Logo

051040011 GNSO Council - Shared screen with speaker view
Carlton Samuels
42:23
Hi CLO
Terri Agnew
42:37
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.
Tatiana Tropina
44:24
Nathalie and Terri, Juan has problem with internet, perhaps one can dial out to him
Andrea Glandon
44:47
Juan has just joined
Nathalie Peregrine
45:17
Welcome Juan!
Juan Manuel Rojas
45:46
Thanks! I was having technical difficulties to join in
Nathalie Peregrine
47:17
Full Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+18+February+2021
Steve Chan
47:20
Correct Philippe, on the PC close date and affect of deferring the vote
Philippe Fouquart
47:57
Thanks Steve!
Steve Chan
47:58
Project list here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Project+List?preview=/150178773/158138423/GNSO_Council_Project-List_20210218.pdf
Steve Chan
49:00
Note that per Philippe’s comments, bullet 4 for the consent agenda has been removed.
Wisdom Donkor
49:08
lost sound
Philippe Fouquart
49:23
sound's good here Wisdom
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:26
aaudio OK via zoom for me
Nathalie Peregrine
49:36
@wisdom, please try exiting and coming back in
Nathalie Peregrine
49:46
Welcome Kurt!
Wisdom Donkor
49:51
cant hear anything
Nathalie Peregrine
50:54
@Wisdom, I am Skyping you.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
57:44
Who at ICANN is managing the process of standardizing the processes?
Mary Wong
58:11
@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.
Mary Wong
59:05
@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.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
59:35
That answers it. Thanks Mary
Maxim Alzoba
59:38
thanks, @Mary
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:53
noted @Mary
Mary Wong
59:58
Yes it is one of Goran’s goals, as set by the Board.
Mark Datysgeld
01:00:07
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.
Mark Datysgeld
01:00:42
On an ongoing basis
Mary Wong
01:01:06
@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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:07
I suggest we return to the agenda
Mark Datysgeld
01:01:18
Thank you, Mary.
David Olive
01:03:35
Yes the Finance /Planning team is offering to brief the GNSO so a good opportunity to area from the, about their program
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:04:58
Thanks David. I think that will be real helpful
Mark Datysgeld
01:05:08
That would be very helpful, David.
David Olive
01:06:54
The Finance/Planning team is offering to brief the GNSO so a good opportunity to hear about their program and net steps
Mary Wong
01:07:11
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).
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:13
please share URL for the motions
Nathalie Peregrine
01:07:24
Motions: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+18+February+2021
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:34
thanks, Nathalie
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:53
and to make the policy usable
Pam Little, RrSG
01:12:00
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:51
basically - whois is closed (no e-mail or details), and the old transfer policy required what was open
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:19:11
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."
Pam Little, RrSG
01:19:49
Thanks everyone for your support
Steve Chan
01:21:14
@Jeff, you are correct. Luckily the unanimous approval exceeds that :) You can see the threshold as you noted, in the agenda on screen.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:31
and Avri originally her work was pivotal
Philippe Fouquart
01:23:53
maybe we can have the motion on the screen?
Philippe Fouquart
01:24:21
:) thanks
Kurt Pritz
01:24:42
Flip: I think it is clear that “Affirmations” covers “Affirmations with and without modifications”
Flip Petillion
01:28:20
thx Kurt
Berry Cobb
01:30:14
To be clear, DNS Abuse on the ADR is listed as an "unplanned" range marker. It does not imply priority or urgency.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:50
this should be at least discussed before starting ogf the work on DNS abuse
Mark Datysgeld
01:32:12
DNS Abuse is an important priority that should be addressed somewhere, wherever that is, in a serious and systemic manner.
John McElwaine
01:32:44
@Mark agree. Thanks
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:17
to be addressed, first it should be described
Flip Petillion
01:33:26
to Pam: i agree with the idea
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:30
and there should be agreement on the definitions
Mark Datysgeld
01:33:47
@Maxim I believe the Framework on Abuse started that work?
Mark Datysgeld
01:34:05
Outside of ICANN procedure, of course.
Marie Pattullo
01:34:06
Then we should establish a scoping team, Maxim, akin to that for accuracy.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:16
before that we need to discuss it
Mark Datysgeld
01:34:23
It needs to be brought into ICANN now.
John McElwaine
01:34:29
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.
Mary Wong
01:34:32
For “directs”, I believe the more common term that has been used is “request” the convening of an IRT.
John McElwaine
01:34:41
@Mary agree
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:35:14
Friendly amendment if Flip and Kurt agree
Marie Pattullo
01:35:14
+1 - makes sense, thanks Mary.
David Olive
01:35:45
Thanks Mary for the clarification.
Carlton Samuels
01:35:51
@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.
Mary Wong
01:36:07
If I may, Clause 4 should prob be “The GNSO Council requests that ICANN org convene an IRT”
Mary Wong
01:36:56
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.
Marie Pattullo
01:37:06
Carlton - so we take the CCT RT as the basis for an abuse scoping team?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:06
always welcome advice @Mary
Mark Datysgeld
01:37:39
@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.
Mary Wong
01:38:28
Correct, Pam - and thank you all.
Pam Little, RrSG
01:38:45
Thank you all.
Carlton Samuels
01:39:13
@Marie, Yes, IMHO, the CCT RT Report could be a good baseline. [Disclosure: I served on the CCT RT.]
Marie Pattullo
01:39:43
Thanks Carlton. That would tie in perfectly with John's proposal, I believe.
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:39
was is a consensus GAC decision or just some members?
Tatiana Tropina
01:40:57
Doesn’t look like consensus advice just yet
Tom Dale
01:41:20
As far as I can tell the GAC has not provided any consensus advice on anything since Montreal.
Carlton Samuels
01:42:04
@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.
Mary Wong
01:42:08
Yes, the GAC customarily only provides consensus advice via a Communique.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:34
Not from Me the GAC is clear that tey continue to be concerned on topics their view did not prevail with in our work
Philippe Fouquart
01:42:50
Thanks Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:05
NP
Tom Dale
01:43:13
Thanks Jeff
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:43:27
Sure. Happy to convey the message
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:20
thanks Jeff
David Olive
01:48:19
I like the musical background to the vote!!
Marie Pattullo
01:48:31
Can we join in Tomslin? I know that song :-).
Tom Dale
01:48:37
Soundtrack of our lives…
David Olive
01:48:46
Indeed
Tatiana Tropina
01:48:55
I could hardly vote as I was chuckling looking at the chat :-)
Marie Pattullo
01:49:03
;-)))
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:49:11
Now I have that song in my head
Marie Pattullo
01:49:19
… and eyes and ears and mouth and nose...
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:49:36
Thank you everyone!
Flip Petillion
01:49:48
Thank you all
Pam Little, RrSG
01:50:01
Thank you Jeff, Cheryl, Flip and staff...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:07
Appreciate your support
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
01:50:34
@Cheryl +1
Kurt Pritz
01:56:44
We are discussing two issues then, is that correct: (1) content of the Charter; (2) composition of the Charter-writing WG?
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:15
and we have IDN epdp
Philippe Fouquart
01:58:07
@Kurt taking also into account the issue report
Tatiana Tropina
01:58:10
I thought it was WG membership not charter writing WG
Tatiana Tropina
01:58:25
(That was the answer to Kurt)
Kurt Pritz
01:58:54
@Tatiana - is that it?
Tatiana Tropina
01:59:29
@Kurt I guess we are now at the WG composition: the appropriateness of reps model
Carlton Samuels
02:00:16
@Pam: +1 to the representative model.+1 on upper limit to WG membership
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:25
30 is not going to be fast
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:54
+1 representative model with additional RRs
Maxim Alzoba
02:01:01
and they are experts the same time
Carlton Samuels
02:01:43
Upper limit does not mean fill every seat.
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:26
representative model + homework with the help of the SO/AC internal group
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:04:40
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
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:05:34
[to clarify, not necessarily involved with the charter, but rather with the PDP]
Carlton Samuels
02:06:56
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?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:45
ALAC would of course seire to ensure that Registrant concerns and best interests were also part of such an outcome *of course*
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:09:18
should read desire to ensure
Greg DiBiase
02:10:14
@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.
Maxim Alzoba
02:10:42
there is no emails now, and no details visible , and it is an issue
Greg DiBiase
02:11:16
@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.
Carlton Samuels
02:11:35
I have to drop off now to deal with an urgent domestic matter. Please excuse me. Bye all. Many thanks for the conversations.
Mark Datysgeld
02:11:44
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.
Nathalie Peregrine
02:11:46
Thank you Carlton
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:12:51
@Mark - we have another 30 minutes, right?
Maxim Alzoba
02:12:59
not yet
Carlton Samuels
02:13:12
@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.
Maxim Alzoba
02:14:07
@Carlton, it also has to be feasible from the operational and commercial points of view (in addition to legal point of view)
Mark Datysgeld
02:14:09
@Jeff let me replace with "in case", thbaks :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:24:02
ccTLDs have own ideas … like some have emojies second level
Maxim Alzoba
02:24:28
and ccNSO policies are only for ccNSO members (not all ccTLDs are there)
Maarten Simon - ccMSO Liaison
02:25:39
Important to make sure that we (ccNSO) also appoints a liaison to make sure the groups stay well connected
Maxim Alzoba
02:26:09
+1 @Maarten, Synchronization is important here
Kurt Pritz
02:26:21
Thanks, Dennis
Maxim Alzoba
02:26:30
Thanks, Dennis
Maarten Simon - ccMSO Liaison
02:26:31
Will check with the ccNSO council
Pam Little, RrSG
02:26:41
Thank you, Dennis.
Maxim Alzoba
02:28:59
I have a question on EPDP2q
Maxim Alzoba
02:29:01
ok
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:29:48
@Maxim - are we already at Phase 2q
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to GAC)
02:29:56
;)
Maxim Alzoba
02:30:15
indeed, but it does not answer the question
Kurt Pritz
02:30:16
Berry - will the Council be called on to make any decisions based on Keith’s update?
Stephanie Perrin
02:30:22
I had the same thought….I am not hanging around till 2q
Maxim Alzoba
02:30:30
i meant 2a
Stephanie Perrin
02:30:42
phew
Maxim Alzoba
02:30:50
so far epdp looks like an eternal pdp
Pam Little, RrSG
02:31:45
+1 Maxim
Tatiana Tropina
02:32:15
I think we did discuss it when we launched it, that we don’t want it to be an eternal PDP
Tatiana Tropina
02:32:33
I need to pull out the records from that meeting to check but I remember there were concerns raised about it
Maxim Alzoba
02:32:55
endless circles is not the same as progress
Maxim Alzoba
02:35:41
Thanks, Jeff
Nathalie Peregrine
02:39:55
Correct
Pam Little, RrSG
02:40:25
Mark
Marie Pattullo
02:40:26
Mark :-)
Steve Chan
02:40:43
We can circulate the proposed bilateral meeting topics on the Council list after this meeting
Pam Little, RrSG
02:41:38
@Mark, could you send the proposal to the Council list?
Maxim Alzoba
02:41:39
different outcomes = no consistency
Pam Little, RrSG
02:41:56
Not sure what you meant by “different outcomes of different policy processes"
Mark Datysgeld
02:41:57
@Pam will look into it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:42:13
Bye for now... Thanks everyone!
John McElwaine
02:42:13
When the SSAC advice/statement issues please forward it around
Pam Little, RrSG
02:42:14
Thanks, @Mark
Olga Cavalli
02:42:22
thanks all !!
Maxim Alzoba
02:42:29
thanks all
Juan Manuel Rojas
02:42:31
Thanks all!
Tatiana Tropina
02:42:34
Thanks all
Wisdom Donkor
02:42:34
Thank all
Flip Petillion
02:42:38
thx
Olga Cavalli
02:42:38
take care! bye
John McElwaine
02:42:39
Bye
Marie Pattullo
02:42:42
Bye all!
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:42:42
thanks all
Kristian Ørmen
02:42:47
Thank you. Bye