Question: Is this the same zoom meeting room Councilors are using? Do we get to see their chat? :-)

Yup special session Amr =)

…, oh…, and hi all. :-)

@James: Thanks.

@Amr, they use invisible font

@Maxim: Of course “they” do. How silly of me. :-)

You'll see how utterly fascinating we are, Amr :-).

@Marie: Oh…, I already know, of course. ;-)

Hello, my name is Steve Chan and I will be monitoring this chat room. There is an open mic session at the very end of this meeting for comments and questions for participants who are not Councilors.

Comments or questions outside the open mic session will not be read out loud. However, If you want your question read out loud, start your sentence with <QUESTION> and end it with <QUESTION>. If you want your comment read aloud, start your sentence with a <COMMENT> and end it with <COMMENT>.

please use only parliamentary language :)

Those of us who have spent years “virtually attending” welcome all who are new to this experience.

Full agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+11+March+2020

Action item list: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items

I have a note about project list PDF

GNSO Project List: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-list-09mar20-en.pdf

Where are we on the outside consultation report on the Consensus Building tools?

Good question, Jeff!

@Jeff try <QUESTION> </Question>

<Questions> Where are we on the outside consultation report on the Consensus Building tools?<QUestion>

Indeed we were (ALAC/At-Large)

asap :-D

GNSO Project list: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-list-09mar20-en.pdf

@Berry: in your presentation, would you please remind us of how %comp is measured (deliverables, milestones etc.). eg 81% for EPDP (not 80, not 82.. :s) Thanks.

@Philippe, I will talk to that when turned over to me.

@Phillippe I think it is the ‘sense of the progress’

Thanks Maxim that's the question: _81_ doesn't reflect a "sense" to me... (but maybe that's just me....)

blurry logics

<COMMENT> Now that SubPro got approval for an extension, shouldn't that now be Green for on target as opposed to at risk?</Comment>

@Jeff, it is still beyond pervious expectations

Well noted @Jeff (with my clear biase obviously)

@Maxim, if that is the standard, then everything would be "at risk"

or "in trouble"

@Jeff, I think it means attention

@jeff and cheryl - yes !

@Maxim - with all due respect, I don't believe SubPro needs attention or is at risk

@Jeff, if something slipped timelines couple of times, it is worth looking at … from the project management point of view, we are not PR agency

I am a fan of using GANTT chart/project Mx

@Cheryl , representation does not change substance

@Maxim - it has been looked at, we did a request for extension, it was approved, and as the 2 Co-Chairs believe we are on target, that should be controlling. We are "not at risk".

Thanks Berry. Very clear, forgot about EPDP trailblazing the application of PDP3.0

indeed @Keff

@Jeff, I think it is a good point of view, but the manager of the PDPs is the Council , not PDP WG

We are * Well Aware* of that @Maxim...

let's agree to disagree on this at this stage

so I hope it is updated to at least yellow

@Maxim - and what is the basis when the 2 co-chairs and the Council Liaison are of the same view which is different than yours

@Jeff, definetely, that is why I think it might not be need to be red, but not necessary green, probably yellow

this PDF is internal Council document

@Berry - maybe light blue for the items in hands of the Board?

We will move to a review of each project next...and shortly.

with RPMs there was a delay caused by one of the members

A couple of the PDPs have had issues

There is a qualitative as well as a quantitative element to assessing progress and issues. Both need to be taken into account.

I think it is more about deliverables and milestones (about %)

Thank you Tom. qualitative vs. quantitative was what I was trying to say earlier.

Cool sounds like Im not too far off the mark then good work

RACI Matrix = Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed

Or it could be the unrated director’s cut of Keanu Reeves’ greatest movie.

Thanks Greg, sorry got caught up in project management speak there =)

targeting and execution ? thanks

@Greg: A Walk in the Clouds?

I was impressed @James. I’ve been saying there’s not enough Project Mgmt expertise in the ICANN ecosystem....

Been suggesting a PMP approach since 2015 =) https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-aoc-org-reviews-13jul15-en.pdf

@Amr, I was thinking of Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, but okay.

(Also that makes me feel old now 5 years ago)

@Greg: Oh…, you win!! :-)

https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-aoc-org-reviews-process-15may15/pdfRH97TBOsi7.pdf Detailed comments on Program Management approach here for those interested

Sorry about audio issues…

@James, if you want to feel old, consider that The Matrix came out over 20 years ago and Bill & Ted came out over 30 years ago (and for @Amr, A Walk in the Clouds came out 25 years ago).

@James, ICANN org is currently evaluating its approach to project/program management as well as CRM.

Council comment on icann budget asking for FTE PgM and PM in addition to tools

Excellent Mary, super happy to hear that, please let folks know I have been commenting on this for many years so if I can be of help please pass my name along.

it looks to be JUst Do it TM approach

@James , CRM can not replace need in actual work

Correct, but it can help with capacity planning and management for sure.

we can not use enterprise approach and kill stale projects firing people … so not necessary

We could fire up stale project killing people...

Note this procedure is also identified in the Rec 27 Wave 1 Report

Thanks Marika

@James, thank you, will do! And yes, improving our PM & CRM approach is in service to facilitating effective and efficient community work, not a replacement.

“wave” being used interchangeably with “phase”?

Or is wave 1 of the EPDP something other than phase 1?

When is the call for volunteers going out for the IGOs - any idea?

wave is more about shell-shock after the blast [phase]

@amr no “wave" is more used for the Rec 27 context :)

Ah…, ok. Thanks, Rafik.

There will be a Wave 2 report for other consensus policies impacted from the EPDP-P1.

@Keith, is chair for RPMs 2 a work for SSC?

I guess it should

Music to my ears Berry =)

Aren't we generally asking a WG to choose its Chair?

toothpick tossed?

Marie: we didn't for the EPDP

but the EPDP is of course special in many ways

@marie for that work track, council will do the selection as indicated in the charter.

@Marie, EPDP Chairs were chosen by the Council leaership with the help of SSC

Sure - but yes, difference. Don't think we specified that in the IGO charter?

more consultaion of SSC

Ah - sorry Rafik, missed that. Thanks!

Or actually use SSC for what it is there for? :)

@Julf, it was during my term

in SSC

Much better audio Marika

@maxim indeed

@Marie - the GNSO WG Guidelines foresee that “Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG.” So it is within the remit of the Council to appoint to Chair should it decide too, like it did for the EPDP.

in RPMs the pace changed to better than it was (personal opinion as a member of that WG)

+1, Maxim.

@Keith: We are on track for 18 March, at which point the status will change.

Also I was remiss to not mention a huge thanks to staff that worked hard to keep the RPM WG on track during three intense meetings.

Nothing from me

whatgoodlookslike.com is for sale for $5500.00

@Greg, no ads

Re RPM WG - really good to hear all the positive developments.

I’m not selling, @Maxim. Must be Keith.

whatgoodlookslike.ie only 5.99 =)

Who filled this in

Shouldn't the Co-Chairs be consulted on this?

Council should

@Steve - I completely disagree with these determinations

the counsultation should be with the GNSO Leadership

I think the term is *consulting at all* @Steve ;-)

We are surprised if Flip is seeing this condition but so be it...

RySG delivered the rating of the issues

In order to provide some more context to this list, it may be worth trying to quantify what the possible impact is of not addressing the issue?

<comment> That’s not true - RrSG polled its members

RySG represents more that 3 councillorsm it was opinion of members

@Marika That is a very helpful suggestion

So did IPC

RySG used poll

RySG+RrSG = 90% of CPH

And 95%+ of domain registrations

The RrSG polled its members on this

As did other groups

We also polled our members just for the record.

To say that the “vote” only reflects the input of the councillors is simply not true

We represent our SGs + Cs

We channel their views

At least for RySG, RrSG and CSG. NCSG councillors are not bound, although sometimes guided.

NCAs also not bound.

As Rubens has suggested, sometimes NCSG is a wee bit misguided…..

(That was supposed to be a joke, in case anyone is wondering)

Stephanie, every family has a problem child... ;-)

Audio problem

I'll pass

Yes, in the NCSG we fight over that role a lot....

Thx

<QUESTION> To Rafik’s point, is there a reason why IRD is not on this list at all? Not even at the bottom? <QUESTION>

IRD?

The phase 1 final report also stated that requirements regarding data accuracy are not affected by any of the phase 1 recommendations.

“EPDP Team Recommendation #4.The EPDP Team recommends that requirements related to the accuracy of registration data under the current ICANN contracts and consensus policies shall not be affected by this policy.”

@Amr - What is the open item on IRD? The expert report was forwarded to the RDS PDP WG, as per the letter. it was just input provided to the RDS PDP WG, no specific policy issues were identified, as far as I recall. If there are specific issues that the Council should consider, it would be good to frame these up?

I strongly support what Keith is saying about accuracy. I do not recall including it as a topic in scoping the Charter.

@Pam: Thanks. :-)

We should note that GDPR definition of accuracy is data subject-centric, not 3rd-party-centric.

No worries, @Amr

Accuracy is vital and is being debated by the legal team in the EPDP, including asking Bird & Bird more questions.

@Marika: There were 3 high-level policy issues identified by the IRD-EWG.

So we need to keep GDPR definition and ICANN-sphere definition apart and reflect which one we are talking about.

Precisely Rubens, and trust me I have pointed that out so many times my head is getting flat from hammering against the wall...

@Marika: 1. Registrants should only be required to input registration data in a language(s) or script(s) with which they are skilled.2. A Registry must be able to accept and store any language or script that might reasonably be expected to be used in its target market.3. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all data elements should be tagged with the language(s) and script(s) in use, and this information should always be available with the data element.

I’ve invited Amr to the April meeting to discuss the open IRD topics (Marika its on the google doc if u want to see the background mail from Amr)

Aplogies for the audio issue. For the record, re prioritisation, the ISPCP identified two areas of importance to them: a) structural/PM reform: PDP 3.0 and evolution of the MS model and b) the follow-up on IDN scoping

Accuracy has continuously been brought up by the GAC, including he European Commission.

Note that some issues were deferred from phase 1 to phase 2, although for this one it did not specifically mention phase 2 but “is expected to be considered further”.

Bird & Bird has given answers on this,

The EPDP's questions on accuracy are very narrow,

If some people are still getting confused about the term “vote” and “views” I used, please don’t get me wrong, I was only tackling the statistic validity of the survey, but The chair corrected that it was not a binding survey. So all is clear.

Both accuracies might be important... but they are like water and oil.

I am told that many - most? - of the legal team did agree that these questions should be addressed, Taya,

GDPR-wise, if I type "Mickey Mouse" as the registrant, it's accurate. If someone changes to "Donald Duck", no longer accurate.

Rubens - exactly

Correct Rubens

Nice example

@James / @Amr - are you proposing to commence a PDP on that topic or does it belong in one of the ongoing efforts? I would need to refresh my mind, but I recall that the Board passed the report on to the Council which passed it on to the RDS PDP WG which did not produce any recommendations in response.

There are only a few minutes left on the call? When will the floor open up to non-councilors to offer comments?

8

And neither Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck is the real person registering the domain, so it fails ICANN-accuracy.

data accuracy is not relevant for our work

This accuracy issue is a classic case of a Review team’s recommendations being dropped into a pdp in my opinion…..there was undue focus on accuracy in the WHOIS review team 2 exercise.

@Marika: I’d say it needs to stay on the Council’s radar for a future PDP.

it is already regulated in the RAA sufficiently

@Rubens, people can change IDs to those names

Thanks but disagree: if it's outside the scope, why was it mentioned in the Phase 1 report?

Not of course to imply that accuracy did not exist as a priority for data requestors forever

@Maxim, in some jurisdictions, yes. In mine it would put me in trouble.

Noting Marie's disagreement for the record.

Unless I get a court order to change my name, which will likely not happen with those examples.

Thanks Keith - given the comments above, better make that "noting the BC's disagreement". We've polled/asked/discussed/delete as appropriate...

Right, thanks Marie.

surprise surprise

@volker kinder surprise :)

quite a bit of side chatter

that is a Flag for action

Do I understand it right that Jeff is asking for escalation?

No Maxim not at all

for formal reasons

It did trigger the action. That was the PCR the PDP just went through.

no not at all Maxim

then it should be there is not need for escalation, because the PDP is back on track

@Jeff, maybe there are even worse categories that would trigger escalation.

he is asking if our PDP *is* Ät-Risk"what does that mean to our work and in PD Action

please paint it yellow

The PDP3.0 contain definition of the Status / Health. There is also a change procedure.

PDP3.0 Final Report.

@Berry - THe request is approved, yet it is still labeled at yellow

and so we will expect that action to occur now Berry …

which means it should have further escalation, right?

4 Years, 8 previous date changes.

FOr the record, I disagree completely with the designation

“In trouble” should include rushing ahead and ignoring buried land mines, in my opinion. Making progress is great, parking difficult issues in order to get ahead is buying trouble. Those charts are excellent, I am sure Berry has a code in there somewhere for these buried treasures, but I missed it…

Please check PDP 3.0 Final Report page 100 about the meaning of the various status/condition: http://go.icann.org/pdp3dot0

@Ariel - of course I have read it

The procedure here, is PDP leadership should work with support staff and liaison to discuss what the codes should be.

“Dumpster Fire” or “Clown Show” status levels will trigger escalation.

but something is broken

If there is disagreement, the Liaison should take it back to the Council.....as managers of the process.

That's the escalation.

He is NOT alone in that @Keith

Its not the color...it should have meaning

that's all, it should trigger action

and I would love suggestions as to what we can do better

I like the in scope part best

we have arranged to follow up with Flip on Monday so we *WILL* get back to you

Yes and Flip does not agree

Thanks Flip. But Again I don't want to make this about the color. I want to make sure that when something has a status, it has meaning and triggers action

Also some local laws might have penalties for misrepresenting one's identity.

GDPR states: Personal data shall be: … rate and, where necessary, kept up to date; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that personal data that are inaccurate, having regard to the purposes for which they are processed, are erased or rectified without delay (‘accuracy’). (Art. 5).

It's in the Temp Spec, Amr.

The GDPR does not define the word ‘accurate’. However, the Data Protection Act 2018 does say that ‘inaccurate’ means “incorrect or misleading as to any matter of fact”.

Sorry above quote from GDPR was cut off at the beginning… “Personal data shall be … accurate and, where necessary….."

Data Protection Act 2018 is UK, not EU.

UK is not there anymore

It’s just an example of how to interpret… I can probably find other examples if not doing it on the fly

So, it's applicable to UK registrants.

TempSpec was in response to GDPR

Temp Spec was used to scope EPDP

And Temp Spec includes accuracy.

@Marie, not ICANN Accuracy

Amr said it like it is

context, Greg, context.

Temp Spec 4.1, 4.3, 4.4.2 and Appendix C all reference accuracy.

Bye for n0w

Thank you all

thanks all!

Thanks all. Bye.

Thanks. Bye all.

Thank you all. Thanks staff!

Thanks all

thanks all , good night

Slan!