I Think Laureen will also be unable to attend

I also need to leave at 16:00

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

PC Proceeding: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-phase-2a-initial-report-2021-06-03-en

Closes 19 July for 45 total days.

Yes, Milton, the result, as I said. But that does not change the message being sent.

+1 Margie

**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.

Isn’t the lack of consensus on rec#1 clearly detailed in Section 3 of the initial report?

No change due to lack of consensus <> Consensus to have no change

Amr, none of that says there is a planned PDP WG Recommendation to NOT change. ANd that does not have anywhere near consensus

Rec 1 doesn’t say that the EPDP Team recommends no change. It says that no changes have been recommended. Makes a difference, doesn’t it?

@Amr this is not about the lack of consensus

I thought the wording was very carefully (and well) crafted.

I mean, we don't have consensus to recommend changes

so no changes are recommended as consensus policy

+1 Sarah

+1 Sarah

+1 Amr & Sarah

Can we agree that the concerns are on the record now and move on?

Agree with Thomas

I guess we will have to see during public comment whether readers have the same understanding of the verbiage in the report.

Resending to all: Note that the report states in the section preceding the preliminary recommendation: “Some EPDP Team members are of the view that differentiation should be required for many reasons that benefit the public”.

i think using verbiage to describe the report is not very respectful to the team, and especially staff’s hard work and effort

To be clear, the dicta surrounding the recommendation is irrelevant to my concern about the recommendation itself.

Happy to move on with today's agenda.

+1 Manju! Kudos to staff for managing this difficult diplomatic process

If conclusions/recommendations are significantly different from what is in the Initial Report, the group can decide to publish a proposed Final Report for public comment which is an approach that has also been used in other PDPs where the difference was substantially d

The ICANN community should learn from this exercise the likelihood of consensus when this pace/speed is requested.

Strongly agree with Milton.

+1 Milton

Agree with Miltion - let's reword so that the public could have a correct understanding of the report

The GNSO Policy Support Team communicate to the groups that have appointed members to the EPDP Team that the Council is expected to instruct the EPDP Team to further consider the topics of legal/natural and feasibility of unique contacts per the instructions above, as well as the expected timeframe, provided herein for reference, "[a]t the latest 3 months after reconvening, the Chair of the EPDP Team and GNSO Council Liaison to the EPDP will report back to the GNSO Council on the status of deliberations. Based on this report, which is expected to include an update on progress made and the expected likelihood of consensus recommendations, the GNSO Council will decide on next steps, which could include providing additional time for the EPDP to finalize its recommendations or termination of the EPDP if it is clear that no progress is being made or consensus is unlikely). Request groups to:Commence process of confirming members availability and/or re- appointing members to work on these topics. Proposed deadline

Council resolution from 21 Oct 2021. "Start developing proposals to address these topics, factoring in deliberations to date, that will allow the EPDP Team to kickstart deliberations on these topics when it reconvenes.""

Hand raised.

Was there a charter for this phase setting a timeline?

In the resolution I just posted above.

@Mark SV - the Council provided specific instructions regarding timeline as well as expectations that groups that wanted more time to discuss these topics to come prepared with proposals at the start of deliberations.

So will the report be updated?

@Marika - I'm just objecting to the (repeated) characterization that there was a "charter", which is a specific term related to PDPs.

I invite this team to browse these Program/Project work products to get an idea of everything related to the GNSO. https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=150178769

+1 Sarah :)

Glad we found a point of agreement :)

Make sure you register for ICANN71 in order to see the schedule and join information.

@ Keith, perhaps simply a revised Initial Report that clearly shows Milton's proposed change would suffice? It's doubtful folks have already raced to work on public comments given ICANN71 next week.

Sorry to put you on the spot, Laureen. But knew you'd do great. :-)

Ahh the always effective flattery approach ;-).

Name and Question #

Thanks, Keith.

Wednesday 16 June from 14.30 – 15.30 UTC

pool party in los angeles?

yassss

I support taking a break during the comment period

Also my apologies I cannot attend the meeting during ICANN71 due to a scheduling conflict. (Just FYI, don't think I didn't want to be there!)

@ Sarah -- we will miss you.

Old, sorry

all good

Good here as well

Don’t forget to volunteer for the ICANN71 session!

Thanks all. Bye.

Thanks, all