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

Note that the possible designations are part of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines: Full consensus / consensus / significant support but significant opposition / divergence

The definitions for these can also be found there

section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions

transparency, yes

Please note that the consensus designations are assigned by the Chair but groups can of course indicate off list or onlist if they do not support specific recommendations that can factor into this process.

we just need to hire a combinatorial mathematician, why not?

@James, My apologies for this being complicated. But it is.

Do all groups get to articulate “conditional support??” Not sure how that is going to work

what kind of conditions are we talking about?

@Alan - I’m concerned about a domino effect, where one group’s conditions for support are not met, and there is a cascading withdrawal of support.

Conditional consensus isn’t one of the designations in the GNSO WG Guidelines. Conditional support of individual recommendations is a new concept, and not sure how it would work, but would make no difference in the consensus level designation.

@James, we will attempt to make it as clear as possible.

To be clear, "conditional support" means we will NOT support that recommendation as written but could change that based on actions of the GNSO Council.

Are you suggesting Council would re-write recommendations? What other actions would they take?

minor language change: instead of “due in part because, just say “this was partly because”

@AlanG: That didn’t really clear it up for me, and I’m curious…, what do you mean by “based on actions of the GNSO Council”?

While the masking of personal email addresses is a “valuable privacy-enhancing technology,” the publication of masked email addresses is still considered publication of personal data.

Marc cutting out

@Marc is fading in and out for me

same here

Marc, your audio is fading in and out

Yeah. Marc fading in and out.

@Milton: +1

"legal vs. natural" is far more nuanced than some folks who don't want to talk about it might like us to believe. Are we talking about whether and how distinguishing could be done? Whether the data is characterized at the time of collection? The publication? The analysis at the time of a request? It seems there is quite a bit we could have discussed and come to agreement on.

We didn’t have substantial discussions in Phase 2

We never discussed in plenary the advice given by Bird & Brid

I believe we did have substantial discussions of it, and I don’t think this is something to get hung up on

Delete “substantial” please

For accuracy there is a conclusion in the report

it was substantial in volume, even if not every information of substance was discussed

Substantial is subjective, and potentially misleading, and I would disagree with that characterization. It also doesn't add anything. Please remove.

compromise: remove “some”

Margie, Brian. let’s try to come to agreement here. This is not an important item. I don’t like the “partly because” but I’m willing to live with it. You can live with “substantial"

Trying to edit text in zoom chat is not entirely effective IMO

For the umpteenth time, Milton. I will make my own arguments.

Marc, your mic faded in and out again.

without substantial?

For clarity, live with the staff version that was circulated earlier today.

Without substantial

The staff version as circulated was acceptable

better put it up

Can we see it?

thx

The language above is much better

Blue version is preferable.

Blue language good…

I prefer the staff version. Clear and to-the-point with little subjectivity.

Modified language.

Blue version

How about including the links to the legal memos so everyone can review those for themselves?

From Me to All panelists: (11:11 AM)
Frankly, we argued about this matter in a very very substantial way on the PPSAI PDP. Then we referred to that discussion several times on this group. I know that I have repeated my “substantial” suggestion that companies ask governments to regulate online commerce, and with or without that measure, that they figure out a simple way to authenticate themselves as legal persons……always ignored, but still a valid measure whether you want to address it or not (and a long long overdue consumer protection measure). SO unless substantial means a particular desired outcome, we have discussed this matter in a substantial way. However, “ extensive” discussion might solve your problem for you, as “extensive” does not necessarily imply that we ever got to the substance of the matter.

the above version

+1 Marika

no to the added language

Modification is better

original is better

Can you call on the raised hands?

queue is closed

agree to the compromise

Also agree.

So which version are we going with?

Now let’s move on. We’re halfway through the call.

wise call, rafik

It just means that the recommendation from phase 1 will still stand

Because no change has been agreed to

exactly. enough please.

I agree with Alan -- the edits provide important context. I also think we need to add the reference to receiving legal guidance.

The Phase 1 recommendation already does that, no need to state it here.

did you agree to it in phase one though? i recall your guys voting against it on council

This looks like we have reconfirmed it, and we haven't.

stating the phase one result is still valid is helpful for clarity

registrar…

There are simply not enough hours in the day to meet this imposed schedule.

certainly won’t be if we spend half an hour insisting that we can’t include the word “substantial”

I offered a compromise word.

I am not going to talk about the same item that Alan spoke about

FYI - this is the comment that Laureen provided: “We are concerned that the language may unduly restrict the way the system gets financed with unintended consequences for public safety. This issue really needs further financial and economic analysis to fully consider the impact of the draft restrictions.”

I would like to respond to Marika’s question

But we have debated this part of the report endlessly and 14.2 was agreed language

The restriction on registrants not paying for the costs involved in processing disclosure requests in a CLW item, if amended. I don’t agree with any of the rationale offered on why registrants should pay for the privilege of having their data handed over to third parties.

my point is in relation to a different recommendation

See https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xb5eE3CxTvx5tFNmhsO_F7OdOIRMJFH/edit

I am not sure about the process

My comment was not on Rec 8

What Amr has stated is a well known and oft repeated NCSG position. The registrant cannot be taxed to pay for law enforcement access, nor any other kind of access. This is, with great respect, not the time to open up a debate on the implications of stopping the free and open WHOIS. We knew there were financial implications for all requestors.

Sorry…we are still having internal discussions…we haven’t finalized any input on Rec 8 yet

true

@Matt: Understood, and thanks.

I was going to talk about a different recommendation

Are we done with Rec8?

so now we are skipping back to #34?

I thought Milton provided some language in the chat yesterday that may work: “The standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, and that MAY include disclosure automation”

I am not sure if it was a proposal or a statement, but it seemed to be a statement of fact and make clear that further automation is not excluded, which I believe is what ALAC was looking for?

ok I think Milton’s language could work

I was not sure that it would be added

I will speak about that If I am allowed to

To be clear, my additional question on rec8 did not concern the preamble or the RrSG disagreement, which is why I waited before raising it.

I will not be able to talk

Not a fan of the one person per group speaking rule. Limiting our ability to explain ourselves in a satisfactory manner.

Milton IGNORED the reference to Section 9.3

I don’t think Milton ignored it. I think the NCSG is just interpreting it differently.

When he "quoted" the text, he omitted it.

+1 Alan G

If it was rejected yesterday let’s move on

Milton’s language doesn’t address 34

For clarity, the standing committee CAN propose changes that are not policy, which includes disclosure automation.

@Marika exactly

some forms of disclosure automation. not necessarily all of them

can we reset the clock?

Thanks, Milton. This is what I'm genuinely trying and struggling to understand: what forms of disclosure automation do you think would be considered policy?

let’s say a decision to automatically disclose legal persons

@Milton, that might be an interesting statement if only the SSAD had the ability to recognize a registration from a legal person.

I also don't understand Amr's request, sorry

we

Thanks, Margie.

but what if there ARE legal requirements to the contrary?

ike that language in there

That's fine with me (remove first phrase on 8.5)

we like

If there are legal requirements, a CP cannot go against local law.

@Marika: yes…, that goes without saying.

@Milton this seems like a great conversation to have "not" in the chat. I see where you're coming from.

Remove. Not sure it adds anything.

I object to deleting it

I believe we put that language in there for a reason. There may be local law that requires, for instance, a court order in order to disclose.

correct Stephanie

So This phrase is a caveat on the MUSt of the rest of the sentence

@Stephanie - in that case, local law would trump, regardless of what it says here?

If that’s where we landed, then I’m ok @Alan W.

Right

Exactly Alan, all recs are subject to the applicable law and c/n override the law.

@AlanW: +1

Sure, but does everybody understand that? I think not, we have gone 20 years ignoring data protection law, have we not?

That was of course the concern Stephanie .. but ...

Of all the ugly clauses in this report, that clause is not the ugliest

the CP is going to follow local law anyway, they've told us time and time again

Maybe this is why we're doing one speaker per group

I have a hard stop at the top of the hour. Thx.

@Brian: maybe that’s why more than one per group is necessary.

+1 Amr. Of course, everyone needs to abide by applicable law.

Amr is correct, but is that the highest priority to discuss now?

The report is riddled with statements like this.

@AlanG: It really isn’t of the highest priority at all. Apologies…, but thought I’d share the thought. Was really looking for clarification on the need for this, as opposed to anything else.

So what version are we going with.

No changes

will we discuss 8.7.1?

When does this call end?

I am confused. Are you accepting the deletion of that phrase Absent any legal requirements to the contrary, or not.

It was there for a purpose.

Now @Milton :)

no she said no change

Good it is hard to keep up when there is no scroll capability