Hi CLO

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

Nathalie and Terri, Juan has problem with internet, perhaps one can dial out to him

Juan has just joined

Welcome Juan!

Thanks! I was having technical difficulties to join in

Full Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+18+February+2021

Correct Philippe, on the PC close date and affect of deferring the vote

Thanks Steve!

Project list here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Project+List?preview=/150178773/158138423/GNSO_Council_Project-List_20210218.pdf

Note that per Philippe’s comments, bullet 4 for the consent agenda has been removed.

lost sound

sound's good here Wisdom

aaudio OK via zoom for me

@wisdom, please try exiting and coming back in

Welcome Kurt!

cant hear anything

@Wisdom, I am Skyping you.

Who at ICANN is managing the process of standardizing the processes?

@Philippe, this broader consistency that Berry is describing (and that we are aiming for) is also meant to assist the SOAC Chairs in their community-based planning with org.

@Jeff, there is an internal cross-functional org initiative to adopt common frameworks and tools; and there is a related effort led by Xavier and his team to improve planning with the SOAC Chairs.

That answers it. Thanks Mary

thanks, @Mary

noted @Mary

Yes it is one of Goran’s goals, as set by the Board.

Comment to staff: I would like to hear more about Xavier's initiatives and the several reform initiatives that have been handed out to his team. Having updates on those would be valuable.

On an ongoing basis

@Mark, I believe the Planning Team is holding a Prep Week webinar so that could be an excellent place for that discussion. As to the SOAC Chairs’ work with Xavier/org, I know Philippe has been and will continue to keep the various GNSO SG&C chairs updated.

I suggest we return to the agenda

Thank you, Mary.

Yes the Finance /Planning team is offering to brief the GNSO so a good opportunity to area from the, about their program

Thanks David. I think that will be real helpful

That would be very helpful, David.

The Finance/Planning team is offering to brief the GNSO so a good opportunity to hear about their program and net steps

To David’s addition - the invitation was included in the most recent editions of the twice-weekly Digest that goes out to all SO/AC/SG/C chairs and subscribers. You may wish to check with your respective SG/C leadership teams to see if your group wishes to respond (separately from a Council session, if one is desired).

please share URL for the motions

Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February+2021

thanks, Nathalie

and to make the policy usable

Mission and Scope: PDP to conduct a holistic review of the TransferPolicy and determine if changes to the policy are needed to improve theease, security, and efficacy of inter-registrar and inter-registrant transfers.

basically - whois is closed (no e-mail or details), and the old transfer policy required what was open

I think "Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House."

Thanks everyone for your support

@Jeff, you are correct. Luckily the unanimous approval exceeds that :) You can see the threshold as you noted, in the agenda on screen.

and Avri originally her work was pivotal

maybe we can have the motion on the screen?

:) thanks

Flip: I think it is clear that “Affirmations” covers “Affirmations with and without modifications”

thx Kurt

To be clear, DNS Abuse on the ADR is listed as an "unplanned" range marker. It does not imply priority or urgency.

this should be at least discussed before starting ogf the work on DNS abuse

DNS Abuse is an important priority that should be addressed somewhere, wherever that is, in a serious and systemic manner.

@Mark agree. Thanks

to be addressed, first it should be described

to Pam: i agree with the idea

and there should be agreement on the definitions

@Maxim I believe the Framework on Abuse started that work?

Outside of ICANN procedure, of course.

Then we should establish a scoping team, Maxim, akin to that for accuracy.

before that we need to discuss it

It needs to be brought into ICANN now.

From the RPM Resolved clause on the IRT: 2. Should the PDP recommendations be adopted by the ICANN Board, the GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an RPM Implementation Review Team, to assist ICANN org in developing the implementation details for the PDP recommendations and ensure that the resultant implementation conforms to the intent of the approved recommendations. The Implementation Review Team shall operate in accordance with the Implementation Review Team Principles and Guidance approved by the GNSO Council in June 2015.

For “directs”, I believe the more common term that has been used is “request” the convening of an IRT.

@Mary agree

Friendly amendment if Flip and Kurt agree

+1 - makes sense, thanks Mary.

Thanks Mary for the clarification.

@Mark: I'm afraid that we will see another splendid effort to reinvent the wheel here. I see the back and forth over definition and my eyes glazed over. The CCT RT did an excellent job defining what DNS Abuse and offered some ideas about addressing it.

If I may, Clause 4 should prob be “The GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an IRT”

The Board directs org to implement all the recs; the Council decides if an IRT is needed and, if so (which is commonly the case by default) then org is the one that has to convene it.

Carlton - so we take the CCT RT as the basis for an abuse scoping team?

always welcome advice @Mary

@Carlton, your point is very correct. I do not believe, however, that the matter is as obscure and difficult as people make it out to be. While the community is busy turning this into a huge battle, the bad actors continue to do their work.

Correct, Pam - and thank you all.

Thank you all.

@Marie, Yes, IMHO, the CCT RT Report could be a good baseline. [Disclosure: I served on the CCT RT.]

Thanks Carlton. That would tie in perfectly with John's proposal, I believe.

was is a consensus GAC decision or just some members?

Doesn’t look like consensus advice just yet

As far as I can tell the GAC has not provided any consensus advice on anything since Montreal.

@Mark +1. I served on the DNS Abuse Subteam for the CCT RT with Drew Bagley and a few others. We went exhaustively into the matter to try and understand why this was considered to be such a task. We could not find a real good reason.

Yes, the GAC customarily only provides consensus advice via a Communique.

Not from Me the GAC is clear that tey continue to be concerned on topics their view did not prevail with in our work

Thanks Cheryl.

NP

Thanks Jeff

Sure. Happy to convey the message

thanks Jeff

I like the musical background to the vote!!

Can we join in Tomslin? I know that song :-).

Soundtrack of our lives…

Indeed

I could hardly vote as I was chuckling looking at the chat :-)

;-)))

Now I have that song in my head

… and eyes and ears and mouth and nose...

Thank you everyone!

Thank you all

Thank you Jeff, Cheryl, Flip and staff...

Appreciate your support

@Cheryl +1

We are discussing two issues then, is that correct: (1) content of the Charter; (2) composition of the Charter-writing WG?

and we have IDN epdp

@Kurt taking also into account the issue report

I thought it was WG membership not charter writing WG

(That was the answer to Kurt)

@Tatiana - is that it?

@Kurt I guess we are now at the WG composition: the appropriateness of reps model

@Pam: +1 to the representative model.+1 on upper limit to WG membership

30 is not going to be fast

+1 representative model with additional RRs

and they are experts the same time

Upper limit does not mean fill every seat.

representative model + homework with the help of the SO/AC internal group

I will discuss with the GAC, but I would venture to guess that they may be interested in this process and may want to be involved

[to clarify, not necessarily involved with the charter, but rather with the PDP]

What is the *very technical nature* here? I should have thought a process to transfer - in conformance with law, regulation and equity - "ownership" of a resource is moreso about identification and documentation of identities, no? What is the principal requirement if not the recording?

ALAC would of course seire to ensure that Registrant concerns and best interests were also part of such an outcome *of course*

should read desire to ensure

@Carlton the technical nature refers to the technical process by which domains are transferred from one registrar to another. For example, how does a registrar confirm the intent of the registrant to transfer? The process has been reliant on email but there may be preferable technical methods.

there is no emails now, and no details visible , and it is an issue

@Carlton the technical nature refers to the technical process by which domains are transferred from one registrar to another. For example, how does a registrar confirm the intent of the registrant to transfer? The process has been reliant on email but there may be preferable technical methods.

I have to drop off now to deal with an urgent domestic matter. Please excuse me. Bye all. Many thanks for the conversations.

As there will be no time for AOB, I would like it to be acknowledged that the matter of DNS Abuse was brought up, there is interest from at least some of the Councilors, and this is a theme that should be brought up for discussion by the GNSO.

Thank you Carlton

@Mark - we have another 30 minutes, right?

not yet

@Greg, thanks. I would consider that the means for acquiring data and information for establishing identity and intent. And we can always look on the attributes of the tools and come up with an optimal model.

@Carlton, it also has to be feasible from the operational and commercial points of view (in addition to legal point of view)

@Jeff let me replace with "in case", thbaks :)

ccTLDs have own ideas … like some have emojies second level

and ccNSO policies are only for ccNSO members (not all ccTLDs are there)

Important to make sure that we (ccNSO) also appoints a liaison to make sure the groups stay well connected

+1 @Maarten, Synchronization is important here

Thanks, Dennis

Thanks, Dennis

Will check with the ccNSO council

Thank you, Dennis.

I have a question on EPDP2q

ok

@Maxim - are we already at Phase 2q

;)

indeed, but it does not answer the question

Berry - will the Council be called on to make any decisions based on Keith’s update?

I had the same thought….I am not hanging around till 2q

i meant 2a

phew

so far epdp looks like an eternal pdp

+1 Maxim

I think we did discuss it when we launched it, that we don’t want it to be an eternal PDP

I need to pull out the records from that meeting to check but I remember there were concerns raised about it

endless circles is not the same as progress

Thanks, Jeff

Correct

Mark

Mark :-)

We can circulate the proposed bilateral meeting topics on the Council list after this meeting

@Mark, could you send the proposal to the Council list?

different outcomes = no consistency

Not sure what you meant by “different outcomes of different policy processes"

@Pam will look into it.

Bye for now... Thanks everyone!

When the SSAC advice/statement issues please forward it around

Thanks, @Mark

thanks all !!

thanks all

Thanks all!

Thanks all

Thank all

thx

take care! bye

Bye

Bye all!

thanks all

Thank you. Bye