Logo

051040011 GNSO Council
Terri Agnew
47:29
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Maxim Alzoba
47:33
Hello all, I am here
Nathalie Peregrine
48:29
Welcome Maxim
Nathalie Peregrine
48:50
Welcome Mark and Stephanie
Maxim Alzoba
50:10
I have an update to SOI - until 2021 I replace Craig Schwartz in SSC
Nathalie Peregrine
50:43
Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+17+December+2020
Nathalie Peregrine
51:30
Please all send your chats to Panelists and Attendees
Maxim Alzoba
55:12
as I understand we might have some time in AOB to speak about SubPro timeline and expected items
Steve Chan
56:32
@Maxim, that is captured under AOB, where as you note, hopefully we will have time for you all to discuss
Nathalie Peregrine
56:35
Maxim, the agenda on the wiki has been updated with the AOB items. Also, please set your chat to Panelists and Attendees, thank you! :)
Philippe Fouquart
57:52
:)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:00
L-)
Marie Pattullo
58:13
I'm guessing a mini-Sebastien...
Ariel Liang
01:01:23
Steve is sharing the screen :)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:01:49
General rule is when is doubt always blame Steve ;)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:13
"when in doubt.."
Sebastien Ducos
01:02:49
@Marie Mini-Sebastien is quietly listening to Peter and the Wolf, so not him :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:53
don’t we have cams? :) switching back to Everybody in chat
Steve Chan
01:03:12
I officially decree that I cannot be held liable for any actions or statements made at 4:19am. Also, please remember to change your chat to Panelists and Attendees!
John McElwaine
01:06:59
Slide 5 is very telling
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:28
is it possible to have a URL for the presentation?
Nathalie Peregrine
01:09:04
@maxim we’re posting the slides to the agenda shortly.
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:34
@Nathalie, thanks
Flip Petillion
01:14:57
Audio was temporarily interrupted
Philippe Fouquart
01:15:23
(not on my end Flip)
Flip Petillion
01:15:38
Oops - my side then; sorry
Philippe Fouquart
01:15:56
no problem, it happens and it's good that we know...
Kurt Pritz
01:17:33
Are these slides posted so I can look at some of the previous slides?
Nathalie Peregrine
01:17:58
@kurt @maxim, they are posted on the agenda, item 4: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+17+December+2020
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:26
thanks
Carlton Samuels
01:21:06
Thank you Pam. Well done!!!
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:40
is the Directive active now? what is it’s URL?
Philippe Fouquart
01:21:50
on the list
Berry Cobb
01:22:06
https://www.icann.org/news/blog/european-commission-unveils-important-initiatives-relevant-to-the-dns-and-dns-service-providers
Tatiana Tropina
01:22:10
It’s not — it will take quite some time to pass it and at least 18 months to transpose it
Jeffrey Neuman
01:22:25
@Marie - This is not a comment on the deferral as that is of right. But the Council is not the body to interpret the law, but rather to interpret the work of the PDPs.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:22:59
The issue is not whether there is a legal basis or not, but rather what did the PDP intend
Mary Wong
01:23:24
The new Directive was just published yesterday, and is intended to update the existing NIS directive.
Tatiana Tropina
01:24:08
It took 3 years or so to negotiate the previous NIS :-) and then 1,5 years to transpose it.
Marie Pattullo
01:24:26
I know Jeff - and there are still different interpretations of that - but this new proposal definitely affects our work here.
Carlton Samuels
01:25:09
@Marie Thank you for bringing that EU content into the record. I read it from another place and thought of this EPDP Thick WHOIS kerfuffle too. Was not sure how it would play here but I do see an implication. Thanks to Berry for keeping the eye open for these matters.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:59
@Marie - Are there different interpretations of the work the PDP did? Or different interpretations of the law? If it is the former, then that is for the Council to intervene. If the later, then it is only for a PDP to address.
Berry Cobb
01:26:13
@Carlton - In this regard, I think I was the last to know. I just provided a link to a blog. ;-)
Marie Pattullo
01:26:13
It's certainly relevant to us, Carlton! See https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=72166
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:14
All - I would recommend we not spend the time during this meeting discussing the European developments, but just grant the deferral request and move one.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:15
on
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:24
there is no chance for this to became EU laws by JAN 2021 meeting
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:14
it seems to be an eternal deadlock
Mary Wong
01:28:55
The proposed new Directive will now be subject to further discussion and negotiations. Should the European Parliament eventually adopt a final version, the Member States will have 18 months to transpose it into their national legislation.
Marie Pattullo
01:29:09
Not really Maxim - it's giving the clarity that we keep asking for from the EU.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:25
The relevant question is not what the law is. The question is to interpret the work of the PDP.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:26
I hope we are not supposed to stop all policy development for few years?
Mary Wong
01:29:59
(Note that this is a proposal for a Directive, not a Regulation - which GDPR was - and as such the final text does not “automatically” become law across the Union).
Flip Petillion
01:30:19
We should at least take time to examine this to avoid new policies or implementations go against the ‘build and repeal’ meant in the new draft Directive
Jeffrey Neuman
01:30:20
For the record, I am not opposed to more discussion on the directive in future PDPs. But my comment is what the role of Council is.
Tatiana Tropina
01:30:27
Mary, exactly. It will need to be transposed to the EU MS legislation
John McElwaine
01:30:34
The request for a deferral is based upon (i) EC directive and (ii) the late change in the motion
Marie Pattullo
01:30:35
Not at all Maxim, but surely we should consider it? There is simply no rush to adopt this motion today.
Marie Pattullo
01:30:45
And +1 to John.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:50
it is not a directive
Tatiana Tropina
01:31:02
But. It is an interesting European development indeed and I fully agree with Marie that once.. once it’s a law it will have effect on all of us
Jeffrey Neuman
01:31:02
@John - for the record, what is the "late change"
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:05
it is a proposal or draft
Marie Pattullo
01:31:52
No-one is asking for policy to be stopped.
John McElwaine
01:32:01
on Friday before the Motion deadline the motion we had been working on changed completely. An entirely new draft was presented to the sub-team. I presented revisions on Monday before the deadline. We never had a chance to discuss them in the small team
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:09
muted
Tatiana Tropina
01:32:13
Now this directive has a direct effect on me because I have an ongoing course and I have to integrate in into the program for the lecture on European regulation at the beginning of January :-) so I will spend Xmas holiday with the NIS2 directive.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:27
I think we have to grant the deferral is we usually do that without question
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:55
there is EPDP #27 saying about Think Whois, not just REc 7
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:11
the law makes it optional , not EPDP
Kristian Ørmen
01:35:22
I was mostly talking to the fact the the directive should not really change anything
Kristian Ørmen
01:36:25
If the directive requires data transfer the policy will still allow it
Marie Pattullo
01:37:10
We did get close to agreeing wording on the draft motion - it's not poles apart.
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:23
we did not actually
Marie Pattullo
01:37:54
Then we'll agree to disagree about potential agreement, Maxim ;-).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:37:55
Thanks Pam for the explanation
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:42
@Marie, sending the edits does not mean acceptance
Jeffrey Neuman
01:39:00
Its hard to explain positions when so much is done "in the background" and not on the open list
Marie Pattullo
01:39:44
There's a small team, Jeff.
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:49
there is a huge disagreement about it
Flip Petillion
01:39:52
Preamble 59 of the draft Directive is a clear view of the Commission. It is a valid legal ground for the interpretation and application of the existing Directive. That is regardless of the question whether the draft is adopted and/or transposed or not. That is EU law !:
stephanie perrin
01:40:03
The existing WHOIS policy did not, at the time, reflect the massive legal changes coming in the draft GDPR. Despite the fact that some of us were pointing to it rather vigorously at the time. It has been out of sync with the law since the GDPR passed, and we know that. Stalling now to wait and see if a draft directive, which frankly upon preliminary reading, does not change our carefully nuanced compromise evident in rec 7, strikes me as …..lets just say an abuse of process.
Flip Petillion
01:40:19
59: Maintaining accurate and complete databases of domain names and registration data (so called ‘WHOIS data’) and providing lawful access to such data is essential to ensure the security, stability and resilience of the DNS, which in turn contributes to a high common level of cybersecurity within the Union. …
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:28
@Flip, the darft is not even a law
Tatiana Tropina
01:40:40
Flip, sorry but it’s not only commission in the EU who passes directives. Commission’s view is frequently countered by the parliament and the council. Please check the history of the previous NIS
Marie Pattullo
01:41:12
+1, John. We're close.
stephanie perrin
01:41:13
Furthermore, nothing in that language conflicts with our current policy.
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:16
it is still not a directive
Flip Petillion
01:41:18
Tatiana: please point to other views of the parliamant
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:44
@Marie - I appreciate that there is a small team, but once there is a motion, then all communications should be on the list. Small teams are great to get to the point of a motion. But once there is that motion, then for transparency, the discussions should happen on the lsit
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:47
list
Tatiana Tropina
01:41:49
This proposal is purely the view of the commission. As one of the recent examples, the e-evidence proposal is undergoing massive changes from what was in the proposals and not for the first time although commission was 100% sure they will get it done til the end of the previous commission mandate
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:49
@Flip, please send us the URL for the law, not the preliminary paper
Tatiana Tropina
01:42:11
Flip, there is no view of the Parliament yet it’s a proposal. We have to wait for the views.
Flip Petillion
01:42:32
Tatiana: the previous one of course
Tatiana Tropina
01:42:54
As I said if you look at any negotiations of the directive in the EU, especially when it concerns security it will take many months before the proposal becomes the law
Mary Wong
01:42:56
Link to the proposed Directive: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72166
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:19
proposal is not an active Directive
Mary Wong
01:44:03
There is also an Annex that provides additional details on certain provisions in the proposed main text: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72172
Marie Pattullo
01:44:48
There are several other issues that are holding up the IRT Kurt.
Sebastien Ducos
01:44:59
+1 @Kurt and a point I wanted to make
Carlton Samuels
01:45:04
Its very interesting that the action to address data collection, the accuracy of data collected and what is collected and curated preceded the GDPR but only achieved any official traction with GDPR. Now I think I'm hearing an argument saying data accuracy as a requirement by principle must wait for the [European] law for effect?
Tatiana Tropina
01:45:14
I do not believe that NIS2 proposal gives any ground for deferral. The group for deferral can be only when there are substantive grounds in the process within GNSO and there’s a reason not believe we will fix the deadlock we have, so I don’t even know why we are debating NIS2 and its merits as it’s not a law.
Marie Pattullo
01:45:33
And yes, agree, we should get to agreed wording for the motion.
Tatiana Tropina
01:45:48
(Not a law yet. I am giving it a big chance that in 3 years it will be a law, but I won’t be on the Council)
Sebastien Ducos
01:46:28
As a reminder: non transfer from Registrar to Registries doesn’t mean the data no longer exists… Registrars will continue collecting and safeguarding the data.
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:57
also Escrow Operators keep a copy of that safe
Sebastien Ducos
01:47:00
It is data essential to their business.
Marie Pattullo
01:47:10
The proposal also talks about making it available, Sebastien.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:48:06
The person who seconded the motion wants a deferral. So if we do not defer than we need a new seconder?
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:39
I am officially happy to second the original motion
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:42
if needed
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:03
for the ITEM4
Mary Wong
01:49:09
@Jeff, John can withdraw his second, in which case, yes, you’ll need a new second.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:34
we have my Second now, if required
Nathalie Peregrine
01:49:40
All: please send to Panelists AND Attendees for the chat to be recorded.
Carlton Samuels
01:50:09
I believe this Council is duty-bound to create and maintain a stable DNS environment. That is done by offering policy directives that assures stability and qualified certainty. The Council need to stay away from making policy prescriptions that give room for optional adherence.
Marie Pattullo
01:50:57
It's not "optional" Carlton - if the legal basis exists, it's mandatory. But agree with your main points.
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:12
@Marie, it is just one of the interpretations
Jeffrey Neuman
01:51:35
Is there anyone proposing amendments?
Marie Pattullo
01:51:36
For the record - we still want a deferral.
Osvaldo Novoa
01:52:56
Usually all the requests for deferral are granted, if I remember correctly.
Marie Pattullo
01:53:31
Me too, Osvaldo.
Mary Wong
01:53:41
@Osvaldo, customarily; but it is at the Chair’s discretion.
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:24
so far the work of a small team seems to be a deadlock
Marie Pattullo
01:54:46
Yes - confirmation we're standing ready to work closely with you on this,
Mary Wong
01:55:08
@Osvaldo, customarily; but it is at the Chair’s discretion.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:57:03
I would like to ask that more be shared on the Council list on the work on the motion so that whatever we end up doing is a little but more transparent to those outside of the Council
Jeffrey Neuman
01:59:07
Perhaps a separate session for the Council to discuss so that we don't put off other important items coming up for discussion.
Flip Petillion
02:00:53
It’s not a simple bill - it is draft by an author of a piece of law who wants to improve and repeal part of it …
Marie Pattullo
02:01:30
+1 Philippe - it's about crafting the motion that would be acceptable to all.
Tatiana Tropina
02:01:46
Marie, Philippe, if this can be done — I would be all for deferral :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:15
when ? it is a holiday period with the deadline for the motions on 11th
Marie Pattullo
02:03:19
So what would the IRT be doing in the same period, Maxim? Let us try at least?
Tatiana Tropina
02:03:33
Marie… I must admit it’s a good point
Tatiana Tropina
02:03:49
(Even though I was in general against deferral but your point made me smile) :-)
Marie Pattullo
02:04:07
Smiling is always good, Tanya ;-).
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:46
it is a decision of a Chair after listening to all interested, so be it
Steve Chan
02:08:27
Philippe, hand up
Jeffrey Neuman
02:08:50
January 11th
Steve Chan
02:09:35
About 30 minutes behind schedule I believe
Philippe Fouquart
02:11:03
Thanks Steve
Philippe Fouquart
02:16:59
just to let you know and unless you would disagree, we will be carrying over item 5 ws2 to later stage to focus on AOB, and subpro in particular
Jeffrey Neuman
02:23:54
I am a little concerned that we only have 1 member from the GNSO applying for the IRP Panel. Is an extension still possible?
Mary Wong
02:24:29
@Jeff, it is not for the Standing Panel per se but to represent the GNSO in selecting the Panel via the new Community Representatives Group.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:24:49
Understood @Mary. I was just talking in shorthand :)
Jeffrey Neuman
02:26:32
Perhaps a suggestion is that updates are given during future EOIs for positions on the number of applicants.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:27:17
So, for example, for GNSO Liaison to the GAC, perhaps 2 weeks before the EOI Period closes, the Council is given an update that only 1 person has applied.
Maxim Alzoba
02:27:37
@Jeff it is worse
Jeffrey Neuman
02:27:45
If the community knew that there was only 1 applicant, perhaps those last two weeks, there would be increased recruitment
Flip Petillion
02:27:50
I like that idea Mary
Tatiana Tropina
02:28:52
SAS (standing approval committee)
stephanie perrin
02:29:28
+1 Maxim
Mary Wong
02:30:39
Just to clarify: the Community Representatives Group’s selection will be sent directly to the Board; there is no intermediate step where it goes back to the SOACs for further approval.
Maxim Alzoba
02:31:16
another example - not finished EOI for the Mentor for Fellowship
Maxim Alzoba
02:31:24
with only one person applying
Jeffrey Neuman
02:31:32
@Mary - I would propose that in future EOIs for volunteers, that weekly a summary is sent out to Council (and GNSO Leaders) on how many people have applied that week.
Jeffrey Neuman
02:31:45
Right now it is sort of in a black hole
Jeffrey Neuman
02:32:06
If the Leaders got status updates, perhaps they could increase recruitment efforts
Maxim Alzoba
02:32:22
and this needs to be done on time to extend (if possible)
Mary Wong
02:33:12
@Jeff, thanks for the suggestion; I’ll leave that to my GNSO colleagues to see if that is feasible for the GNSO. In terms of overall calls for volunteers across the community and org, it may be easier in some cases (depending on which org function is managing the call, e.g. if it’s not GNSO or Policy, updates may take more time).
Steve Chan
02:33:28
@Flip, that was me. Just displaying your email.
Flip Petillion
02:35:33
Thx Steve
Olga Cavalli
02:35:45
I cannot hear
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:35:49
poor audio
Flip Petillion
02:35:51
Audio problem
Kristian Ørmen
02:36:05
I’m sorry but I have to go away for 2 min.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:36:52
I'm also here FYI
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:37:57
We would be finished before your abukity to consider the OCR
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:38:03
PCR
Flip Petillion
02:38:08
Correct Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:39:26
@Maxim we have not asked for a second OCR and we have only lodged 1 ever
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:39:48
PCR sorry typos abound in my world it seems
Jeffrey Neuman
02:40:14
We are not asking for an extension for the development of the content for the final report
Jeffrey Neuman
02:40:54
we are giving more time for the consensus call and minority reports because we have been asked by members
Maxim Alzoba
02:41:23
here we are trying to just formally make things look good
Jeffrey Neuman
02:42:28
@Maxim - sorry, I don't understand your point about making things look good
Maxim Alzoba
02:43:10
@Jeff, it should have been reported before the concerns and not after
Jeffrey Neuman
02:43:51
@Maxim - how do you report concerns to the Council before concerns are raised?
Maxim Alzoba
02:43:52
it is planning, so all needed was a timely reporting on the changes, not post deadline excuses
Maxim Alzoba
02:44:10
@Jeff, if you see the decline of timing - it is time
Maxim Alzoba
02:44:16
not when you miss the deadlines
Maxim Alzoba
02:45:23
the issue is lack of the timely reporting
Maxim Alzoba
02:45:36
not the factual extension of a month
Tom Dale
02:45:52
+1 Kurt
Maxim Alzoba
02:46:35
for the clarity - we should have realistic schedule - maybe even 10 days prior to FEB meeting or ICANN meeting
Jeffrey Neuman
02:47:01
@Maxim - we are not asking for a February time frame
Carlton Samuels
02:47:01
@Kurt. I agree. The investment to date is just too much to upend for want of a couple months or so.
Maxim Alzoba
02:47:55
@Jeff, having the report couple of days prior to the meeting (not 10 days) is not helpful, so I am speaking about potential FEB, to avoid another extension
Jeffrey Neuman
02:48:17
@Maxim - the report is "for discussion" in January
Jeffrey Neuman
02:48:20
no action
Jeffrey Neuman
02:48:23
no votes
Jeffrey Neuman
02:48:28
just a discussion
Maxim Alzoba
02:48:38
thanks all
Kristian Ørmen
02:48:48
Thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:48:51
Thank you Jeff and I will continue our work as pkanned
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:49:04
planned *sigh*
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:49:11
thank you all
Tatiana Tropina
02:49:13
Thanks all. Have a lovely holiday time.
Pam Little
02:49:18
Thank you all. Have a safe holiday!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:49:22
Seasons greeting s to all
Jeffrey Neuman
02:49:25
Cheryl and I want nothing more than to be finished :)
Tom Dale
02:49:34
Thank you all. Compliments of the season!
Osvaldo Novoa
02:49:34
Thank you all, Bye!
Flip Petillion
02:49:35
Enjoy the holidays !
Maxim Alzoba
02:49:35
have a good holidays / time , hope we have a F2F in next DEC
Carlton Samuels
02:49:38
Having actively followed the SubPro WG over these years I can affirm the leadership has gone above and beyond to ensure all views are aired, contended and noted. They deserve our support!
Ariel Liang
02:49:41
Happy Holidays!
Marie Pattullo
02:49:41
Happy Everything, all!
Carlton Samuels
02:49:45
Thank you all. Bye all
Jeffrey Neuman
02:49:49
Happy holidays