Logo

051040043 - EPDP-Phase 2A Team Call
Chris Lewis-Evans
23:41
I Think Laureen will also be unable to attend
Chris Lewis-Evans
25:43
I also need to leave at 16:00
Terri Agnew
26:00
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.
Berry Cobb
29:11
PC Proceeding: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-phase-2a-initial-report-2021-06-03-en
Berry Cobb
29:23
Closes 19 July for 45 total days.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
34:07
Yes, Milton, the result, as I said. But that does not change the message being sent.
Brian King (IPC)
34:18
+1 Margie
Terri Agnew
34:19
**Members: reminder, when using chat, please select all panelists and attendees in order for everyone to see chat.
Amr Elsadr (RySG)
34:30
Isn’t the lack of consensus on rec#1 clearly detailed in Section 3 of the initial report?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
34:58
No change due to lack of consensus <> Consensus to have no change
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
35:37
Amr, none of that says there is a planned PDP WG Recommendation to NOT change. ANd that does not have anywhere near consensus
Amr Elsadr (RySG)
36:04
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?
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
36:05
@Amr this is not about the lack of consensus
Amr Elsadr (RySG)
36:32
I thought the wording was very carefully (and well) crafted.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:46
I mean, we don't have consensus to recommend changes
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
38:50
so no changes are recommended as consensus policy
Owen Smigelski (RrSG / Namecheap)
39:26
+1 Sarah
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
39:43
+1 Sarah
Manju Chen (NCSG)
39:44
+1 Amr & Sarah
Thomas Rickert (ISPCP)
39:46
Can we agree that the concerns are on the record now and move on?
Owen Smigelski (RrSG / Namecheap)
39:59
Agree with Thomas
Mark Svancarek (BC)
40:00
I guess we will have to see during public comment whether readers have the same understanding of the verbiage in the report.
Marika Konings
41:30
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”.
Manju Chen (NCSG)
42:05
i think using verbiage to describe the report is not very respectful to the team, and especially staff’s hard work and effort
Brian King (IPC)
42:08
To be clear, the dicta surrounding the recommendation is irrelevant to my concern about the recommendation itself.
Brian King (IPC)
42:35
Happy to move on with today's agenda.
Stephanie Perrin (NCSG)
42:55
+1 Manju! Kudos to staff for managing this difficult diplomatic process
Marika Konings
46:11
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
Brian King (IPC)
46:24
The ICANN community should learn from this exercise the likelihood of consensus when this pace/speed is requested.
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
47:21
Strongly agree with Milton.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
47:55
+1 Milton
Hadia Elminiawi (ALAC)
49:14
Agree with Miltion - let's reword so that the public could have a correct understanding of the report
Berry Cobb
49:37
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
Berry Cobb
50:21
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.""
Berry Cobb
50:50
Hand raised.
Mark Svancarek (BC)
52:12
Was there a charter for this phase setting a timeline?
Berry Cobb
52:31
In the resolution I just posted above.
Marika Konings
53:16
@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.
Brian King (IPC)
54:35
So will the report be updated?
Mark Svancarek (BC)
54:44
@Marika - I'm just objecting to the (repeated) characterization that there was a "charter", which is a specific term related to PDPs.
Berry Cobb
59:12
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
Mark Svancarek (BC)
59:24
+1 Sarah :)
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
59:40
Glad we found a point of agreement :)
Terri Agnew
01:00:30
Make sure you register for ICANN71 in order to see the schedule and join information.
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:01:00
@ 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.
Brian King (IPC)
01:04:04
Sorry to put you on the spot, Laureen. But knew you'd do great. :-)
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:04:34
Ahh the always effective flattery approach ;-).
Berry Cobb
01:04:44
Name and Question #
Amr Elsadr (RySG)
01:04:48
Thanks, Keith.
Berry Cobb
01:05:24
Wednesday 16 June from 14.30 – 15.30 UTC
Milton Mueller (NCSG)
01:09:24
pool party in los angeles?
Brian King (IPC)
01:10:13
yassss
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:10:42
I support taking a break during the comment period
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:11:02
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!)
Laureen Kapin (GAC)
01:11:57
@ Sarah -- we will miss you.
Marika Konings
01:15:51
Old, sorry
Berry Cobb
01:17:29
all good
Marika Konings
01:17:42
Good here as well
Marika Konings
01:18:01
Don’t forget to volunteer for the ICANN71 session!
Amr Elsadr (RySG)
01:18:29
Thanks all. Bye.
Sarah Wyld (RrSG)
01:18:29
Thanks, all