Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Congrats, Kristian!

Congrats, Kristian!

Thank you

Congratulations, Kristian.

Thank you

Congrats Kristian - yet again 🙂

Google doc for agenda topics’ input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzKcfltI7SWwzXda1NtKxfQ2k-t0oiGr8/edit#heading=h.unjpfxy4jex9

And while providing your input to the planning document shared by Nathalie is great, it’s also quite useful to discuss on list of course.

the letter with URLs to the current files is useful

for the month

speaking of SPS - 9th May is a national holiday here

Thanks @maxim, it may be that we send out a Doodle for a better call date/ time.

Thanks, @Nathalie

https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-subsequent-procedures-odp-introducing-the-work-tracks-18-1-2022-en

Is there any way to expedite the entire process? I hear there is a lot of frustration over the length of the entire procedure. Those planning to apply need predictability.

Absolutely....and I will try to point those out as well

One would think that the entire process is easier now with all the learnings form the new gTLD programme in terms of implementation.

Thank you both for the answers.

Reminder to all to please set your chat to “Everyone” so all can follow the exchanges, thank you!

Does the Council want to ask for such a project plan?

Could we ask for a project plan?

We can ask for anything...whether we will get it or not is another question

I think it would be helpful.

Agree with the idea of a project plan

We can ask for it with the caveat that it does not slow the work on the project itself

+1 Kurt

+1 Kurt

delay of a month to make a project plan 🙂

They probably have one

But I imagine a high level project plan to include planned dates for webinars etc

would not be unreasonable

webinar is not a working process - just a display

Webinars definitely slow project progress

sending a PDF with the explanation would be easier

Webinars offer opportuity for GNSO Council and the rest of the community to ask questions

The format of the most recent SSAD webinar was not too interactive …

I guess it goes back to the issue we discussed in the SPS and that is that once the Council ships recommendations to the Board, we have no control over when and what is happening. Maybe we can use this as an example to get a bit more visibility and predictability.

just a generic zoom without Q/A format

with answering properly formed questions in chat

Does the Board Operational Effectiveness team look into status of recommendations that are shipped to the Board? This is more of a question than a suggestion

Instead of the ODP updates to the Board, they could be given to the Board and Council jointly

+1 Kurt, at least non secret items

Good suggestion, Kurt!

I do expect that there can be a version of the ODP update that they could share with us, but I also expect there to be items that are more confidential that are shared with the Board and not necessarily proper for the community

I was thinking the same, @jeff

Thanks everyone

Absolutely

@Jeff, perhap query the possibility of GDS sharing a "package of information" like a pdf (as suggested by Maxim) prior to a webinar or call?

*perhaps

I Agree with Maxim

We need time to read it thoroughly, and consult

I think the paper captures the options open to us, but not our “thinking” - I.e., our preference for one option or the other

+1 Desiree

Thank you Philippe

Thanks for correcting me.

@marika

Section 16 I believe requires that the ePDP WG be reconstituted

@Jeff, yes - it has to be consulted about the modifications/amendments that the Council is considering/proposing.

@Mary - I just thought it was important to clarify that it is not the Council alone that can amend or modify recommendaitons

zEPDP for zombie EPDP

Note that this does not mean the EPDP is rechartered from scratch.

What happens in the case if it is not feasible or reasonable to reconvene the EPDP team

Clarification - the only way to modify the recommendations is to reform the EPDP team. Is that correct?

@Kurt, it’s a requirement but that does not mean the exact same composition of members is also required; for instance, the participating groups could replace their members (e.g. if someone is no longer active at ICANN). The point, as Jeff mentioned, is that the Council cannot unilaterally decide.

Ok thx - although the Council does not seem “unilateral” to me

Also, as I mentioned, you do not necessarily re-charter the EPDP. You could provide it with very specific guidance, propose modifications for feedback and clarify the scope of work etc.

In that case, the questions presented were MUCH easier

So, say the Board says “not in ICANN’s interest.” Can the Council say “ok” without reforming some sort of PDP team?

@Jeff, one reason for that is the GAC-GNSO facilitated (by the Board) dialogue, which resulted in a common understanding of what had changed and what the issue was to be answered (as Marika is saying).

Apologies, I realize my previous responses to Kurt and Jeff did not go to everyone, just Hosts and Panelists.

Accreditation is one of the more valuable pieces of work…if there is no accreditation, what good is the SSAD?

To summarize - the Council cannot decide to modify without first consulting the EPDP team; however, you do not need to re-charter the EPDP from scratch. In the Red Cross example, what was helpful was that the reconstituted WG started with a clear scope of work, a set of factors and an understanding of changed circumstances that the GAC and GNSO had agreed on based on a dialogue facilitated by the Board.

@Kurt, in relation to the Board determining that PDP recs are not in the best interests of ICANN or the ICANN community - that goes to the Board voting on (i.e. against) the PDP recs, which is the second scenario Marika described (with the Council opting, instead, to consider modifying the PDP recs BEFORE the Board vote, which is the third scenario.)

Redoing any work based on the ODA seems pointless without understanding what the Board is thinkin

thinking

+1 Jeff exactly

@Mary: can the Council accept the Board conclusion that the Recommendations are not in the interest of ICANN and not offering an amendment without re-convening a PDP team?

The Board needs to set the guidelines of what it believes would be in the best interests of the community

@Kurt, I think the Board would not make that conclusion unless it was actually going to vote on the recommendations, in contrast to having the GNSO Council and GNSO community consider whether it will be more appropriate to modify the original PDP recs before the Board goes to vote.

Agreed, Jeff. We need to have full transparency on all concerns the Board before we weigh the options.

@Mary - right. But without some Council action, the next step is for the Board to vote.

What is the issue with having the Board vote and formally put its position on the record?

@Kurt, that probably emphasizes the importance that all concerned (including the Board and the Council) understand the options and have the consultation 🙂

I am not sure that is a bad thing?

NIS3?

before the EPDP fully implemented?

+1 Jeff and Thomas. Premature for us to take any action without knowing for sure what the Board's concerns are (if any).

+1 Paul

Agree with all above - we need more info before we can do anything - IF we do anything.

we can explain what the procedural options are, but discussion of the "merit" of each option cannot proceed until definitive guidance is given by the Board.

If we want to have a substantive conversation with the Board, lets get the full report with ample time to read it.

Some of us are civil society Kurt.

Hi Stephanie. I am not against taking time to understand the report. Some topics might be discussed next week, some discussion might be conditional based on the reading of the report.

it is a question if the additional functionality may be added later without the total overhaul of the system (if it is not designed the way allowing adding the requested features later)

Surely one can plan for add-ons thought they are not built from the start… describe from the beginning which functionalities might need adding at a later stage…

I think we need to see it first

Thought/though

I prefer option one Small team and the EPDP Phase 2 Team members.

we will not save too much time

We have, I hope, recognized by this point that we are missing data that is critical to a good cost benefit analysis?

the group can be started later

The options we see on screen aren't mutually exclusive, right?

Agree with Marie that each SG would be undertaking the analysis - which would be eventually channeled through their GNSO reps…

+1 Kurt

Agreed, Desiree.

+1 Kurt

+1

And yes, +1 Kurt.

+1 Kurt. Analysis make sense. Premature tinkering with Recommendations does not.

SPS Action items: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-gnso-council-action-items-sps-14jan22-en.pdf

Another AI on which progress has been made is the Council Meeting Preparatory Cheat sheet that was circulated earlier this week. Please let us know if you have any comments / suggestions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dCTNHUlfoiP7K2VPLMz2D-P9p4ET1__S/edit

Thanks Seb!

this year?

GNSO Draft schedule ICANN73: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-icann73-gnso-draft-schedule-20jan22-en.pdf

Thanks everyone and talk soon. Bye for now

Thank you

Many thanks!! Bye!

Thanks, Philippe, all!

THx

Thanks. Bye

Thanks, all