Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Jim Prendergast
35:56
thanks
Jim Prendergast
36:41
is this the latest work plan? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9pIXkiu_d5zPVqTM09Z5BiJ1Y3-mhnwaZLPfDDcnI4/edit
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:26
more like logistically *impossible* at this stage ;-) but that is no excuse to slow down ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:38
OK!
Heather Forrest
37:41
Wow, that was a fun start to 2020
Justine Chew
37:47
Indeed
Heather Forrest
37:56
New approach: tell it as it is!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:57
:-)
Justine Chew
44:10
Sounds like a plan, @Jeff, thanks.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
44:20
hand up
Justine Chew
48:46
I would be keen on looking out for new suggestions which no one raised or considered before on 'prior consulted topics'
Kathy Kleiman
49:39
Jeff, could you clarify what you mean by the "hybrid" responses?
Jim Prendergast
50:34
Agree Justine - especially in areas where we just asked open ended questions and had no previous recommendations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:54
@Justine I think that comes into the judgment call(s) @Jeff referred to but one would hope that all comments received will be read and considered but the focus and main analysis would be focused on the new work matters we specifically seek input on...
avri doria
51:03
perhaps, new perspectives on issues that had not been considered even if the issues had been considered?
Justine Chew
52:37
@Cheryl, sure, judgment call by leadership is practical, but it can also be re-considered by WG members which are also judgment calls themselves
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:52
Yes @Avri I would push for that
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:59
COMMENT We should clarify on which sections we are NOT really seeking further public comment and do so section by section. COMMENT
Kathy Kleiman
53:49
hand up
Steve Chan
57:01
Hand up
Jeff Neuman
57:37
THanks @Steve....I couldn't come up with a term for that new thing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:44
Thanks @Steve, good summary of the concept
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:29
Does "focus on the rationale" mean we won't publish the Predictability Framework" for public comment?
Alberto Soto
59:59
Sorry, I must leave the call. I have many problems with internet in the place where I am. They are too micro-cuts and I don't understand anything.Kind regards!
Steve Chan
01:00:16
We haven’t drafted the section Anne, but I believe that should actually be part of the recommendations/implementation guidance.
Justine Chew
01:00:53
@Jeff, will the list of CCT recommendations 'assigned to' this WG be re-reviewed at any point and/or addressed within the topics on which leadership/staff thinks each should falls under?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:00:56
OK thank you Jeff
Justine Chew
01:02:29
Right, thanks @Jeff. Looking forward to that, also.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:09:10
@ Steve - shouldn't you be deleting the phrase about the acceptance window commencing?
Steve Chan
01:10:37
@ Anne, updated…it was in brackets before
Steve Chan
01:10:50
Link for the document displayed here is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:23
Re "Role of the SPIRT - may want to modify "launch' for consistency since we are sticking with approval of the final AGB
Steve Chan
01:11:58
Jeff, quick hand up if you don’t mind
Justine Chew
01:13:41
2. 2nd bullet, "With respect to the SPIRT" seems to be redundant text
Heather Forrest
01:14:30
In my view it's wise to utilise existing procedures where we have them and they are relevant.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:56
Personally I agree @Heather
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:59
@ Steve - the end of the rationale language has another reference to "launch"
Justine Chew
01:17:39
My concern would be timing
Justine Chew
01:17:56
+1 to what Jim raised
Heather Forrest
01:18:20
When we get there, I'd like to respond to Jim's question
Heather Forrest
01:18:52
No problem, ust don't forget me
Jim Prendergast
01:18:55
I had you in mind with "GNSO Council Experts"
Heather Forrest
01:19:05
I'm singing Simple Minds now, Jeff ;)
Heather Forrest
01:19:25
Thanks, Jim - a dubious title, for sure, but I'll take it ;)
Justine Chew
01:20:56
Am I correct in understanding that if an applicant raises an issue that goes through ICANN Org?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:54
I'm sure Heather will address the possible application of the Guidance and Input Mechanisms. Possible conflict because those mechanisms take priority and so Council may want to invoke Guidance or Input if one Councilor raises it. Whatever we adopt should be consistent. One issue is how it is raised. The other issue is whether or not it goes to SPIRT or to one of the Annex processes.
Justine Chew
01:22:47
Including chairs of wound up PDP WGs?
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:13
But aren't we asking Council to *initiate* here?
Elaine Pruis
01:23:19
Since whatever the SPIRIT does is non-binding, it would be ok to make the hurdles to raise issues for consideration small
Jim Prendergast
01:23:31
What does GGP mean?
Steve Chan
01:23:57
GNSO Guidance Process
Jim Prendergast
01:24:11
thanks
Heather Forrest
01:24:20
True, Steve - there is the GIP, but that was designed for GNSO input on non-PDP-related matters
Heather Forrest
01:24:26
more ad-hoc stuff
Heather Forrest
01:24:56
Let's not be hamstrung by our Ops Procedures, is all I'm saying. We need to improve communications in the GNSO by reducing barriers rather than creating them
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:14
Tx Steve and Jim -- could we put the full words into the document for other readers (GNSO Guidance Process)?
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:50
Tx!
Elaine Pruis
01:26:20
It won’t be effective if issues never make it to SPIRT for consideration
Heather Forrest
01:27:32
@Anne makes a good point about ensuring that Council maintains its connection and relevance to the SPIRIT team through open channels of communication.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:24
+1 Anne and Heather
Justine Chew
01:29:01
Just repeating for confirmation -- Am I correct in understanding that if an applicant raises an issue, that goes through ICANN Org?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:35
Some members may want to bring the issue to the SPIRT team. Others may want an EPDP. When the issue is first raised by a Councilor, there will be discussions on these options.
Heather Forrest
01:29:47
Just to clarify, though - I didn't mean 'informally' in the sense that it's not documented and recorded. What I meant is that I always hesitate to create new processes as one-off exercises. If the GNSO Council wants to communicate with the SPIRIT team and vice versa, that should be able to happen without a 'formal' process.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:05
@ Steve and Jeff - I would say "forward an issue to the SPIRT"
Justine Chew
01:34:28
I find it amusing that we are now attempting to stipulate how GNSO Council should "act", not that I'm against the attempt
Heather Forrest
01:35:33
Given that we're making recommendations, I tend to think that if we have a sense for what the mechanics should be, we should specify that in the recommendations
avri doria
01:35:36
why wouldn't that be a process issue for the GNSO Council to figure out based on its current state of process development?
Heather Forrest
01:35:54
We got burned in "round 1" for very high-level recommendations in some instances that, during implementation, took on a different flavour.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:16
@ Steve -- Jeff just used the word "forward" and that is the correct expression here (not "raise")
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:16
Thanks @Heather Perhaps our recommendation does not need to be *too* specific in design of Council Process but does require such a process allows for agility, timlyness, transparency accountability etc.,
Heather Forrest
01:36:32
@Avri - Council won't necessarily have control of it. Council will approve (or not) the PDP Final Report recommendations, and that largely ends things from a Council perspective.
Heather Forrest
01:36:51
I agree @Cheryl - we need to thread the needle here between too imprecise and too specific
Steve Chan
01:39:14
To Cheryl’s point (and perhaps Heather), maybe it’s more important to capture the expectations that are sought rather than trying to prescribe how the Council should operate.
Justine Chew
01:41:32
@Jeff, can we precede the bullets with a remark along the lines of "With expediency being the paramount parameter:"
Justine Chew
01:41:42
Under point 5
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:39
I agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:04
/Question - How can we provide incentives to the SPIRT to work quickly?
Justine Chew
01:47:07
Hand up
Justine Chew
01:50:08
Problem with mic.
Justine Chew
01:51:02
I didn't want to break your momentum. Wanted to go back to Point 5 and insert a remark before the bullets with respect to timing being of the essence
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:18
Time check we need to also fit on the AOB item
Heather Forrest
01:52:53
@Jeff quick response?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:02
Plan is for regular touch base calls Yes @Jeff
Justine Chew
01:54:02
@Steve, I had inserted some comments on the other googledoc. Should I transfer them onto this discussion paper googledoc?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:21
to facilitate any planning or coordination assistance that might be required
Heather Forrest
01:54:52
On composition - @Jeff, you often raise the value of consulting with past PDP leaders. I certainly agree that 'SPIRT should at a minimum include at least one participant from the original PDP WG and IRT'. Given that we're dealing with interpretation, and the size of this PDP, I would think that you and Cheryl would be excellent spokespeople, and also have the trust of the community to faithfully interpret any of the PDP recommendations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:03
so as much Council and Board co-ord as WG with those 2 parties
avri doria
01:55:14
and keep the number of surprises as low as possible,
Heather Forrest
01:55:16
What I mean is that I think we might want to mention here the expertise of PDP leadership in the composition of the SPIRIT
Steve Chan
01:55:27
@Justine, without having seen them, not sure. I’d say if they’re duplicative and/or more applicable to this document, then yes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:39
Noted Heather (and thanks ;-)
Jim Prendergast
01:56:28
yes - so no issues were discussed on this one but may be on future calls?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:52
This was a starter call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:06
Avri you comments here are welcome...
karen.lentz
01:57:08
No others set up at this point
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:47
Thanks Karen
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:53
I think "at least one" is pretty limiting in terms of composition of the SPIRT team having PDP and IRT background. I think the recommendation should say "should include participants from the original PDP WG and IRT who can provide insight...." etc etc etc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:06
Thanks @Avri
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:28
Task Force
Justine Chew
01:59:36
GAC Focus Group on SubPro
Justine Chew
01:59:50
?
Steve Chan
01:59:52
@Anne, not to argue the point, but simply to note that the language is lifted from the IRT Guidelines.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:56
Sorry yes Justine is correct
Justine Chew
02:01:20
I thought we're doing No 8 at the next call? ;)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:01:26
Next Call is … … ….
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:01:35
Yes we are @Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:01:46
Ok thank you.
Steve Chan
02:01:52
20:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:10
Bye for now talk more at end of week...
karen.lentz
02:02:11
thank you
avri doria
02:02:12
bye, thanks