Logo

2022 GNSO Council Meetings - Shared screen with speaker view
Thomas Rickert
40:54
Hi all!
Mark Datysgeld
41:26
Maxim is in Attendee queue
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
41:37
I am here too
Juan Manuel Rojas
43:07
I thought my audio was fine. Sorry
Mark Datysgeld
43:27
@Juan your audio is a little unstable, hermano.
David Olive - ICANN Org
43:33
Welcome Everyone
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
44:17
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Juan Manuel Rojas
44:29
Thanks Mark.. maybe is my connection, sometimes the internet is unstable..
Greg DiBiase
44:41
6 am isn't so bad!
Flip PETILLION
59:55
We received it
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:00:18
ALL: please remember to send your chat messages to ALL
stephanie perrin
01:01:56
Test
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:02:54
We can read you, Stephanie.
Justine Chew
01:11:35
I received it.
Philippe Fouquart
01:11:46
we will make sure it is forwarded to Council for transparency.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:15
I believe I saw an article from InfoNetworks against this proposal as well
Theo Geurts
01:12:26
Jeff correct
Antonia Chu
01:12:34
Theo has already forwarded the email to me. No worry.
Kurt Pritz
01:12:47
What is the link to that Info Networks paper
Manju Chen
01:16:42
Understood, thanks!
Philippe Fouquart
01:17:10
and Seb feel free to manage the queue.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:23:46
there could be a situation , where the answer No is a reasonable one (where the requestor does not have legal rights to see the data)
Philippe Fouquart
01:28:54
Seb: timececk we have another mn on this if my count is correct.
Theo Geurts
01:29:04
That would still be valuable to know Maxim
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
01:29:19
@philippe, correct
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:29:28
+1 Theo, there are at least two positions in that
desiree_miloshevic
01:30:47
+1 Kurt - How do we think this ‘proof of concept' may improve overall SSAD delivery time . thanks to small team for all their work.
Justine Chew
01:33:07
@Sebastien, I put my hand down because I think you sort of answered my question -- what does the small team need to evolve this prelimiinary report to a final one.
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
01:33:10
few M 🙂
desiree_miloshevic
01:34:00
+1 to Kurt. +1 Kurt - How do we think this ‘proof of concept' may improve overall SSAD delivery time . thanks to small team for all their work too.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
01:34:09
Ok thanks
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:43:26
Please also note that the EPDP team intends for these 5 recommendations to be interdependent (and this is stated in their Final Report).
Jeffrey Neuman
01:47:08
+1
Thomas Rickert
01:47:12
+1 Paul!
David Olive - ICANN Org
01:47:40
Thanks much, Chris D
Justine Chew
01:48:15
+1 Paul. Thank you very much, @Chris and staff, Mary, Steve, Berry.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
01:52:43
Thank you, Chris, Justine, Paul and all members of the EPDP team, and congratulations! As Chris mentioned, thanks also to Phil and members of the original Curative Rights PDP - and not forgetting Thomas and the original-original IGO-INGO PDP 🙂
Thomas Rickert
01:53:50
@Mary - how kind of you to say this! Thanks!
Mark Datysgeld
01:57:00
Giving further thought to the SSAD Small Team status, I would suggest that they hold another meeting, to incorporate all of the feedback from this session, as it was very rich.
Thomas Rickert
02:02:11
Agreed, Mark
Paul McGrady
02:07:58
We have to be a bit careful with words here. The GAC advice, which has neither been rejected or accepted by the Board I believe, is not that closed generics need to be "aligned with public interest." What the GAC said, I believe, is that the closed generics which are delegated should serve "a public interest goal." That is a very different and more narrow concept.
Mark Datysgeld
02:08:42
In terms of closed generics, the BC's position has been that costumer deception should be a prioritary concern. In this sense,
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:09:20
GAC seem to represent citizens , and it is bit more than consumers
Mark Datysgeld
02:09:25
"abc.laptops" could be misleading if consumers are unaware that the TLD is run by a single manufacturer, for example.
Tomslin Samme-Nlar
02:10:18
Same comments as the advise @Jeff?
Mark Datysgeld
02:10:23
or rather, "best.laptops" being a better example
Mark Datysgeld
02:10:33
as there is a qualifier there
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:13:53
@mark - I think you are making an assumption that there will be such confusion
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:14:01
I do not believe that is a fair assumption at all
Mark Datysgeld
02:14:26
A correction, Jeff. I am representing the BC's vision here.
Mark Datysgeld
02:15:51
So there is a stakeholder body who is concerned with that, not just my personal opinion.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:15:52
@Mark - ok, then the BC's vision is making assumptions that are not fair
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:16:58
An application by The Red Cross for example for a .disaster in order to collect funds for the many disasters around the world would not at all be confusing for what they want to do
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:17:40
In fact, it could solve a problem of consumers by ensuring that anyone who donates to an organization that has a .disaster address is in fact donating to the real red cross
Mark Datysgeld
02:17:51
@Jeff No particular assumption there. Sentences can be written in plain language using that format, so there is a concern for consumer protection. That's the gist of our position,
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:18:43
And what I am stating Mark is that a closed generic can actually protect consumers much more than an open TLD that can be used by anyone without any validation.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:19:05
I am not saying I am in favor or against closed generics at all...just saying that we all need to have an open mind in the discussion
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:19:13
As Philippe mentioned, in the GAC’s affirmative response, they suggested the inclusion of the ALAC in next steps. The Council could consider the inclusion of the ALAC as well, in part if there are concerns about only a bilateral discussion between the GAC and GNSO.
Paul McGrady
02:20:02
+1 Kurt. There is no reason to delay a decision to speak with our friends over at the GAC. 3 out of 4 of the small team members want to have that conversation.
Mark Datysgeld
02:20:47
@Jeff our concern here is very specific, not broad. It's about single companies holding potentially misleading domain names reinforced by the closed generic. Not about humanitarian efforts as in your example.
Paul McGrady
02:22:16
+1 Kurt - the more voices on the small team, the merrier.
Thomas Rickert
02:23:32
I am all for the dialogue.
Steve Chan - ICANN Org
02:23:57
FYI, here is the GAC’s affirmative response from 10 March: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ismail-to-botterman-10mar22-en.pdf
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:25:00
Its not a "one meeting"....its a "facilitated dialogue"
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:25:04
which may be one or more meetings
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:27:09
@Jeff, correct. The Board has no set expectation as to how frequently or how long a facilitated dialogue might take; it has also tried to make it clear that it is for the GAC and the GNSO to agree on whether to engage this way, to decide on how they wish to engage (and who should participate from each group involved), and of course on the facilitator.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:28:23
FYI - SubPro stated in its final report that if this issue were to be tackled by another group, it should be a group of disinterested experts....I am forgetting the actual language used. But it should not just be a repeat of the working group environment FWIW
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:29:03
To Tomslin's question, for the facilitated Red Cross dialogue, the participants in the dialogue were not limited to Councilors. That is, of course, a different question from whether to expand the current small team to have more Councilors (which we had understood was Kurt's comment) to discuss potential rules of engagement and modalities in preparation for the dialogue.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:29:48
Here is the provision in the final report: The Working Group believes that if this issue were to be considered in future policywork, it should also involve experts in the areas of competition law, public policy, andeconomics. In addition, it should be performed by those in the community that are notassociated with any past, present, or expectations of future work in connection with newgTLD applications or objections to new gTLD applications. Absent such independence,any future work is unlikely to result in an outcome any different than the one achieved inthis Working Group.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:30:08
Note that the Council small team is not intended to discuss the substance of the issue.
Kurt Pritz
02:31:13
I’d prefer the team to come to the Council. Expanding to subject experts leads to another litigation of the issues. The GAC will be sending GAC members (I assume). Our attendance should mirror the GAC’s.
Mary Wong - ICANN Org
02:31:20
As such, there is no assumption that the Council small team that is currently discussing modalities and ways to engage will end up being the actual GNSO participants in the dialogue (when that takes place).
Thomas Rickert
02:33:42
TBQH if a representative model gets us over the line, that’s also fine. It will then be for the chair of that group to make sure no PDP discussions are rehashed.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:36:47
+1 Philippe
Paul McGrady
02:38:02
+1 Philippe - all of that makes sense. I think we should signal to the GAC now that we are agreeable to having conversation and "more details to follow."
Manju Chen
02:39:02
In the interest of time I will not raise my hand but just to note NCSG has formally objected to this proposal and we have proposed alternative in our letter to the Council leadership.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:39:38
To not do an AOB: Please remember to weigh in on ODP Question Set #3. I have placed in the Google doc some draft responses though I am asking for some clarification on the last question from the ODP Team.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
02:40:39
Here is the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OtddNIUaAitHiJPE8pBTBcirTaDjyzPkcZY6BJmJxzg/edit
Nathalie Peregrine - ICANN Org
02:41:09
https://74.schedule.icann.org/health-safety
Marika Konings - ICANN Org
02:42:36
for item 8.2 - please remember to complete the expertise survey!
Justine Chew
02:43:01
Will Council be meeting with the ALAC at ICANN74?
Flip PETILLION
02:45:29
Thx
Maxim Alzoba (RySG)
02:45:36
Thanks all
desiree_miloshevic
02:45:40
thx
Sebastien Ducos
02:45:41
Thank you all
Theo Geurts
02:45:45
thanks all
David Olive - ICANN Org
02:45:46
Thanks