Logo

Pre-ICANN69 GNSO Council Working Session
Nathalie Peregrine
29:12
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
36:19
Hi all, just a reminder to select "All Panelists and Attendees" for chat.
Maxim Alzoba
44:29
the pace in RPMs pdp improved a lot
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
44:31
nothing to add, thx Keith, but happy to answer questions
Marie Pattullo
44:37
Quick check: how will the new IGO track fit in with the timing? It's not dependent on either phase I know.
John McElwaine
45:18
I don’t have anything to add.
Marie Pattullo
46:42
Thanks, Keith.
Nathalie Peregrine
01:02:30
Email from Keith to the Council mailing list on the Draft Operational Design Phase: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2020-October/024119.html
Mary Wong
01:05:25
One question that the GNSO Council and community can provide valuable input on is how this design phase can work with (or possibly be integrated in some way with) the current GNSO desire for data-driven policy making. While there is an expectation that PDP Working Groups will perform impact analysis and can obtain external guidance, to date this does not appear to have been done consistently. In this regard, the proposed phase can perhaps be helpful.
Ariel Liang
01:05:51
Check out the ICANN69 edition of GNSO Policy Briefing for more information about IRTs’ and PDPs’ current status. The briefing has been redesigned to be more concise and engaging: https://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing
Nathalie Peregrine
01:08:39
Reminder: questions and comments will be taken when asked by councillors only.
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:50
this design is for assessment, not for damage prevention (seems to be)
Philippe Fouquart
01:20:35
Thanks Theresa.
Lars Hoffmann
01:23:20
Thank you Rafik - that is helpful input.
Theresa Swinehart
01:23:44
Thank you all for the good discussion -
Lars Hoffmann
01:24:03
The timing section actually talks already about the possibility to start some of this work earlier during the later stages of the PDP to provide information to the PDP when formulating their recommendations where appropriate
Karen Lentz
01:24:12
Thank you all
Lars Hoffmann
01:24:39
Thank you everyone.
Marie Pattullo
01:31:47
Tom made a suggestion re the ccNSO meeting on the list
Philippe Fouquart
01:32:33
What's meant by "private use TLD" here?
Philippe Fouquart
01:32:56
"user assigned" or RFC2606 TLDs?
Mary Wong
01:33:25
@Philippe, the term refers to the most recent SSAC advisory that was just published: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-113-en.pdf
Philippe Fouquart
01:33:42
Thanks Mary.
Philippe Fouquart
01:35:06
(thanks, si it's essentialy enterprise TLDs then - my reading)
Marie Pattullo
01:37:28
Scoping team?
Mary Wong
01:37:42
@Philippe, assuming I’m understanding your terminology as you intended, yes, I believe those TLDs would be included if they are used as privately resolvable name spaces and not intended for delegation into the public root zone.
Philippe Fouquart
01:38:57
@Mary thanks, yes, "skimming through" their report (which I should have read...) it's my understanding.
Mary Wong
01:39:25
The SSAC advisory on DNS abuse has not yet been published (to our knowledge), but GNSO community members and the Council may be interested to know that it has been brought up in the planning group for the upcoming DNS abuse plenary session at ICANN69 (in which SSAC is participating).
Berry Cobb
01:40:07
We might consider the same (to my intervention) for the Board topic on Enhancing MSM. We could use visibility about the work impact and what those next steps will do to our program mgmt. pipeline planning.
Pam Little
01:40:21
+ 1 Michele - Furthermore, PDP may not be the most appropriate path
Steve Chan
01:40:30
@Philippe, Mary, just to add, I believe the SSAC paper talks about only a single string being set aside for private use.
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:19
example, files on websites stay there despite of actions of registries or registrars and still accessible via IP, but it does not mean SSAC goes to IANA
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:41:53
And I’ve no idea why / how IANA could do anything :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:56
or PTI
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:27
it is the same as we can not do things to the actual content
Mary Wong
01:45:29
@Pam, there is no set timeline for feedback as it is a new proposal and that’s why we wanted to get the paper out to the community well ahead of ICANN69.
Philippe Fouquart
01:46:37
@steve - thanks. a sort of RFC2606 reserved TLD, for these use cases. (I forget what the label was discussed at the IETF, but a sort of .local, .private or something)
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:06
I assume they’re trying to avoid conflicts by making some of them formally reserved?
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:15
I think I read the SSAC paper
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:23
But they didn’t have an actual list of strings
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:31
Because they couldn’t decide on which strings
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:37
To put on a list
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:38
does it mean SSAC can now deal TLDs?
Michele Neylon (Blacknight)
01:49:42
no
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:13
thanks all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:25
Bye for now then... … … Thanks everyone!
Julf Helsingius
01:50:34
Thank you all - stay safe!
Tatiana Tropina
01:50:37
Thanks all. See you at ICANN
Pam Little
01:50:43
Thank you all.
Theresa Swinehart
01:50:50
Thank you all, have a good ICANN 69 mtg!