Logo

GNSO Council Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Mark Datysgeld
32:34
promotion?
Philippe Fouquart
32:45
test
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
33:03
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.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
33:14
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.
George Kirikos
36:03
<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>
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
36:14
@George, I think it depends on how the board considers the topic, so the question is to them
Wisdom Donkor
36:34
am present. working on my sound
George Kirikos
36:47
Maxim: that's just pushing the 'blame' to them, when we know that a supermajority vote at GNSO Council is needed....
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
37:01
Repeating to everyone:
George Kirikos
37:10
Just like the ICANN Board listened to the comments on the .com and .org contracts....
George Kirikos
37:12
LOL
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
37:15
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.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
37:27
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.
Jeff Neuman
37:52
Hi. Can I get promoted :)
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
38:19
@George, most Councillors here are guided by the constituencies and not voting personally
George Kirikos
38:26
Chris Disspain got to speak to GNSO Council *before* the IGO vote. Why aren't opponents of the final report allowed equal access?
Jeff Neuman
39:19
Traditionally the Chair of Working Groups present the reports to Council
George Kirikos
39:36
Maxim: If that's the case, why pretend that the public had equal access to GNSO Council?
Jeff Neuman
39:37
Chris is the Chair of the PDP Working Group
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:04
Councillors, you have a good attendance of observers in the overflow room FYI
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
40:16
@George, it might be a good idea to read the documents GNSO uses for procedures
Chris Disspain
40:40
Thanks Jeff. I am here merely to answer any questions.
Jeff Neuman
40:57
Thanks CLO. We cant see the overflow room on the screen, but Perhaps that is an improvement we can make for the next meetin
George Kirikos
41:09
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/
George Kirikos
41:45
The impacted parties, registrants, have had no real voice in this process.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
41:46
renting out the nearest sports bar (lots of screens) as a locally-remote area might be a good idea 🙂
George Kirikos
43:07
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
43:33
the highest place would be the high court for the jurisdiction of the registry
George Kirikos
43:41
This working group FAILED to grandfather existing registrants.
George Kirikos
44:14
That was explicitly put into the comments, but the working group ignored it (see my 54 page comments).
George Kirikos
44:57
Those "overarching principles" at implementation are *not* respecting peoples' rights.
George Kirikos
45:20
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."
George Kirikos
45:31
See: https://freespeech.com/2022/05/13/paul-keating-was-right-igos-have-undermined-the-legitimacy-of-the-icann-model/ for the citation.
George Kirikos
45:51
LOL Jeff. It *is* a huge change.
George Kirikos
46:15
When domain names are reverse hijacked, this GNSO Council will be to blame, as they failed to protect registrants.
George Kirikos
46:30
"Highly remote", right. Take a look at why Michele wouldn't sign the waiver.
George Kirikos
46:42
Legal rights are exactly FOR those "remote" situations!
George Kirikos
47:15
This was a highly problematic final report, and they're trying to sweep our criticisms under the rug.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
47:21
Councilors, please remember to state your names before speaking.
Wisdom Donkor
47:43
Thanks
George Kirikos
47:57
How will it be "taken into account", when you've already voted on the report which prejudices judicial rights to review?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
48:00
IGOs in general have support of all countries participating
Jeff Neuman
48:33
@George - my point was the 3 elements of what needs to be established in a UDRP case hasn't changed
Jeff Neuman
49:06
But yes the mutual jurisdiction change is a substantial change that was recommended by the Working Group.
Jeff Neuman
49:30
to registrants seeking review of the UDRP decision
Jeff Neuman
49:43
But the original UDRP Decision and criteria have not changed
Jeff Neuman
50:17
That was my point
George Kirikos
50:35
Jeff: that's a red herring. What matter is what happens when that decision is *disputed*.
George Kirikos
51:01
When a registrant wants judicial review. And *those* rights are severely prejudiced, as you must know.
George Kirikos
51:41
Furthermore, Rec #1 does change the 'criteria", as you'll be allowing IGOs to file who don't have any TM rights.
George Kirikos
52:06
(or even the equivalent of TM rights) I made that point in my extensive comments, which were ignored.
George Kirikos
53:05
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.
George Kirikos
57:05
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.
George Kirikos
57:30
This betrayal of registrants will not be forgotten.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:04:09
This call is being transcribed, speakers are being asked to slow down please.
Eleeza Agopian - ICANN Org
01:04:40
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.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:04:52
As a reminder, we are currently on agenda item 5: Council Discussion on the Impact of SSAD Light on Other Work
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:07:01
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
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:08:15
Kurt, hard to hear you....can you get closer to mic.
Paul Tattersfield
01:09:19
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.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:11:11
COUNCILORS ON SITE: please speak to the microphone for all to be able to hear.
George Kirikos
01:13:03
I want to be in the QUEUE when the public is eventually allowed to speak, via my dialin (number ending in 0269(.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:14:07
@George Kirikos, the final agenda item for this session is an open mic.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:14:23
You may raise your hand at that point
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:14:35
we might make a statistics research - how often the projected timelines met the reality in such planning
George Kirikos
01:14:41
Right, Emily. I'm not in the Hague, so want to be able to speak via my dial-in.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:15:11
so there should be some kind of multiplier for the correct prediction
Susan Payne
01:15:58
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?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:16:04
+1 - GNSO answers
Kurt Pritz
01:16:19
agree with Paul
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:16:20
@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.
George Kirikos
01:17:06
That's all I'm asking for, Emily.
Paul D. McGrady
01:17:25
Sorry I got confused.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:18:56
I think we need an e-mail discussion & shared document for it?
Susan Payne
01:19:31
<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>
George Kirikos
01:19:34
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.
George Kirikos
01:20:16
(and there's no way to raise a hand via the dial-in, since I'm force-muted)
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:20:29
@Susan Payne, your comment will be read aloud during the open mic
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:50
This delay looks a lot like red herring. (Not a comment to be read aloud)
George Kirikos
01:21:18
Note that I requested to be added to the QUEUE *before* Susan made her comment. So, I should precede her statement.
Susan Payne
01:21:23
thanks Emily, thanks don't bother, there is no point doing so then
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:21:24
@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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:21:25
also it would be nice to have it january 2023, not 2024
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:22:16
@Susan Payne, thanks for clarifying
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:23:03
if there is a lack of the policy support staff members, there should be something about hiring and educating more persons
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:23:17
and it is up to a CEO to decide
Susan Payne
01:23:55
+1 Kurt
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:24:17
I personally think we should not be on record as condoning the at least 6 week delay
John McElwaine
01:24:22
If we chose to go forward with the SubPro how long of a delay until Org can get started on the WhoIs Disclosure?
Mark Datysgeld
01:24:42
this delay debate does not seem material to anything. ICANN processes take 6 years and suddenly this is an issue?
Steve DelBianco
01:24:57
+1 Mark
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:25:04
@mark - but don't we have to stop the moving train
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:25:21
Maybe there is a sense that it is changing @Mark :-)
Greg DiBiase (Amazon Registrar)
01:25:26
agree Mark
Greg DiBiase (Amazon Registrar)
01:25:33
agree Mark
Mark Datysgeld
01:25:44
I hope it is changing. but it seems immaterial
Paul D. McGrady
01:25:53
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.
Greg DiBiase (Amazon Registrar)
01:26:14
I think that's right Paul.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:26:26
@Mark, there are obviously issues in planning and staffing, and both are not for GNSO to decide
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:27:36
GNSO is quite predictable - literally years in advance, so it is not fair to say we were planning it wrong
Thomas Rickert
01:27:37
Just as a heads-up: I have one AOB that I would like to bring up.
Eleeza Agopian - ICANN Org
01:27:41
That is correct, Sebastien
Eleeza Agopian - ICANN Org
01:27:52
resending to all: That is correct, Sebastien.
Mark Datysgeld
01:28:24
@Tom at the end of the meeting or at the tail end of this discussion?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:28:24
next step is writing the paper
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:28:52
and then public comments (?)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:28
ICANN personnel cost is apparently running below budget for this year. Does this issue indicate ICANN should be staffing up?
Paul D. McGrady
01:30:10
@Jeff - a sensible question to ask!
Eleeza Agopian - ICANN Org
01:30:55
@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.
Thomas Rickert
01:31:37
@Mark - end of the meeting
Paul D. McGrady
01:31:46
+1 Eleeza. It's early days.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:31:58
@Eleeza, even writing of RFP would take time after that
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:32:25
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.....
Eleeza Agopian - ICANN Org
01:32:26
If there is a decision to move forward with implementation, certainly. We are only offering an estimate for this paper to determine next steps.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:33:36
We are now on agenda item 6: Council Discussion on the SubPro GGP
Mark Datysgeld
01:42:06
Paul's approach is reasonable
Olga Cavalli
01:42:25
+1 to Paul
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:43:48
ex councillors might have the same set of required skills
Paul D. McGrady
01:44:43
Kurt - I also think the simpler the better.
Manju Chen
01:46:36
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.
Paul D. McGrady
01:46:41
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:47:20
maybe this time applicants have support possible to use
Rubens Kuhl
01:47:35
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
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
01:49:08
Yes, the Steering Committee does not have to be Councilors at all
Wisdom Donkor
01:49:31
+1 Tomslin
Manju Chen
01:49:40
+1 Tomslin
Paul D. McGrady
01:51:35
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.
Paul D. McGrady
01:53:50
@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).
George Kirikos
01:54:56
Anything involving new gTLDs -- lots of time allocated for discussion....anything involving prejudicing domain name owners' rights -- limited talk.
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:55:13
@Paul, thanks. I was mostly concerned about the scope for Applicant Support. question answered.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
01:55:43
We are now on agenda item 7: Council Discussion - SubPro ODP Update
George Kirikos
01:57:00
Where was your "brutal honesty" in the IGO debate, Jeff?
George Kirikos
01:57:52
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.
Paul D. McGrady
01:59:11
@Jeff - would be good to have a hot minute after this meeting to make sure we all have a chance to eyeball it.
Paul D. McGrady
01:59:39
And, sorry for the frustration at how slow we are going on this.
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
01:59:39
Or have a short dedicated call on it?
Paul D. McGrady
01:59:55
@Justine - I like it.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:00:08
I am happy to do that if the council wants to
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:01:26
all SCs sent their members to the SubPro and most active members of the community were there
George Kirikos
02:02:50
Where was the 'dedicated call' on the IGO topic, where domain name registrants' rights to judicial review were sold out?
Justine Chew (ALAC/GNSO Liaison)
02:03:05
Deliberations too, I believe @jeff
George Kirikos
02:03:13
Where was the IGO "thorough review of the history"?
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
02:03:50
@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.
George Kirikos
02:04:24
I did, Emily. What do you think violated those in any manner, Emily?
George Kirikos
02:04:41
Do you not allow critical questions here?
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
02:05:22
@George Kirikos, please keep comments on the current agenda item to support the current dialogue.
George Kirikos
02:05:55
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.
George Kirikos
02:06:09
Thats a double-standard that is directly relevant to the current topic.
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
02:06:23
We are now on agenda item 8: Council Discussion on the Closed Generics Small Team
George Kirikos
02:06:45
When there's one standard for the current topic that is at variance with historical precedent, that's worth pointing out. And I did.
George Kirikos
02:08:21
No professional facilitator was used in the IGO topic. Why the double-standard for this item??
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:11:57
@George, it seems to be a new idea, not applicable retrospectively
George Kirikos
02:13:02
Not correct. Professional facilitator was in the rules/procedure for a long time.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:13:37
Justine has been an incredible asset in every group I have worked with ;)
Paul D. McGrady
02:13:38
+1 Mark. ALAC participation is very important.
George Kirikos
02:14:05
Indeed, one of the section 3.7 appeals I made in the past explicitly requested the chairs be replaced with a professional facilitator.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:14:23
@George, I mean practice
Stephanie Perrin
02:14:50
Saturday was travel time for many of us. Fully support Manju's comments on timing of release of documents.
Susan Payne
02:16:16
<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
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:16:41
+1 Susan
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:17:38
after that there will be a need to find someone from food or lumber industry (totally irrelevant set of skills and lack of interest)
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:19:19
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.
George Kirikos
02:20:24
But, domain name registrants weren't involved in the IGO working group, as affected parties. Why again the double standard?
George Kirikos
02:21:38
"most affected" in the IGO work seemed to exclude registrants like me. Again, double standard.
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:21:49
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.”
George Kirikos
02:22:55
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.
Paul D. McGrady
02:23:01
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;
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:23:08
there was an option to participate as an individual for any community member in IGO PDPs, like some did
George Kirikos
02:23:44
(C) didn't apply to the IGO working group. Explain why the current issue should be treated differently?? I was specifically excluded.
George Kirikos
02:24:04
My voice has been excluded repeatedly.
Kathy Kleiman
02:24:15
The precedent was set by the Board when they created a team without anyone with new gTLDs interest.
Paul Tattersfield
02:24:24
Paul McGrady +1 that is why ePDPs should be avoided wherever possible
Kathy Kleiman
02:24:25
The concern is that attorneys are answerable to their clients.
George Kirikos
02:24:29
LOL More speech? If only that was true.....
George Kirikos
02:25:37
It looks like the council managed to "run out the clock", so the "open mic" will be eliminated.
George Kirikos
02:25:51
(i.e. it's already 10 after the top of the hour)
Farell Folly
02:26:20
looks like none of us can read a clock ;)
desiree miloshevic
02:26:27
@Manju you might have misheard Paul. He referred to the Board wanting to initially ban the closed generics way back… not the NCSG
George Kirikos
02:26:48
Among other things, Farell.....
Susan Payne
02:26:58
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
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:26:59
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.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:27:11
@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
Paul D. McGrady
02:27:34
Excluding voices from contracted parties, businesses, consumer protect (trademark), etc. subcommunities is a recipe for disaster.
Kathy Kleiman
02:27:37
@Susan - keep them all out :-)!
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:27:48
We are not instructed, so we can not say now
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:27:54
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.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:27:57
did
Kathy Kleiman
02:28:43
@Jeff, the issue is conflict of interest/financial interest. GAC agrees with concern as just noted.
Kathy Kleiman
02:29:01
Many would like to see this added to report
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:29:11
for GAC it is easy - they ask country members to assign the new fresh persons from their teams
Susan Payne
02:29:22
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
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:29:32
open mic time
George Kirikos
02:29:38
I'm first in the open mic!
Kathy Kleiman
02:29:53
@Susan, if they're not accountable to their stakeholder groups, then they are accountable to their clients. No one has contested this.
George Kirikos
02:30:07
I'm on 0269 in the dialin.
Paul D. McGrady
02:30:21
+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.
Kathy Kleiman
02:31:18
Did Small Group members have a fair time to evaluate the draft?
Kathy Kleiman
02:31:25
It's very hard when people are in transit.
Marie Pattullo
02:31:31
Yes we did, Kathy.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:31:55
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.
Jeff Neuman (Liaison to GAC/SubPro ODP)
02:32:09
Its pretty bad when we take that much longer than the governments.
George Kirikos
02:33:06
0269 in Open Mic....
Stephanie Perrin
02:33:23
Governments are in power. This is supposed to be multistakeholder, with distributed power
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:33:43
Governments can issue and enforce laws
George Kirikos
02:33:55
I would like to speak.
Kathy Kleiman
02:34:35
@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.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:34:37
You are unmuted George
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
02:34:57
We are now on agenda item 10: Open Mic
Emily Barabas - ICANN Org
02:35:17
Agenda item 9 has been moved to the Council Wrap-Up Session
Kathy Kleiman
02:37:19
@Anne, a special conflict of interest sounds very worth exploring.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:37:41
it might be time to call for point of order
Kathy Kleiman
02:38:07
@Anne: how can the Council find out more?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:39:12
point of order
Kathy Kleiman
02:39:34
Special Statement of Interest sounds like a take-away from this meeting. Tx you!
George Kirikos
02:40:04
I wasn't using up anyone else's time.