thanks

is this the latest work plan? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9pIXkiu_d5zPVqTM09Z5BiJ1Y3-mhnwaZLPfDDcnI4/edit

more like logistically *impossible* at this stage ;-) but that is no excuse to slow down ;-)

OK!

Wow, that was a fun start to 2020

Indeed

New approach: tell it as it is!

:-)

Sounds like a plan, @Jeff, thanks.

hand up

I would be keen on looking out for new suggestions which no one raised or considered before on 'prior consulted topics'

Jeff, could you clarify what you mean by the "hybrid" responses?

Agree Justine - especially in areas where we just asked open ended questions and had no previous recommendations.

@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...

perhaps, new perspectives on issues that had not been considered even if the issues had been considered?

@Cheryl, sure, judgment call by leadership is practical, but it can also be re-considered by WG members which are also judgment calls themselves

Yes @Avri I would push for that

COMMENT We should clarify on which sections we are NOT really seeking further public comment and do so section by section. COMMENT

hand up

Hand up

THanks @Steve....I couldn't come up with a term for that new thing

Thanks @Steve, good summary of the concept

Does "focus on the rationale" mean we won't publish the Predictability Framework" for public comment?

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!

We haven’t drafted the section Anne, but I believe that should actually be part of the recommendations/implementation guidance.

@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?

OK thank you Jeff

Right, thanks @Jeff. Looking forward to that, also.

@ Steve - shouldn't you be deleting the phrase about the acceptance window commencing?

@ Anne, updated…it was in brackets before

Link for the document displayed here is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit

Re "Role of the SPIRT - may want to modify "launch' for consistency since we are sticking with approval of the final AGB

Jeff, quick hand up if you don’t mind

2. 2nd bullet, "With respect to the SPIRT" seems to be redundant text

In my view it's wise to utilise existing procedures where we have them and they are relevant.

Personally I agree @Heather

@ Steve - the end of the rationale language has another reference to "launch"

My concern would be timing

+1 to what Jim raised

When we get there, I'd like to respond to Jim's question

No problem, ust don't forget me

I had you in mind with "GNSO Council Experts"

I'm singing Simple Minds now, Jeff ;)

Thanks, Jim - a dubious title, for sure, but I'll take it ;)

Am I correct in understanding that if an applicant raises an issue that goes through ICANN Org?

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.

Including chairs of wound up PDP WGs?

But aren't we asking Council to *initiate* here?

Since whatever the SPIRIT does is non-binding, it would be ok to make the hurdles to raise issues for consideration small

What does GGP mean?

GNSO Guidance Process

thanks

True, Steve - there is the GIP, but that was designed for GNSO input on non-PDP-related matters

more ad-hoc stuff

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

Tx Steve and Jim -- could we put the full words into the document for other readers (GNSO Guidance Process)?

Tx!

It won’t be effective if issues never make it to SPIRT for consideration

@Anne makes a good point about ensuring that Council maintains its connection and relevance to the SPIRIT team through open channels of communication.

+1 Anne and Heather

Just repeating for confirmation -- Am I correct in understanding that if an applicant raises an issue, that goes through ICANN Org?

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.

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.

@ Steve and Jeff - I would say "forward an issue to the SPIRT"

I find it amusing that we are now attempting to stipulate how GNSO Council should "act", not that I'm against the attempt

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

why wouldn't that be a process issue for the GNSO Council to figure out based on its current state of process development?

We got burned in "round 1" for very high-level recommendations in some instances that, during implementation, took on a different flavour.

@ Steve -- Jeff just used the word "forward" and that is the correct expression here (not "raise")

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.,

@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.

I agree @Cheryl - we need to thread the needle here between too imprecise and too specific

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.

@Jeff, can we precede the bullets with a remark along the lines of "With expediency being the paramount parameter:"

Under point 5

I agree

/Question - How can we provide incentives to the SPIRT to work quickly?

Hand up

Problem with mic.

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

Time check we need to also fit on the AOB item

@Jeff quick response?

Plan is for regular touch base calls Yes @Jeff

@Steve, I had inserted some comments on the other googledoc. Should I transfer them onto this discussion paper googledoc?

to facilitate any planning or coordination assistance that might be required

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.

so as much Council and Board co-ord as WG with those 2 parties

and keep the number of surprises as low as possible,

What I mean is that I think we might want to mention here the expertise of PDP leadership in the composition of the SPIRIT

@Justine, without having seen them, not sure. I’d say if they’re duplicative and/or more applicable to this document, then yes?

Noted Heather (and thanks ;-)

yes - so no issues were discussed on this one but may be on future calls?

This was a starter call

Avri you comments here are welcome...

No others set up at this point

Thanks Karen

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

Thanks @Avri

Task Force

GAC Focus Group on SubPro

?

@Anne, not to argue the point, but simply to note that the language is lifted from the IRT Guidelines.

Sorry yes Justine is correct

I thought we're doing No 8 at the next call? ;)

Next Call is … … ….

Yes we are @Justine

Ok thank you.

20:00 UTC

Bye for now talk more at end of week...

thank you

bye, thanks