Hello, my name is Julie Hedlund and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Those who are not Councilors are welcome to join this session as silent observers. In addition, there will be an “open microphone” at the end of the session and you are all welcome to contribute during this part of meeting. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair.When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on during the “open mic,” please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone during the “open mic.”Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.

I always wondered why we do not have interpretation services like the ACs

it could be one motion to save the text 🙂

Thank you everyone

Congrats, Jeff

Congrats, Jeff

Glutton for punishment, Jeff ;-).

Congrats Jeff!

lol. What can I say, After 25 years, I still like this stuff

Yessir, congrats Jeff!

it’s a drug Jeff…A drug I tell you!!

Is ICANN already 25 years old? :D

Jeff was involved in utero

No, but I was involved in the IFWP, CORE, etc

Congrats Jeff - I see a big advantage to having you serve in both roles in terms of coordination!

Now more acronyms to learn :-( after all these (not 25) years

Sorry, "Internet Forum for the White Paper", and the original Council of Registrars MoU

Congrats Jeff and thanks to all the candidates that stepped forward for the Liaison role

Congratulations Jeff. I look forward to be following the process.

Congratulations, Jeff! Heartening to know that all of that knowledge of the small details of history and context from the PDP will be available through you to the Board and Org!

this time it is about making a material change via the policy to almost all contracts of ICANN

Very well said Kurt

+1

What is the scope of a PDP good for if it can be ignored despite objections by some of the participants.

If all participants agree to go beyond the scope, that would be fine, but if not...

extinction of registrars and registries due to heavy GDPR fines will endanger Internet (those are part of the internet infrastructure), so we have to be careful

Well said, Greg.

+1 Greg

Hi Glen - can you get on Skype?

For the record - I seconded the changes as the motion seconder.

Hi all !

As a reminder, when submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on during the “open mic,” please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone during the “open mic.”

Here is a written statement: <COMMENT> I have been engaged in matters pertaining registration data since 2007.I believe I have heard, ad nauseam, every conceivable rational argument for or against standardizing process and procedure for collection, curation, access and disclosure of registration data.I am well aware of the privacy issues that have been debated for as long as I have caucused in this environment. I believe certain registration data ought to be available in the ordinary in furtherance of maintaining consumer confidence in the DNS and the security and continued well-being of the DNS.The minority views recorded contra the decisions of this EPDP Phase 2A are persuasive and align with my thinking on data quality and integrity. The tentative tinkering which was reported from the PDP is, in my view, not nearly enough.The Board may yet exercise its authority and reject these recommendations from the GNSO by a supermajority vote.But I would not wish to connive at error. I vote NO. </END>

not many legal bodies involved in the DNS abuse, so the change would not achieve much

<Comment> No one has been able to substantiate any benefits in non-redaction of pure legal person data, especially given that the wrongdoers and abusers are not going about setting up Evil, Inc’s left and right to make their registrations. Differentiation is therefore to be assumed to do _nothing_ to address abuse issues. </comment>

Council is the manager of the PDP, not the micromanager

IPC once again voting on substance, not on process...

@Carlton: Your statement/comment will be reflected in the minutes.

Someone apparently does not understand the Councils role

Juan is on email

From the Council list

he sent an email

Kudos to the WG and the Leadership of EPDP2a for the hard work

Apologies for Juan’s connection problems today. Such is life.

<COMMENT /Question for Open Mic later> Thank you for your confidence in me in being the ODP Liaison for SubPro. In that role, I would love to hear from the Council (and the community) about their expectations for the Liaison (aside from what is in the role description). More specifically, I am not asking you to evaluate the performance of the current SSAD ODP Liaison, but rather what do you like about what that Liaison does, what more can be done (if anything)? Is the amount of information you are getting from the SSAD ODP Liaison enough or is there more information you would like to get? How often do you expect to be briefed and what else can I do in the role for the Council and the GNSO? The role description makes it clear that I am limited as to what I can do in my personal capacity and I understand and agree with that. What it does not say is what is expected from the GNSO perspective and that is my question for you. Thank you again. <End Comment / Question>

FWIW - as someone involved in the setting up of the original Nom Comm I can say that the original intention was that appointees would come through that were ‘independent’. It was envisaged that, for example, a gtld person might be very beneficial to the ccNSO etc etc. This appears to have been lost as a goal over time...

well noted IMO @Chris

Thanks @Chris. That is exactly my reason for supporting this proposal

so, as a further example, Tatiana is a classic appointment to the ccNSO

This seems a bit inconsistent with the position taken that certain PDPs should operate on a representative model. If individuals are excluded from participating in PDPs because they aren't sufficiently knowledgeable or representative, then how does it make sense to express a preference for that in the Nom Com voting rep? Given the GNSO role in policy, it would seem that the best candidates for Nom Com would be those with significant PDP experience.

@Chris 🙂

+1 Maxim

@Pam: Very interesting approach. But wouldn’t this apply for all nominations the NomCom is responsible for, for instance Board seats?

It lready does @Wolf

already

I don’t think one needs to be a part of the GNSO to have a PDP experience

I agree with @Chris' comment above as well about the cross-exposure

I meant NomCom candidates should not be affiliated between themself

@Wolf-Ulrich, indeed

See Guidance from the ICANN Board to the Nominating Committee Regarding Important Skills for Board Members<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-jacobsen-11jan21-en.pdf>"Independence. It is important that the Board has some members who come from outside of the ICANN sector and industry, while having the necessary skills to come up to speed with DNS industry nuances and ICANN-specific issues, and to connect to the community."ccNSO Council: Specific Requirements for the NomCom appointee to the ccNSO Council<https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/nomcom-appointee-specific-requirements-18dec20-en.pdf>

Of course it is achievable

I draw your attention to the NomCom Review specific recommendation regarding the 'unaffiliated'status (as a preference where possible and practicle) [paraphrased] for Board Appointments by the NC

Thanks CLO

@Tatiana - Well it appears it will be quite difficult for individuals to have PDP Experience to the extent that more PDPs are intended to be representative in nature.

I think it says you cannot be a member of an SO or AC. So it cannot be someone in the ccNO or ALAC or even GAC.

What says that @Jeff??

Sorry I dropped, could I be promoted to panelist please? Thanks!

Speaking as someone WITH a deep understanding and no affiliation (and who has no intention of applying!), I think that there are plenty of people who would be excellent candidates.

it is not possible to predict all PDPs for two years

Will NomCom go to those type of granularities asking which PDPs the person was involved in to weigh this criteria?

Maxim, +1

If it is a preference given in the JD then YES absolutely @Tatiana

@CLO - "preferences will be given to candidateswho are not affiliated with a SO/AC or GNSO Stakeholder Group or Constituency."

the term there @Jeff is "preference"

@ALAN - you are affiliated with the ALAC, are you not?

there could be a short EPDP, starting right after election, how will we forbid the Councillors to participate?? it will require changes to the PDP framework

Looks like NomCom appointees to the council will soon become unattractive.

No affiliation with a GNSO SG/Const. (ie the other people voting)

Correct, it is preference...but that is the point. If you are not a member of any SO or AC, then how will you have the requisite knowledge, etc.

@Alan, in the initial draft I think you would be disqualified (or downgraded) too since you have an affiliation with At large

@Alan - you are included in that statement as someone that would not be preferred

@Alan - are you sure you think there are plenty of well-qualified candidates not affiliated with any SO or AC?

NC's always hve to balance these oftentensioned needs and requirements as well as the availability of candidates characteristics in any goven year... good JD's are essential to get good outcomes from that NC work

So, who would have the requisite knowledge of how the GNSO works if you are not in the GNSO, ALAC, SSAC, GAC, ccNSO, etc?

@Alan, ALAC is AC

@Raymond: not at all! Council needs people like you

which is NOT an easy task one that few who have not served in a NC will understand or appreciate

@Maxim Alan is not a Member of the 15 person ALAC nore does he hold a Leadership role in any part of At-Large FYI

If being a member of an AC/SO is not a hindrance to joing NCSG and its affiliates, why then should this now become a concern when becoming a Council member?

@Cheryl, I underlined that the ALAC is an AC, nothing more

I think the crux of the issue here is a “current affiliation” with the GNSO SG/C — e.g., say, if somebody very active in the NCSG right now would be appointed to the NCPH as the NCA — this might be an issue.

@CLO - I believe being a member of the At-Large qualifies under that provision.

Or at least that was what was intended

back to the term "preference"@Jeff

@Raymond, this doesn't cover SG/C appointments. Only NomCom appointments

NomCom can check versus the list of qualifications, and if there is not enough info in the list - they can not read our minds to predict what we wanted

I think the NomCom has done a good job so far, so I am not sure we need to amend the description at this point

@Tomslin, yes, know the concern is for NomCom appointees.

ccTLD: “Requirements for NomCom Appointees In order to preserve the balance and diversity of Council, the ccNSO needs the Nominating Committee to refrain from appointing to the Council any persons who are directly or indirectly associated with a ccTLD Manager (whether that Manager is a ccNSO Member or not). For the same reason, the ccNSO needs the Nominating Committee to refrain from appointing a Board Member or employee of a ccTLD Regional Organisation to the Council."

@Philippe Noted

a Registry, who is not a member of RySG is not affiliated, or a Registrar, who is not a member of RrSG

Yes, ccNSO does have it in a job description, which doesn’t exclude the wider ICANN community, only the ccTLD affiliates so the balance won’t be broken

A simple rule for Nomcom would be to ask people to apply for the Board or the ALAC or the GNSO, not offer them a GNSO seat as a consolation prize. Does not seem to work

but has enough knowledge

That’s ICANN as it lives: there are many entrance doors

@Wolf - with very few exits

Please add me to the small list for this item

Nobody really likes to leave…

I want to be a part of the small list as well

I volunteer for the small group

If a reasonably intelligent person from outside the icann community cannot follow the GNSO Council work and contribute, I think that might reflect more on the opacity of our process rather than the ability of the independent candidate.

I have made my comments on the Council list and will not reprise them here. I can agree the GNSO needs at least one independent mind. But I submit the independence in perception and thought cannot be divorced from some knowledge of what the thinking is about.

Kurt 🙂 I agree with you

And this also is connected to Pam’s comment about ICANN bubble

Indeed @Tatiana

@Kurt we were trying to work on that with the ICANN Reform proposal led by Brian Cute, but that seems to have been washed away by COIVD.

Mark, that one was from when, 2018-2019?

That one, yes

Feels like 150 years ago

Then COVID hit

Exactly

Agreed Kurt although the scope and complexity (ie. breadth and depth) of the work is quite demanding for those who do not work in the industry.

we totally miss the idea of a working lunch with all these zoom meetings

I would love for meetings to assume we have read the materials that we were previously provided so we can get on to the discussion.

@Steve Chan - Antonietta is sounding a bit muffled. Can that be adjusted?

Thanks Lori, we’re working on this, thank you for raising 🙂

You can get a lot more data from UDRP.tools

Ask us next time. Our Darts-ip database compiles domain dispute case data https://clarivate.com/darts-ip/

UDRP.tools I highly recommend

@Zak @Brian, might those sources include some feedback of experiences by parties in UDRP cases?

I believe you can find RDNH data at UDRP.TOOLS

requests for data should be sent to SOs

How do we get those suggestions to GDD

and ACs

@Justine - no, just objective data

@Jeff, thanks. Was hopeful but alas.

@John - you can email Antonietta, me, or Karen directly. Probably easiest.

@John, you can email Antonietta, me, or Karen directly. Probably easiest.

I personally believe that there should be discussions with a group of frequent filers, counsel for respondents and actual panelists

+1 Susan; Might as well ask the RPM Phase 2 WG what data they want/need...

I have a list of issues that some of us that are panelists have been working on

+1 Susan, Jeff

+1 Jeff

The list of issues that I have are issues that we as panelists encounter every day

COMMENT—The survey should include or be based partly upon data the RPM2 Review PDP requests for its consideration.

And for which I really wish there were policy answers so that panelists did not have to "make it up as they went along:

And I would argue that this information is not available from the Providers, but rather just to the panelists

the panelists may or may not discuss them with the providers

So talking just to the providers will not give you a complete picture

The survey should in part be based on seeking data that the RPM2 requests.

Agreeing with Susan: the collection and analysis of data is likely to raise or indicate the questions that must be answered to determine “effectiveness.” Data on # of complaints, case length, etc will likely not, on their own, define issues or allow a judgment about effectiveness.

The proposed datasets appear to get to more quantitative rather qualitative data. We need to a way to get the latter.

Costs are good for brand owners, but also to be fair for respondents who have to retain counsel and end up prevailing.

They are substantial on all sides

Sorry, I didn't mean "good" in that way

Noting the comment about extending the timeline - Frankly does that really matter? what's the point of rushing to beginning a review of the UDRP when the phase 1 report hasn't even been reviewed and adopted by the board let alone moved into implementation and Goran/Xavier have spent this whole week telling us recommendations need to be prioritised and not everything can go forward to be implemented

Costs are lower than taking these issues to court

I meant is a good topic to include ;)

Costs is a Good TOPIC to include for brand owners and for respondents as well

Ah!!! Thanks Jeff - must not speed read chat while talking ;-).

I put it in the chat above - a comment on timing

Agree on the abuse comment @Marie. We need to keep it narrow to avoid P2 being wrapped up in DNS abuse conversations like you said

my zoom reloaded, please promote me

Thanks Susan!

to the panelist, not just mic

forgot to send to everyone: Noting the comment about extending the timeline - Frankly does that really matter? what's the point of rushing to beginning a review of the UDRP when the phase 1 report hasn't even been reviewed and adopted by the board let alone moved into implementation and Goran/Xavier have spent this whole week telling us recommendations need to be prioritised and not everything can go forward to be implemented

please

Agree with Susan's point about urgency. Not urgent

+1 Susan - it will sit in the PDP warehouse waiting for Board and Staff to do something

big +1 Susan

Tend to agree with Susan I think. If we're going to be helpful to RPM2 (whenever that may be), it's worth doing it well.

Better there than on one of Berry’s spreadsheets of doom….

I would argue that quantitative information about the UDRP is likely going to be basically useless.

+1 Kurt

(We love them, Berry….)

let's focus on the work that already needs to get done: PPSAI, SSAD, Sub Pro

We need actual information about the issues

What are the issues that need resolution

Revisions to the scope should occur to take into account the comments made rather than approving a review process with too narrow a scope.

As a veteran of Phase 1, the key to success with be a well researched and clear charter.

What are the issues that we do not need to look at

There's also the concern about staff overload as well that we keep hearing about (and fully understand). So why so keen on this?

We suffered with unclear questions, and as someone else noted, lack of meaningful data. Data gathering hampered the progress of the PDP by a year.

Good chartering *is* essential @Lori agreed

I understand I am not a member of Council, but can we ask the ICANN Board to be more clear in their letter. What specifically concerns them?

The RySG asked this question directly to the Board at the last ICANN meeting and the Board never responded

🙂 thanks to all the fellow councillors! Was great working with you

We will miss you all!

Thank you all. See you later.

It was a pleasure to share the Council with you all. See you again.

Thanks all

Been a pleasure to work with you all

+1 Tatiana. It’s been a great honour and privilege to work with you all. Stay well!

Thank you all. Best wishes for the future.

YAYYYY PAM AND TATIANA.

I wish to recognize Tom Dale who brought such a wealth of experience and knowledge through his many years with the GAC and who participated with wisdom and restraint.

+100 Cheryl Langdon-Orr

+1 Kurt

Oh Tom... I still miss you from "you know where." :-)

Yes MASSIVE thanks to staff

❤️

THANKS Philippe on behalf of the policy team

And a special thanks to staff for their support and professionalism.

Thank you Philippe

Where is the music :)

Best wishes and thanks to you, Pam!

Very nice!!

Best wishes for you all

@Jeff - our mics could be opened and we could all sing??!

No music, just solemn recognition for our wonderful VCs 🙂

@Susan - I asked for music, not chaos

:)

Thank you all for the messages. I will read each and every one of them.

@Jeff - ROTFLOL

welcome Justine!!

Nice one - Cheryl

@Justine - Welcome to the wonderful world of Liaisonhood

Tatiana, all the very best and thanks!

Thank you all :-)!!

You'll both - all - be missed but we WILL have a farewell drink together. Just a rather belated one. ;-)

@Susan @Jeff, thanks.

I didn't expect an immediate answer....take time to think :)

GNSO Council Part 2 is taking place at 1500 PDT (22:00 UTC) Please refer to the ICANN72 schedule for the Zoom access details. 2021-2022 councilors, please join early for soundchecks

Any chance we can take the open mic in part 2?

Sure, no problem....But keep in mind the Liaison is responsible for keeping the GNSO informed

Given the expanded timelines for the SSAD ODP and now the SubPro ODP (originally expected to be a 6 mth process, will the Council be taking a more pro-active role in making sure the Board/Staff progress the community’s longstanding efforts in a timely manner?

So I am asking what you expect in terms of keeping you informed

thanks all and bye

Thank you and goodbye.

Good bye all.

Thanks ALL

Bye

Thanks all see you later