Members - please select all panelists and attendees for chat option

The numbers Janis put forward, assumes that we will not conduct Tuesday's sessions. But it is still an option.

Once again, this is amazing work by Berry!

Thanks Mark, not just me, but all support staff.

Huge props to staff for sifting through the mountains of comments to sort them out. I bet they had tons of fun.

Fantastic work, and thanks to our amazing staff.

Kudos to staff

Agreed, great work!

Fantastic work to staff on this!

Great work staff, thank you

To be clear: you're not selecting comments/edits (e.g. "this edit is kinda like this other one, so we'll only look at this one and not that one"), just sorting them - correct?

(reposting to all attendees) -- To be clear: you're not selecting comments/edits (e.g. "this edit is kinda like this other one, so we'll only look at this one and not that one"), just sorting them - correct?

Good question Franck

correct - the only comments that are not included is 'support' (without any text) and 'no opinion'

we do not copy/paste all comments, if they are similar, there is no need as the same sentiment is conveyed.

staff/leadership will review each Wednesday the responses to determine what needs to be discussed

Thanks Berry. When you say "similar", is that true for edits as well? Because 2 edits that are seemingly similar can actually have an important difference (e.g. if I use "immediately" in my edit while yours says "without undue delay")

and where there is no need to discuss because everyone agrees, or it is not deemed a major issues

It's not quantity, but quality.

@Caitlin: Thanks. Was hoping this would be the answer to my question.

all proposed edits are captured separately - even if they concern similar sections (only when people suggested the exact same edit are they grouped)

Thanks again, Caitlin.

Thanks Berry (for answering my question - and because I think that's the right way to handle and present edits)

Agree with Franck, thanks for the clarification

The recommendations are like our children Janis all equal :)

I do not see any groups as opposing. some are just wrong...

I'd like to emphasize again the timing of this - we need input by Tuesday to allow staff and leadership on Wednesday to review the input and see what are comments / issues that require plenary discussion, propose specific language to address concerns and see where changes can be applied as no concerns have been expressed.

Only if new information is provided would it cause to go back.

Staff will load in individual comments as they come in. We will then add those comments that offer new meaning/ideas/understanding to the Discussion Draft.

Hi. Can Beth bacon be promoted to panellist please.

NVM - done :D

Thanks, Alan. All fixed! Thanks team

@Janis: Ah…, thanks. That sounds great.

The EPDP Team can also look at the comments and see if there is anything new! Please keep us honest. ;-)

We will do our best to do that, but sometimes our information is not necessarily taken seriously, nor treated as “new”

Thanks, Berry.

As Janis noted earlier, we will setup the schedule of review on the least controversial recommendations. The hope there is the late comments will have little to none for moving backwards.

In the meantime, as Margie suggested on Thursday, groups that haven’t submitted comments yet may try (to the extent possible) to include their arguments during the review process, pending their own submissions being delivered, correct?

Link to goog doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t_0pPy3ZQqOC-if91JfW5u80OIafHSKLpaMQguZe_qM/edit#

Without wishing to re-argue this case, a 24 hours turnaround is an implementation issue. There needs to be language in the policy that permits deviance and focuses on reasonable efforts.

How we could possibly set metrics before we have a working model continues to mystify me.

(Yes I know RDAP is working)

That was WHOSE idea?

@Milton - the GNSO Council Standing committee was added here based on your comment submitted early on. There's also a disclaimer note in the intro, that if no agreement can be had here, a likely default is EPDP.

We went to a lot of work to develop the GGP Manual. Time to use it.

I was new to ICANN at the time, but the confusion at ICANN between policy and implementation was…..breathtaking. That was a good process, in my view, and very necessary.

b and c can coexist right?

right, Marc. He has put his finger right on the problem.

totally agree with Marc

We need to have a common, shared notion of what kind of changes are in scope

+1 Marc, that's a key consideration

+1Marc

+1 Marc

in fact, we might evolve some things differently (e.g. SLAs vs. automation types)

One component for this group to consider is the amount of overhead required in resource requirements for both the community and for staff support.

Don’t we have unlimited resource Berry :)

Don’t forget cost allocation. Big Black Hole

( I see Berry and I had similar thoughts. His comment was more diplomatic)

known unknowns?

Alan -- muted?

+1 Alan all about the scope, will make the choice easier

The sound is breaking

An IRT will be formed regardless of the outcome on the MEchanisim to implement the SSAD. But typical IRTs do have end dates once the Policy Effective Date (PED) is determined.

+1 Thomas

We definitely need an IRT, but that is separate from what will be an ongoing process on operational issues.

GGPs can always be very narrowly scoped to address emerging issues very quickly…, so long as no new obligation is imposed on Contracted Parties.

Thomas raises and excellent point There will be pushback that rises to a significant level long before it is settled in Court.

Excellent points Thomas!

I am sorry I was disconnected

Mark brings up a good point…different topics likely will need to take a different route

A standing committee as is by definition does not deal with implementation issues

+1 Hadia

so, to summarize, we have not actually agreed on what is within the scope of “evolution”

Note, though that while the GGP can be spun up by the Council, it does still require a charter to govern its ops.

Right, Milton.

I think we have to work through a few hypotheticals to see how we are going to sort these into buckets, as Mark SV admirably put it.

@Laureen: That’s correct. A GGP has never been used, similar to the EPDP, until this EPDP.

+1 Laureen

Amen, Alan!

@AlanW: +1000

Some of the examples that Thomas raised clearly will require policy changes, others not. The GNSO Council would have to decide which ones require a PDP, which could be managed through a GGP, which the IRT

A court case that throw out a line of reasoning which we relied on would require a pdp in my view, and I for one believe we should be anticipating this.

+1 AlanW, that is part of the "sorting" exercise I was proposing

And preparing for how we would respond in a timely manner

Thanks Amr -- appreciate those insights.

Ultimatums aren’t helpful.

@Amr - I did not say we have to agree to something, I said we need to honor what we agreed upon.

@Amr I am sorry that you saw my words as such, no offense intended for sure

@Volker, I just meant that any GNSO Councilor could initiate a GGP tomorrow, i.e. that it's already an established thing. Per Amr's earlier comment, we're not defining a new mechanism.

I will volunteer too.

I volunteer as well.

Happy to do it.

Include me as well please

I don't think "happy" is the right word... but am willing. ;)

@Hadia: Thanks. Appreciate that. Probably just a misunderstanding.

link to DD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zw_CDmZ1xID-RnqKPuvEgRs6nUNCCc7Eq0T5CfukFlU/edit#heading=h.gjdgxs

@Marc, I'll put you down as "kicking and screaming" :-) thank you, in any event.

Extra hor. line in 1st item

Who gets access to the audit reports?

Will there be public and confidential audit reports? Who is in charge of determining what gets published?

Hopefully, most reports should be automatically generated, but there is STILL work to create the ability to do a specific (automated) report, and there is still work for periodic review that a report is working properly.

Can we stop expecting Ignored or any of the’BAD’ things are the reason for reporting.

Reports should be there to focus on improving efficiencies and helping understand the demand, the way the system is working. This immediate focus on how the CPH are wronging every one is frankly tiresome.

Statistics are non-judgmental. "Bad" is a judgement. "didn't meet SLA" is not a judgement.

Transparency of statistics is key

But yet that is all you focus on …. The reports may be non-judgmental … but the framing is certainly not.

I mentioned that the current framing is unproductive

We need to be specific - otherwise the IRT won’t do know what to do

@Milton: +1

Hopefully the requestors would be willing to be public, transparent and granular. CPs seem to be concerned about that.

+ 1 Milton

+1 Milton to transparency, objective results do not hurt

they are legal persons, eh?

well, if they are not, no disclosure of course

Regardless of whether they are legal persons or not, they may be entitled to confidentiality

Certainly not advocating the the personal information of natural persons who are SSAD users be published, or improperly disclosed.

Same for registrant info in any reporting done.

It seems the takeaway to fulfil this recommendation for the final report is more about listing down principles and by what lens they may be used (public, access by CP or Requestor for their own use, Compliance, Audit).

and less about creating a list of what should be reported on.

+1 Berry

Sounds right, Berry.

Correct Janis -- LEA requests would likely need to be confidential

Sorry guys . I have to drop.

+1 Franck

good points Amr

Good point, Amp.

Amr.

Sorry I have to drop, but let me say that we certainly need to consider the impact of data that is reported / published.

There are many legitimate reasons for organizations to request confidentiality, which we have not discussed. That does not really impact the value of decent audit logs being published.

I need to drop now…thanks all

@Stephanie: +1

I am also v interested in measuring workload on contracted parties in a meaningful way

Thanks, all.

just a note that aggregate data on number of requests does not violate much confidentiality. E.g., saying UK LEAs made 200 requests does not mean saying that they requested for x domain name on x day, etc

the actual request remains confidential

+1 Milton

Thank you all bye for now

Thanks all. Bye.

Thanks and bye - and stay safe!