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

Hello all, I am here

Welcome Maxim

Welcome Mark and Stephanie

I have an update to SOI - until 2021 I replace Craig Schwartz in SSC

Council agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+17+December+2020

Please all send your chats to Panelists and Attendees

as I understand we might have some time in AOB to speak about SubPro timeline and expected items

@Maxim, that is captured under AOB, where as you note, hopefully we will have time for you all to discuss

Maxim, the agenda on the wiki has been updated with the AOB items. Also, please set your chat to Panelists and Attendees, thank you! :)

:)

L-)

I'm guessing a mini-Sebastien...

Steve is sharing the screen :)

General rule is when is doubt always blame Steve ;)

"when in doubt.."

@Marie Mini-Sebastien is quietly listening to Peter and the Wolf, so not him :)

don’t we have cams? :) switching back to Everybody in chat

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!

Slide 5 is very telling

is it possible to have a URL for the presentation?

@maxim we’re posting the slides to the agenda shortly.

@Nathalie, thanks

Audio was temporarily interrupted

(not on my end Flip)

Oops - my side then; sorry

no problem, it happens and it's good that we know...

Are these slides posted so I can look at some of the previous slides?

@kurt @maxim, they are posted on the agenda, item 4: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+GNSO+Council+Agenda+17+December+2020

thanks

Thank you Pam. Well done!!!

is the Directive active now? what is it’s URL?

on the list

https://www.icann.org/news/blog/european-commission-unveils-important-initiatives-relevant-to-the-dns-and-dns-service-providers

It’s not — it will take quite some time to pass it and at least 18 months to transpose it

@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.

The issue is not whether there is a legal basis or not, but rather what did the PDP intend

The new Directive was just published yesterday, and is intended to update the existing NIS directive.

It took 3 years or so to negotiate the previous NIS :-) and then 1,5 years to transpose it.

I know Jeff - and there are still different interpretations of that - but this new proposal definitely affects our work here.

@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.

@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.

@Carlton - In this regard, I think I was the last to know. I just provided a link to a blog. ;-)

It's certainly relevant to us, Carlton! See https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?action=display&doc_id=72166

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.

on

there is no chance for this to became EU laws by JAN 2021 meeting

it seems to be an eternal deadlock

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.

Not really Maxim - it's giving the clarity that we keep asking for from the EU.

The relevant question is not what the law is. The question is to interpret the work of the PDP.

I hope we are not supposed to stop all policy development for few years?

(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).

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

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.

Mary, exactly. It will need to be transposed to the EU MS legislation

The request for a deferral is based upon (i) EC directive and (ii) the late change in the motion

Not at all Maxim, but surely we should consider it? There is simply no rush to adopt this motion today.

And +1 to John.

it is not a directive

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

@John - for the record, what is the "late change"

it is a proposal or draft

No-one is asking for policy to be stopped.

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

muted

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.

I think we have to grant the deferral is we usually do that without question

there is EPDP #27 saying about Think Whois, not just REc 7

the law makes it optional , not EPDP

I was mostly talking to the fact the the directive should not really change anything

If the directive requires data transfer the policy will still allow it

We did get close to agreeing wording on the draft motion - it's not poles apart.

we did not actually

Then we'll agree to disagree about potential agreement, Maxim ;-).

Thanks Pam for the explanation

@Marie, sending the edits does not mean acceptance

Its hard to explain positions when so much is done "in the background" and not on the open list

There's a small team, Jeff.

there is a huge disagreement about it

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 !:

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.

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. …

@Flip, the darft is not even a law

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

+1, John. We're close.

Furthermore, nothing in that language conflicts with our current policy.

it is still not a directive

Tatiana: please point to other views of the parliamant

@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

list

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

@Flip, please send us the URL for the law, not the preliminary paper

Flip, there is no view of the Parliament yet it’s a proposal. We have to wait for the views.

Tatiana: the previous one of course

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

Link to the proposed Directive: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/document.cfm?doc_id=72166

proposal is not an active Directive

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

There are several other issues that are holding up the IRT Kurt.

+1 @Kurt and a point I wanted to make

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?

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.

And yes, agree, we should get to agreed wording for the motion.

(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)

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.

also Escrow Operators keep a copy of that safe

It is data essential to their business.

The proposal also talks about making it available, Sebastien.

The person who seconded the motion wants a deferral. So if we do not defer than we need a new seconder?

I am officially happy to second the original motion

if needed

for the ITEM4

@Jeff, John can withdraw his second, in which case, yes, you’ll need a new second.

we have my Second now, if required

All: please send to Panelists AND Attendees for the chat to be recorded.

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.

It's not "optional" Carlton - if the legal basis exists, it's mandatory. But agree with your main points.

@Marie, it is just one of the interpretations

Is there anyone proposing amendments?

For the record - we still want a deferral.

Usually all the requests for deferral are granted, if I remember correctly.

Me too, Osvaldo.

@Osvaldo, customarily; but it is at the Chair’s discretion.

so far the work of a small team seems to be a deadlock

Yes - confirmation we're standing ready to work closely with you on this,

@Osvaldo, customarily; but it is at the Chair’s discretion.

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

Perhaps a separate session for the Council to discuss so that we don't put off other important items coming up for discussion.

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 …

+1 Philippe - it's about crafting the motion that would be acceptable to all.

Marie, Philippe, if this can be done — I would be all for deferral :)

when ? it is a holiday period with the deadline for the motions on 11th

So what would the IRT be doing in the same period, Maxim? Let us try at least?

Marie… I must admit it’s a good point

(Even though I was in general against deferral but your point made me smile) :-)

Smiling is always good, Tanya ;-).

it is a decision of a Chair after listening to all interested, so be it

Philippe, hand up

January 11th

About 30 minutes behind schedule I believe

Thanks Steve

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

I am a little concerned that we only have 1 member from the GNSO applying for the IRP Panel. Is an extension still possible?

@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.

Understood @Mary. I was just talking in shorthand :)

Perhaps a suggestion is that updates are given during future EOIs for positions on the number of applicants.

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.

@Jeff it is worse

If the community knew that there was only 1 applicant, perhaps those last two weeks, there would be increased recruitment

I like that idea Mary

SAS (standing approval committee)

+1 Maxim

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.

another example - not finished EOI for the Mentor for Fellowship

with only one person applying

@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.

Right now it is sort of in a black hole

If the Leaders got status updates, perhaps they could increase recruitment efforts

and this needs to be done on time to extend (if possible)

@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).

@Flip, that was me. Just displaying your email.

Thx Steve

I cannot hear

poor audio

Audio problem

I’m sorry but I have to go away for 2 min.

I'm also here FYI

We would be finished before your abukity to consider the OCR

PCR

Correct Cheryl

@Maxim we have not asked for a second OCR and we have only lodged 1 ever

PCR sorry typos abound in my world it seems

We are not asking for an extension for the development of the content for the final report

we are giving more time for the consensus call and minority reports because we have been asked by members

here we are trying to just formally make things look good

@Maxim - sorry, I don't understand your point about making things look good

@Jeff, it should have been reported before the concerns and not after

@Maxim - how do you report concerns to the Council before concerns are raised?

it is planning, so all needed was a timely reporting on the changes, not post deadline excuses

@Jeff, if you see the decline of timing - it is time

not when you miss the deadlines

the issue is lack of the timely reporting

not the factual extension of a month

+1 Kurt

for the clarity - we should have realistic schedule - maybe even 10 days prior to FEB meeting or ICANN meeting

@Maxim - we are not asking for a February time frame

@Kurt. I agree. The investment to date is just too much to upend for want of a couple months or so.

@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

@Maxim - the report is "for discussion" in January

no action

no votes

just a discussion

thanks all

Thank you

Thank you Jeff and I will continue our work as pkanned

planned *sigh*

thank you all

Thanks all. Have a lovely holiday time.

Thank you all. Have a safe holiday!

Seasons greeting s to all

Cheryl and I want nothing more than to be finished :)

Thank you all. Compliments of the season!

Thank you all, Bye!

Enjoy the holidays !

have a good holidays / time , hope we have a F2F in next DEC

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!

Happy Holidays!

Happy Everything, all!

Thank you all. Bye all

Happy holidays