Document wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+22+August+2019

Note there is also a new 10.6 in relation to the RPM letter

10.6 - Questions from the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group Co-Chairs [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/beckham-et-al-to-gnso-council-rpm-pdp-liaison-19aug19-en.pdf] and GNSO Council leadership reply [https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/gnso-council-to-rpm-pdp-co-chairs-22aug19-en.pdf]

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

On one of the action items, I reached out to the RegData Policy IRT, but they are still working on previous EPDP recommendations. I just singled them the Council keen interest on the transfer policy matter, and will report to the Council when the IRT gets to that subject.

Thanks, Rubens.

We will be able to finalise today or tomorrow.

for some reason my name is not on the volunteers list of this issue

noting that just in case

@Elsa, you are listed for the Addendum work.

We have a meeting later today

But if you also intended to volunteer for this later, broader Phase 2 rechartering work, we are happy to put your name here too, Elsa.

No update, but we can follow up

No, I think you covered it :-)

I'll defer to Michele.

Thanks Rubens

Staff might recall

I’m not caffeinated enough to recall

All: FYI: I just reviewed and updated my SOI : have been added to the list of panellists of NOMINET.

Thank you Flip, this will be noted.

Thank you Flip for the update and congratulations!

Thanks Pam

Congrats Flip!

Great news, Flip!

Congrats, Flip.

@Ariel: re the liaison to the ccNSO IDN PDP I noted the reference to reaching out to Marteen and myself in the AP list, it's good we have some some time for this, I'll give it some thought personally, it really depends on bandwidth and overlap with other activities.

For draft letter, please see https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/drazek-et-al-to-icann-board-15aug19-en.pdf

The Council can tell the EPDP to look at a subject, but it shouldn't direct it in one direction or the other.

Hello all, sorry I’m so late.

Welcome Osvaldo!

The draft currently says “As such, the Council does not expect it will need to take further action” - which means accepting the Board’s non-adoption of rec 1 / purpose 2.

Thanks Marika - that's what we meant.

It also says “but it will consult with the EPDP Team to ensure it carefully considers the Board’s rationale for the non-adoption of purpose 2 as part of its deliberations and subsequent work on this purpose.”

Keith - relevant bit of the BC mail yesterday:

We believe that asking the Board to adopt Rec 1/purpose 2 as is, when it clearly contradicts the advice from the European Commission, is an issue; instead, the Council should instruct the EPDP team to prioritise the rewording of the placeholder language. That way, the Board will be notified of the agreed modification to the Phase 1 Report as soon as possible and this can be implemented along with the rest of the Phase 1 Recommendations. It was agreed that the placeholder language would be further discussed in Phase 2, but as we already know it is problematic under the GDPR it makes sense to adopt and implement final wording as soon as we can. The consultation process from the Bylaws (see language below) gives the Council the opportunity to correct this error, so it seems to us that the Council should take this opportunity now.

Carlos Gutierrez sends his apology for today’s call

I support Tatiana’s suggestion.

I also support Tatiana’s suggestion.

thanks, Darcy and Pam

Agree that’s the intent, but the language isn’t clear. I can send some proposed edits.

Thanks Darcy, that would be great

ICANN Board letter to GNSO Council 15 May 19: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/chalaby-to-drazek-15may19-en.pdf

It actually just says “, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”

It does not reference global public interest in Annex A as far as I am aware

the one i have and the one linked to the agenda says global public interest

Global public interest means "I'll do as I want not as you wanted".

Correct, it is not in the Bylaws language for PDP approvals

my apologies ...... late arrival of the morning call....

thank you for the confirmation

sure, I can suggest language

Thanks Elsa

Oh welcome Carlos!

But the term DOES appear elsewhere in the Bylaws; perhaps most apropos here being under Core Values: “ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest … "

Thanks Mary

Also, for Board actions on policy, the Board may include in the rationale for its resolution “possible material effects, if any, of its decision on the global public interest”.

it still is a risky term to use loosely I believe. It should be our responsibility to flag that as a GNSO

@Michele - respectfully, unfair to cast my earnest request for a short delay to try to build a consensus as some sort of delay tactic. I took quite a beating from all sides in trying to get the multi-stakehollder model to actually work in this context, rather than simply having the powerful dictate to the powerless. The goal was to try to get everyone on board then so that we wouldn't have to have follow on conversations like the one we are having now.

I have to disconnect and reconnect, will be back soon.

@Elsa, I agree with Keith that today's context is likely not the forum to find the definititions we need, but I do think it would be very beneficial for the multistakeholder model if we as a community could once and for all define (for everyone, and not just the GNSO) what certain terms mean, e.g. "the public interest", "consensus", etc. Couldn't be done in a PDP, since that would only end up applying to the GNSO...

Keith I was wondering if there were seagulls or a puppy at the background :-)

Keith, I'd rather have the seagulls than the police helicopter I have in the background...

Draft GNSO Council response to ICANN Org letter received on 21 June 2019: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-council-response-whois-accuracy-ars-letter-15aug19-en.pdf

Julf, they finally come for you O_o?

I'd rather the puppies than the bunch of small yet loud people in the creche next to my office...

Tatiana - I think the Duch National bank (3 blocks away) are moving around some gold again...

Keith - e-mail sent to the list yesterday on this too.

@Elsa - but why would we spend time building protections for inaccurate data? Surely, no one believes the GDPR protects fake data?

Marie, I have construction works at the tram stops right in front of my window (from 7 am to 10 pm every day), so I honestly would rather have loud people, or a helicopter or better puppies/seagulls. Am all envious now.

Paul, I’m not talking about substance here, I’m talking about procedure

I am just visualizing a helicopter full of small people landing at a construction site, with seagulls scattering...

The rules for the EPDP based on the charter we developed as a GNSO Council are very clear. ARS is not included.

I want a seagull

@michele with your low-carb diet, it doesn’t look good for the seagull :)

Sorry! old hand.

@Rafik - well I do like poultry

Happy to put my hand up there, Keith. Thanks.

I will volunteer

@Keith - agree RE: validation, but that is implementation of a generally understood principle that we should do our best to make sure data isn't fake

I do as well

See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pre-engagement-comms-assumptions-paper-17jun19-en.pdf

On ARS issue: Referring to Annex 4 of GNSO Operating Procedures on EPDP - the VERY FIRST paragraph on this annex says the following:

These guidelines and processes supplement the requirements for the EPDP described in Annex E of the ICANN Bylaws [include link]. An EPDP may be initiated by the GNSO Council only in the following specific circumstances: (1) to address a narrowly defined policy issue that was identified and scoped after either the adoption of a GNSO policy recommendation by the ICANN Board or the implementation of such an adopted recommendation;

; or (2) to provide new or additional policy recommendations on a specific policy issue that had been substantially scoped previously, such that extensive, pertinent background information already exists, e.g. (a) in an Issue Report for a possible PDP that was not initiated; (b) as part of a previous PDP that was not completed; or (c) through other projects such as a GGP.

The EPDP should not be used as a tool to reopen a previously explored policy issue only because a constituency or stakeholder group was not satisfied with the outcome of a previously held process on the same policy issue, unless the circumstances have changed and/or new information is available.End quote. ARS should not whatsoever be a part of the EPDP work.

Procedurally.

The 1k is a fixed number

It’s based on technical studies etc

`RSSAC confirmed

1k was based on the capability of ICANN of evaluating applications, not on the root system capability.

thanks!

What RSSAC suggested was for a rate of growth (% relative to zone size), not for any rate whatsoever.

thank Rubens I was typing somethong re that rate of growth work

And thanks Rubens and Michelle, that's also what I was trying to get at

And considering scaling gains such as RSP Pre-Approval, it is to be expected that ICANN process ability would greatly increase compared to 2012.

Staff maximum capability is important just like maximum technical capability. I don't think it is reasonable to ask ICANN Org to beggar itself exceeding reasonable capability. Hard numbers from SSAC and Staff will be supremely helpful to the PDP.

@Paul the enquiries along the lines of getting such numbers from the SSAC/RSAC is how we got the rate calculations etc.,

If there are 2000 applications from a few dozen RSPs, that's very different than 2000 applications each with their technical infrastructure.

And the likelihood of having a few dozen RSPs is much greater, considering the overall landscape.

+1 Michele - it seems like Staff could come up with an optimized workflow amount (dollars to application review).

The document says 2000

@Cheryl - yes, I remember the discussions on the WG call. That is only 1 side of the coin. The other side of the coin is how expensive will it be for ICANN Org to process the applications. The SSAC ceiling may be significantly lower than the Staff ceiling.

Indeed @Paul which is why stated working assumptions on the planning side ( this discussion) is so important

@Paul, the overall optimisation involved in what's currently suggested by the PDP will make it much less expensive than the 2012 per application cost/effort.

@Rubens - one certainly hopes! :)

Thought it was 30th August?

What still might be a constraint is the contracting capacity.

@Rubens - that is the one thing that can be scaled up easily by externallizing it to law firms.

Seagulls ate it.

Please note that all final documents of the completed PDP 3.0 improvements, which have been delivered to the Council, can be found on the agenda page: https://community.icann.org/x/B6_jBg

We do have an EPDP meeting starting, but they can do without us for 5 min...

I have warned Janis that we are running slightly over here

thanks, Marika!

An email with the RPM documents has been sent to the Council list; and a copy also posted to the WG mailing list for transparency.

Thanks all

Thanks Keith!

thanks all, bye

Thanks to all - seagull recipes appreciated ;-).

Thanks, all. Bye.

Thanks!

Thx Bye!

Thanks Keith. Thanks everyone. Bye.

Thanks, bye

bye for now do circulate the Survey to your groups

thanks all