promotion?

test

Hello, my name is Emily Barabas and I am the remote participation manager for this session. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair of this session, the open mic agenda item at the end.  When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic during the open mic,  please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone. All are welcome to use the chat.  Please use the drop down menu in the chat pod and select "respond to all panelists and attendees" if you would like everyone to see your chat messages.

If you wish to speak during the open mic, raise your hand in Zoom or queue at the aisle microphone as directed. You may access all available features for this session in the Zoom Toolbar.  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and are governed by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.  http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.

<QUESTION>What is GNSO Council afraid of, to not let people speak on the IGO topic *before* the vote takes place? Is is reasonable to only allow the public to speak after the vote has already taken place, when such input can have zero impact?</QUESTION>

@George, I think it depends on how the board considers the topic, so the question is to them

am present. working on my sound

Maxim: that's just pushing the 'blame' to them, when we know that a supermajority vote at GNSO Council is needed....

Repeating to everyone:

Just like the ICANN Board listened to the comments on the .com and .org contracts....

LOL

Hello, my name is Emily Barabas and I am the remote participation manager for this session. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair of this session, the open mic agenda item at the end.  When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic during the open mic,  please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone. All are welcome to use the chat.  Please use the drop down menu in the chat pod and select "respond to all panelists and attendees" if you would like everyone to see your chat messages.

If you wish to speak during the open mic, raise your hand in Zoom or queue at the aisle microphone as directed. You may access all available features for this session in the Zoom Toolbar.  Please note that chat sessions are being archived and are governed by the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior.  http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.

Hi. Can I get promoted :)

@George, most Councillors here are guided by the constituencies and not voting personally

Chris Disspain got to speak to GNSO Council *before* the IGO vote. Why aren't opponents of the final report allowed equal access?

Traditionally the Chair of Working Groups present the reports to Council

Maxim: If that's the case, why pretend that the public had equal access to GNSO Council?

Chris is the Chair of the PDP Working Group

Councillors, you have a good attendance of observers in the overflow room FYI

@George, it might be a good idea to read the documents GNSO uses for procedures

Thanks Jeff. I am here merely to answer any questions.

Thanks CLO. We cant see the overflow room on the screen, but Perhaps that is an improvement we can make for the next meetin

Exactly, Jeff. And if you back to the prior IGO working group, Elsa described the shenanigans at GNSO Council as "back channel sabotage". https://freespeech.com/2022/05/17/icann-registrars-constituency-attempts-to-rewrite-history-of-the-new-igo-working-group/

The impacted parties, registrants, have had no real voice in this process.

renting out the nearest sports bar (lots of screens) as a locally-remote area might be a good idea 🙂

Of course acronyms will be affected. This working group EXPANDED the ability of IGOs to claim *any* term, as I pointed out in my own comments.

the highest place would be the high court for the jurisdiction of the registry

This working group FAILED to grandfather existing registrants.

That was explicitly put into the comments, but the working group ignored it (see my 54 page comments).

Those "overarching principles" at implementation are *not* respecting peoples' rights.

Paul McGrady even said :"Thanks, Chris. It was just the nerdy thing that I put into the chat that a waiver of the right to go to court, those rights that are being given up could really never fully be captured in an arbitration mechanism because the rights in Poland are different than the rights in South Africa, which are different than the rights in the U.S. or whatever. So what we would be doing is creating some sort of amalgam of protections for registrants in the arbitration process that we, I guess, think best blend all the various rights around the world. Then we would be offering that to registrants in lieu of their local protections. And as I said before, I think in the chat, the optics of that, they’re hard to get your arms around that. We don’t want ICANN be accused of overreach, for what it’s worth. Thanks."

See: https://freespeech.com/2022/05/13/paul-keating-was-right-igos-have-undermined-the-legitimacy-of-the-icann-model/ for the citation.

LOL Jeff. It *is* a huge change.

When domain names are reverse hijacked, this GNSO Council will be to blame, as they failed to protect registrants.

"Highly remote", right. Take a look at why Michele wouldn't sign the waiver.

Legal rights are exactly FOR those "remote" situations!

This was a highly problematic final report, and they're trying to sweep our criticisms under the rug.

Councilors, please remember to state your names before speaking.

Thanks

How will it be "taken into account", when you've already voted on the report which prejudices judicial rights to review?

IGOs in general have support of all countries participating

@George - my point was the 3 elements of what needs to be established in a UDRP case hasn't changed

But yes the mutual jurisdiction change is a substantial change that was recommended by the Working Group.

to registrants seeking review of the UDRP decision

But the original UDRP Decision and criteria have not changed

That was my point

Jeff: that's a red herring. What matter is what happens when that decision is *disputed*.

When a registrant wants judicial review. And *those* rights are severely prejudiced, as you must know.

Furthermore, Rec #1 does change the 'criteria", as you'll be allowing IGOs to file who don't have any TM rights.

(or even the equivalent of TM rights) I made that point in my extensive comments, which were ignored.

When the motion claims that the public comments were "reviewed", there should be a "wink-wink" next to that text. It wasn't a proper review that analyzed and rebutted those comments.

I hope you are all proud of yourselves, for selling out the interests of domain name registrants, directly harming their rights to judicial review, rather than preserving them.

This betrayal of registrants will not be forgotten.

This call is being transcribed, speakers are being asked to slow down please.

Sebastien and all: Thank you for this discussion. To be clear, the work on this paper WILL result in at least a 6-week delay to the SubPro ODP, but work on the ODP will continue and not be paused. I am happy to answer questions.

As a reminder, we are currently on agenda item 5: Council Discussion on the Impact of SSAD Light on Other Work

Paul - Apologies if I was misunderstood, I wan not implying any delay in our decision. Just that I would follow up to get more information

Kurt, hard to hear you....can you get closer to mic.

It seems to me if ICANN could resolve that at least one of the Admin or Owner sets of fields in the WHOIS must contain publicly available contact information of a legally responsible person this would allow the differing privacy and accountability requirements of all jurisdictions to be reflected and also remove ICANN from many of the current GDPR issues. For example, states and regions could demand that registrars under their jurisdiction have all sets of WHOIS fields have publicly available contact information like the .us ccTLD. The only cost impact would be that registrars obligated by privacy legislation such as GDPR would have to offer this service for free if their registrants wished to have private Owner WHOIS data. Given RAA (2013) already requires public WHOIS abuse telephone and email address contacts this shouldn’t be a too onerous additional obligation. There should be no other additional operating costs to provide instant free access for all WHOIS users.

COUNCILORS ON SITE: please speak to the microphone for all to be able to hear.

I want to be in the QUEUE when the public is eventually allowed to speak, via my dialin (number ending in 0269(.

@George Kirikos, the final agenda item for this session is an open mic.

You may raise your hand at that point

we might make a statistics research - how often the projected timelines met the reality in such planning

Right, Emily. I'm not in the Hague, so want to be able to speak via my dial-in.

so there should be some kind of multiplier for the correct prediction

Why do the relevant tech staff not work on the aspects of SubPro they need to address and when they have done so (which presumably could be before October for those individuals) they can work on the SSAD?

+1 - GNSO answers

agree with Paul

@George Kirikos, you will be able to speak through your remote connection. Your line will be activated when it is your turn in the queue.

That's all I'm asking for, Emily.

Sorry I got confused.

I think we need an e-mail discussion & shared document for it?

<COMMENT> why do the relevant tech staff not do what they need to do on SubPro ODP and then when they are done (presumably earlier than October) they move over to SSAD Light? <COMMENT>

BTW, Emily....there's no way to raise one's hand via this limited zoom interface, so that's why I was noting it in chat.

(and there's no way to raise a hand via the dial-in, since I'm force-muted)

@Susan Payne, your comment will be read aloud during the open mic

This delay looks a lot like red herring. (Not a comment to be read aloud)

Note that I requested to be added to the QUEUE *before* Susan made her comment. So, I should precede her statement.

thanks Emily, thanks don't bother, there is no point doing so then

@George Kirikos, you will have a capability to raise your hand in Zoom during the final agenda item. If you are dialed in by phone only, I will raise my hand on your behalf once that agenda items begin.

also it would be nice to have it january 2023, not 2024

@Susan Payne, thanks for clarifying

if there is a lack of the policy support staff members, there should be something about hiring and educating more persons

and it is up to a CEO to decide

+1 Kurt

I personally think we should not be on record as condoning the at least 6 week delay

If we chose to go forward with the SubPro how long of a delay until Org can get started on the WhoIs Disclosure?

this delay debate does not seem material to anything. ICANN processes take 6 years and suddenly this is an issue?

+1 Mark

@mark - but don't we have to stop the moving train

Maybe there is a sense that it is changing @Mark :-)

agree Mark

agree Mark

I hope it is changing. but it seems immaterial

No one has spoken against staff moving forward with the WHOIS Disclosure System design. Jeff has estimated new timelines, but that isn't a statement against. Even if there is a slight delay in a multi-year process it seems a good investment. Agree we can ask nicely for them to do everything as quickly as they can.

I think that's right Paul.

@Mark, there are obviously issues in planning and staffing, and both are not for GNSO to decide

GNSO is quite predictable - literally years in advance, so it is not fair to say we were planning it wrong

Just as a heads-up: I have one AOB that I would like to bring up.

That is correct, Sebastien

resending to all: That is correct, Sebastien.

@Tom at the end of the meeting or at the tail end of this discussion?

next step is writing the paper

and then public comments (?)

ICANN personnel cost is apparently running below budget for this year. Does this issue indicate ICANN should be staffing up?

@Jeff - a sensible question to ask!

@Maxim, to be clear, it's 6 weeks to produce a design paper that would be delivered to the small team and Board to continue their discussion on the SSAD recommendations.

@Mark - end of the meeting

+1 Eleeza. It's early days.

@Eleeza, even writing of RFP would take time after that

The GNSO Council delivered its final Report to the Board in March 2021.....the Board will not vote on the policy no earlier than 2 years after the report was delivered to the Board.....

If there is a decision to move forward with implementation, certainly. We are only offering an estimate for this paper to determine next steps.

We are now on agenda item 6: Council Discussion on the SubPro GGP

Paul's approach is reasonable

+1 to Paul

ex councillors might have the same set of required skills

Kurt - I also think the simpler the better.

I think SubPro made a point that they need experts for the applicant support IRT. Councilors are not the best fit for this, not to mention the workload we're already shouldering now.

The applicants needing support will need as much time as possible to learn about and get ready to apply in the next round. So, I think whatever team composition/plan gets us across the finish line quickly with a quality product seems really attractive.

maybe this time applicants have support possible to use

It's quite possible two efforts could be started, one specific for Applicant Support, the other for the other requests from the ODP Design team

Yes, the Steering Committee does not have to be Councilors at all

+1 Tomslin

+1 Tomslin

Good discussion! The more we look at the GGP the more it looks like it is going to be a really valuable tool to keep things moving.

@Justine, we will need to hammer out these details in the motion drafting. I understand Jeff's point about addition additional Topic Teams as the need arises, but also Kurt's concern that we don't end up accidently launching a Shadow Council (my term for it).

Anything involving new gTLDs -- lots of time allocated for discussion....anything involving prejudicing domain name owners' rights -- limited talk.

@Paul, thanks. I was mostly concerned about the scope for Applicant Support. question answered.

We are now on agenda item 7: Council Discussion - SubPro ODP Update

Where was your "brutal honesty" in the IGO debate, Jeff?

Instead, the IGO report is, in the words of Jay Chapman, "intellectually dishonest", rather than "brutally honest", see: https://freespeech.com/2022/05/13/paul-keating-was-right-igos-have-undermined-the-legitimacy-of-the-icann-model/ for citation.

@Jeff - would be good to have a hot minute after this meeting to make sure we all have a chance to eyeball it.

And, sorry for the frustration at how slow we are going on this.

Or have a short dedicated call on it?

@Justine - I like it.

I am happy to do that if the council wants to

all SCs sent their members to the SubPro and most active members of the community were there

Where was the 'dedicated call' on the IGO topic, where domain name registrants' rights to judicial review were sold out?

Deliberations too, I believe @jeff

Where was the IGO "thorough review of the history"?

@George Kirikos, Please take note of ICANN's Expected Standards of Behavior: https://meetings.icann.org/en/expected-standards-behavior when posting in this chat room.

I did, Emily. What do you think violated those in any manner, Emily?

Do you not allow critical questions here?

@George Kirikos, please keep comments on the current agenda item to support the current dialogue.

I did, Emily. I contrasted their desire for a dedicated session on the current topic, to their lack of that dedicated session on the IGO topic.

Thats a double-standard that is directly relevant to the current topic.

We are now on agenda item 8: Council Discussion on the Closed Generics Small Team

When there's one standard for the current topic that is at variance with historical precedent, that's worth pointing out. And I did.

No professional facilitator was used in the IGO topic. Why the double-standard for this item??

@George, it seems to be a new idea, not applicable retrospectively

Not correct. Professional facilitator was in the rules/procedure for a long time.

Justine has been an incredible asset in every group I have worked with ;)

+1 Mark. ALAC participation is very important.

Indeed, one of the section 3.7 appeals I made in the past explicitly requested the chairs be replaced with a professional facilitator.

@George, I mean practice

Saturday was travel time for many of us. Fully support Manju's comments on timing of release of documents.

<comment> if you are going to exclude potential applicants and those who might represent them then you must also exclude those who have represented/opposed past closed generic applications and those who may in future represent parties in opposition

+1 Susan

after that there will be a need to find someone from food or lumber industry (totally irrelevant set of skills and lack of interest)

Correct @Susan. There are a number of members of the community that financially benefitted by representing those that opposed closed generics and filed actual objections. They may also have a future financial benefit in representing future objectors. So they would also need to commit to not representing future objectors.

But, domain name registrants weren't involved in the IGO working group, as affected parties. Why again the double standard?

"most affected" in the IGO work seemed to exclude registrants like me. Again, double standard.

To Philippe's point, the small team reports states: “Participants should contribute as independent individuals, bringing their individual experiences and expertise, and not serve as representatives of their respective community organization(s). The participants must commit to focusing on successfully developing a framework for closed generics, even if the end productis inconsistent with the goals or priorities of the participant or the participant’s SO/AC/SG/C.”

When you make up the rules as you go along, to be biased in favour of ICANN insiders who have a financial interest, that undermines your credibility.

Here is what the Bylaws say: (iv) Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes that are led by the private sector (including business stakeholders, civil society, the technical community, academia, and end users), while duly taking into account the public policy advice of governments and public authorities. These processes shall (A) seek input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN in all events shall act, (B) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (C) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;

there was an option to participate as an individual for any community member in IGO PDPs, like some did

(C) didn't apply to the IGO working group. Explain why the current issue should be treated differently?? I was specifically excluded.

My voice has been excluded repeatedly.

The precedent was set by the Board when they created a team without anyone with new gTLDs interest.

Paul McGrady +1 that is why ePDPs should be avoided wherever possible

The concern is that attorneys are answerable to their clients.

LOL More speech? If only that was true.....

It looks like the council managed to "run out the clock", so the "open mic" will be eliminated.

(i.e. it's already 10 after the top of the hour)

looks like none of us can read a clock ;)

@Manju you might have misheard Paul. He referred to the Board wanting to initially ban the closed generics way back… not the NCSG

Among other things, Farell.....

Absolutely Kathy on BOTH sides of the argument. Many attorneys represented opponents to CG applicants and have a financial interest in this debate in that capacity

Could the use of a special Statement of Interest be used in this case? With respect to the Name Collision Analysis Project, we had to fill out a special more detailed SOI to disclose interests.

@Kathy - But those Board members (some of them) went on to work for gTLDs. So your example actually shows that Board members that had a current conflict of interest couldn't serve on the New gTLD Program Committee. But then nothing banned them from later joining new gTLDs

Excluding voices from contracted parties, businesses, consumer protect (trademark), etc. subcommunities is a recipe for disaster.

@Susan - keep them all out :-)!

We are not instructed, so we can not say now

So, setting a rule now that prevents anyone on that committee from in the future from applying for a TLD is precisely NOT what the Board didn.

did

@Jeff, the issue is conflict of interest/financial interest. GAC agrees with concern as just noted.

Many would like to see this added to report

for GAC it is easy - they ask country members to assign the new fresh persons from their teams

Kathy, I'm simply pointing out that you cannot pick one group to exclude unless you are going to be even handed. Manju's proposal was not even handed

open mic time

I'm first in the open mic!

@Susan, if they're not accountable to their stakeholder groups, then they are accountable to their clients. No one has contested this.

I'm on 0269 in the dialin.

+1 Jeff - it will drive much of the expertise out of the process and enhance the voices of those who are the least affected at the cost of those who are the most affected.

Did Small Group members have a fair time to evaluate the draft?

It's very hard when people are in transit.

Yes we did, Kathy.

We have to come up with ways to be more nimble. The GAC actually provided its response to the Board within DAYS of getting the letter. We have taken 4 weeks so far.

Its pretty bad when we take that much longer than the governments.

0269 in Open Mic....

Governments are in power. This is supposed to be multistakeholder, with distributed power

Governments can issue and enforce laws

I would like to speak.

@Jeff: the Small Group seems to have engaged in very important discussion. It would be good for the robustness of that conversation to be captured in the report.

You are unmuted George

We are now on agenda item 10: Open Mic

Agenda item 9 has been moved to the Council Wrap-Up Session

@Anne, a special conflict of interest sounds very worth exploring.

it might be time to call for point of order

@Anne: how can the Council find out more?

point of order

Special Statement of Interest sounds like a take-away from this meeting. Tx you!

I wasn't using up anyone else's time.