Logo

2022 GNSO Council Meetings - Shared screen with speaker view
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
51:48
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Thomas Rickert
52:52
Congrats, Kristian!
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
53:04
Congrats, Kristian!
Kristian Ørmen
53:12
Thank you
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
53:45
Congratulations, Kristian.
Kristian Ørmen
54:07
Thank you
desiree_miloshevic_evans
57:35
Congrats Kristian - yet again 🙂
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
58:12
Google doc for agenda topics’ input: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FSNlAHTjbWAzKcfltI7SWwzXda1NtKxfQ2k-t0oiGr8/edit#heading=h.unjpfxy4jex9
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
59:38
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:03:20
the letter with URLs to the current files is useful
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:03:25
for the month
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:04:25
speaking of SPS - 9th May is a national holiday here
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:04:58
Thanks @maxim, it may be that we send out a Doodle for a better call date/ time.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:05:15
Thanks, @Nathalie
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:09:59
https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-subsequent-procedures-odp-introducing-the-work-tracks-18-1-2022-en
Thomas Rickert
01:11:12
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:17
Absolutely....and I will try to point those out as well
Thomas Rickert
01:14:31
One would think that the entire process is easier now with all the learnings form the new gTLD programme in terms of implementation.
Mark Datysgeld
01:15:54
Thank you both for the answers.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:16:17
Reminder to all to please set your chat to “Everyone” so all can follow the exchanges, thank you!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:16:19
Does the Council want to ask for such a project plan?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:16:36
Could we ask for a project plan?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:16:59
We can ask for anything...whether we will get it or not is another question
Mark Datysgeld
01:17:02
I think it would be helpful.
John McElwaine
01:17:18
Agree with the idea of a project plan
Kurt Pritz
01:17:21
We can ask for it with the caveat that it does not slow the work on the project itself
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:17:29
+1 Kurt
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:17:35
+1 Kurt
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:17:50
delay of a month to make a project plan 🙂
John McElwaine
01:18:13
They probably have one
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:18:16
But I imagine a high level project plan to include planned dates for webinars etc
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:18:36
would not be unreasonable
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:19:01
webinar is not a working process - just a display
Kurt Pritz
01:19:36
Webinars definitely slow project progress
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:19:50
sending a PDF with the explanation would be easier
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:19:57
Webinars offer opportuity for GNSO Council and the rest of the community to ask questions
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:20:27
The format of the most recent SSAD webinar was not too interactive …
Thomas Rickert
01:21:01
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:23:14
just a generic zoom without Q/A format
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:23:44
with answering properly formed questions in chat
desiree_miloshevic_evans
01:25:01
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
Kurt Pritz
01:25:54
Instead of the ODP updates to the Board, they could be given to the Board and Council jointly
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:26:54
+1 Kurt, at least non secret items
Thomas Rickert
01:26:59
Good suggestion, Kurt!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:38
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
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:28:01
I was thinking the same, @jeff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:06
Thanks everyone
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:10
Absolutely
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:30:23
@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?
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
01:30:31
*perhaps
Stephanie Perrin
01:33:39
I Agree with Maxim
Stephanie Perrin
01:34:14
We need time to read it thoroughly, and consult
Kurt Pritz
01:35:54
I think the paper captures the options open to us, but not our “thinking” - I.e., our preference for one option or the other
Stephanie Perrin
01:37:59
+1 Desiree
desiree_miloshevic_evans
01:39:35
Thank you Philippe
Philippe Fouquart
01:41:11
Thanks for correcting me.
Philippe Fouquart
01:41:16
@marika
Jeffrey Neuman
01:43:45
Section 16 I believe requires that the ePDP WG be reconstituted
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:44:19
@Jeff, yes - it has to be consulted about the modifications/amendments that the Council is considering/proposing.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:44:58
@Mary - I just thought it was important to clarify that it is not the Council alone that can amend or modify recommendaitons
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:45:03
zEPDP for zombie EPDP
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:45:22
Note that this does not mean the EPDP is rechartered from scratch.
Kurt Pritz
01:46:06
What happens in the case if it is not feasible or reasonable to reconvene the EPDP team
Kurt Pritz
01:47:27
Clarification - the only way to modify the recommendations is to reform the EPDP team. Is that correct?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:47:41
@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.
Kurt Pritz
01:48:27
Ok thx - although the Council does not seem “unilateral” to me
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:48:42
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.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:21
In that case, the questions presented were MUCH easier
Kurt Pritz
01:49:54
So, say the Board says “not in ICANN’s interest.” Can the Council say “ok” without reforming some sort of PDP team?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:50:06
@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).
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:50:56
Apologies, I realize my previous responses to Kurt and Jeff did not go to everyone, just Hosts and Panelists.
Stephanie Perrin
01:51:22
Accreditation is one of the more valuable pieces of work…if there is no accreditation, what good is the SSAD?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:52:26
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.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:53:43
@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.)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:53:46
Redoing any work based on the ODA seems pointless without understanding what the Board is thinkin
Jeffrey Neuman
01:53:48
thinking
Greg DiBiase
01:54:03
+1 Jeff exactly
Kurt Pritz
01:54:16
@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?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:54:19
The Board needs to set the guidelines of what it believes would be in the best interests of the community
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:55:13
@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.
Thomas Rickert
01:55:31
Agreed, Jeff. We need to have full transparency on all concerns the Board before we weigh the options.
Kurt Pritz
01:56:09
@Mary - right. But without some Council action, the next step is for the Board to vote.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:57:08
What is the issue with having the Board vote and formally put its position on the record?
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:57:24
@Kurt, that probably emphasizes the importance that all concerned (including the Board and the Council) understand the options and have the consultation 🙂
Jeffrey Neuman
01:58:30
I am not sure that is a bad thing?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:00:27
NIS3?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:01:33
before the EPDP fully implemented?
Paul McGrady
02:01:49
+1 Jeff and Thomas. Premature for us to take any action without knowing for sure what the Board's concerns are (if any).
Flip Petillion
02:02:48
+1 Paul
Marie Pattullo
02:04:03
Agree with all above - we need more info before we can do anything - IF we do anything.
Greg DiBiase
02:04:59
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.
Stephanie Perrin
02:06:07
If we want to have a substantive conversation with the Board, lets get the full report with ample time to read it.
Stephanie Perrin
02:06:17
Some of us are civil society Kurt.
Kurt Pritz
02:08:03
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.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:10:51
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)
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:12:51
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…
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:12:55
I think we need to see it first
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:13:44
Thought/though
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:15:54
I prefer option one Small team and the EPDP Phase 2 Team members.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:17:18
we will not save too much time
Stephanie Perrin
02:17:27
We have, I hope, recognized by this point that we are missing data that is critical to a good cost benefit analysis?
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:17:30
the group can be started later
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
02:17:52
The options we see on screen aren't mutually exclusive, right?
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:17:57
Agree with Marie that each SG would be undertaking the analysis - which would be eventually channeled through their GNSO reps…
desiree_miloshevic_evans
02:18:28
+1 Kurt
Marie Pattullo
02:18:31
Agreed, Desiree.
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
02:18:36
+1 Kurt
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:18:37
+1
Marie Pattullo
02:18:47
And yes, +1 Kurt.
Paul McGrady
02:19:31
+1 Kurt. Analysis make sense. Premature tinkering with Recommendations does not.
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:24:43
SPS Action items: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-gnso-council-action-items-sps-14jan22-en.pdf
Marika Konings - ICANN org
02:27:41
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
Paul McGrady
02:28:39
Thanks Seb!
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:28:45
this year?
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:33:21
GNSO Draft schedule ICANN73: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2022/draft/draft-icann73-gnso-draft-schedule-20jan22-en.pdf
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:48:08
Thanks everyone and talk soon. Bye for now
Kristian Ørmen
02:48:08
Thank you
Olga Cavalli
02:48:10
Many thanks!! Bye!
Thomas Rickert
02:48:11
Thanks, Philippe, all!
Flip Petillion
02:48:13
THx
John McElwaine
02:48:16
Thanks. Bye
Justine Chew (ALAC Liaison)
02:48:20
Thanks, all