carlton SAMUELS
02:15:32
BTW, the CCT Report also cautions expansion without addressing some issues.
Maxim Alzoba
02:15:50
@Carlton … some items just copy pasted there
Carlton SAMUELS
02:16:21
..and the ALC has been on record cautioning expansion for several reasons too..
Carlton SAMUELS
02:18:31
@Maxim, not sure if the reference was to the CCT. I was on the team focused on matters pertaining security, stability, safeguards, abuse mitigation. I can tell you there were intense arguments on these subjects. We worked them from barebones.
Pam Little
02:18:32
Form a small drafting team?
Maxim Alzoba
02:18:52
@Pam, please add me to the team
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:19:02
So far Olga, Tom and Carlton have volunteered to prepare a response to the Communique. Any other Councilors are welcome.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:19:24
the ALAC Advice to the Board re SubPro will also you should note reference the SAC114 document (perhaps npt with the benefit of reading the SSAC Meeting transcript from the recent ICANN Meeting
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:20:45
I believe the questions raised by the SSAC are really good. The conclusions they give (without evidence) are not
Maxim Alzoba
02:21:36
hopefully we have more than 1 Council member in the team :)
Flip Petillion
02:21:47
+1 Jeff
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:22:16
@Maxim - Since there will be overlap in the Communique response, I am happy to help if the small team will have me :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:23:14
I have a feeling that SSAC did not have enough time to do the homework … like some students with the 12th hour ending of the work before the end of the quarter (so the document seems to be undercooked )
Steve Chan
02:23:42
Latest framework here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20210302/428166aa/GNSOFrameworkforContinuousImprovement-2March2021-0001.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
02:24:42
Do we expect the additional load to be the same as we see in Council?
stephanie e perrin
02:25:11
We will put someone on the small drafting team from the NCSG, will have to caucus to find the person
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:26:40
If we are going to set up a Steering Committee, which is what we did in 2008, I see no reason why we need to make it only Councilors on the Steering Committee
Carlton SAMUELS
02:26:47
My major concern is bandwidth!!
Carlton SAMUELS
02:27:08
We are hitting the wall here....
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:27:16
In 2007 or 8 or something like that, we created two steering committees to look at improviements.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:27:35
The Steering Committees were made up of community members.
stephanie e perrin
02:28:29
+1 Maxim, the Council is becoming a small team review board
Tom Dale
02:29:20
Why not leave it to the Committee to determine how they structure their work? Rather than Task Forces etc.
Maxim Alzoba
02:31:17
different task not necessary need the common process … case by case as any other project management tasks
Tom Dale
02:34:14
Drawing in volunteers from the broader GNSO community certainly couldn’t do any harm.
Carlton SAMUELS
02:34:24
My apologies. I have a business call scheduled for top of the hour. I'm going to drop off now. Thank you all.
Maxim Alzoba
02:34:30
@Tom, depends on composition :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:34:44
example - IGO PDP
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:36:02
Please just ask yourselves, why do we need to put all the burden of this work on the Councilors
Tom Dale
02:36:18
+1 Jeff
stephanie e perrin
02:36:43
Because they are elected to do the work by their SGs? Up to them to delegate and organize…..
Maxim Alzoba
02:37:02
Thanks all
Tatiana Tropina
02:37:07
Eleven indeed :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:37:11
Bye for now then...
Tatiana Tropina
02:37:17
Bye all thanks a lot
Flip Petillion
02:37:18
Bye; thx
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:37:23
@Stephanie - they are elected to "represent", not do all the work
Olga Cavalli
02:37:28
Thanks all stay safe!!!
Pam Little
02:37:34
Thanks all
Marie Pattullo
02:37:44
Bye all!
Olga Cavalli
02:37:44
Bye!!
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:37:46
bye
Kristian Ørmen
02:37:46
bye
Karen Lentz (ICANN Org)
02:37:49
Thank you
Sebastien Ducos
02:37:54
Bye all