Logo

GNSO Council Meeting - Shared screen with speaker view
Nathalie Peregrine
41:39
Document wiki page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+22+August+2019
Marika Konings
48:02
Note there is also a new 10.6 in relation to the RPM letter
Steve Chan
48:21
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]
Nathalie Peregrine
49:11
Action Items: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Action+Items
Rubens Kuhl
51:06
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.
Pam Little, RrSG
51:43
Thanks, Rubens.
Flip Petillion
52:29
We will be able to finalise today or tomorrow.
Elsa Saade
53:18
for some reason my name is not on the volunteers list of this issue
Elsa Saade
53:29
noting that just in case
Mary Wong
53:36
@Elsa, you are listed for the Addendum work.
Paul McGrady
54:00
We have a meeting later today
Mary Wong
54:13
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.
Marika Konings
54:33
No update, but we can follow up
Marika Konings
58:25
No, I think you covered it :-)
Rubens Kuhl
59:49
I'll defer to Michele.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:00:04
Thanks Rubens
Michele Neylon
01:02:09
Staff might recall
Michele Neylon
01:02:18
I’m not caffeinated enough to recall
Flip Petillion
01:06:29
All: FYI: I just reviewed and updated my SOI : have been added to the list of panellists of NOMINET.
Nathalie Peregrine
01:06:51
Thank you Flip, this will be noted.
Pam Little, RrSG
01:07:15
Thank you Flip for the update and congratulations!
Flip Petillion
01:07:28
Thanks Pam
Elsa Saade
01:08:37
Congrats Flip!
Marie Pattullo
01:09:18
Great news, Flip!
Darcy Southwell
01:12:12
Congrats, Flip.
Philippe Fouquart
01:13:11
@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.
Marika Konings
01:13:12
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
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:21
The Council can tell the EPDP to look at a subject, but it shouldn't direct it in one direction or the other.
Osvaldo Novoa
01:14:29
Hello all, sorry I’m so late.
Nathalie Peregrine
01:14:48
Welcome Osvaldo!
Marika Konings
01:15:13
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.
Marie Pattullo
01:15:38
Thanks Marika - that's what we meant.
Marika Konings
01:16:02
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.”
Marie Pattullo
01:16:15
Keith - relevant bit of the BC mail yesterday:
Marie Pattullo
01:16:21
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.
Nathalie Peregrine
01:17:34
Carlos Gutierrez sends his apology for today’s call
Pam Little, RrSG
01:17:46
I support Tatiana’s suggestion.
Darcy Southwell
01:18:06
I also support Tatiana’s suggestion.
Tatiana Tropina
01:21:51
thanks, Darcy and Pam
Darcy Southwell
01:23:35
Agree that’s the intent, but the language isn’t clear. I can send some proposed edits.
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:23:53
Thanks Darcy, that would be great
Nathalie Peregrine
01:23:57
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
Marika Konings
01:25:15
It actually just says “, the Board determines that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN”
Marika Konings
01:25:34
It does not reference global public interest in Annex A as far as I am aware
Elsa Saade
01:25:42
the one i have and the one linked to the agenda says global public interest
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:45
Global public interest means "I'll do as I want not as you wanted".
Mary Wong
01:25:47
Correct, it is not in the Bylaws language for PDP approvals
Carlos Raul, Costa Rica
01:26:02
my apologies ...... late arrival of the morning call....
Elsa Saade
01:26:04
thank you for the confirmation
Elsa Saade
01:26:23
sure, I can suggest language
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:26:27
Thanks Elsa
Nathalie Peregrine
01:26:50
Oh welcome Carlos!
Mary Wong
01:27:01
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 … "
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:27:12
Thanks Mary
Mary Wong
01:28:12
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”.
Elsa Saade
01:28:42
it still is a risky term to use loosely I believe. It should be our responsibility to flag that as a GNSO
Paul McGrady
01:29:33
@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.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:38
I have to disconnect and reconnect, will be back soon.
Paul McGrady
01:34:06
@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...
Tatiana Tropina
01:34:58
Keith I was wondering if there were seagulls or a puppy at the background :-)
Julf Helsingius
01:35:11
Keith, I'd rather have the seagulls than the police helicopter I have in the background...
Nathalie Peregrine
01:35:25
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
Tatiana Tropina
01:35:33
Julf, they finally come for you O_o?
Marie Pattullo
01:36:04
I'd rather the puppies than the bunch of small yet loud people in the creche next to my office...
Julf Helsingius
01:36:19
Tatiana - I think the Duch National bank (3 blocks away) are moving around some gold again...
Marie Pattullo
01:36:59
Keith - e-mail sent to the list yesterday on this too.
Paul McGrady
01:37:31
@Elsa - but why would we spend time building protections for inaccurate data? Surely, no one believes the GDPR protects fake data?
Tatiana Tropina
01:37:32
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.
Elsa Saade
01:38:02
Paul, I’m not talking about substance here, I’m talking about procedure
Julf Helsingius
01:38:46
I am just visualizing a helicopter full of small people landing at a construction site, with seagulls scattering...
Elsa Saade
01:39:21
The rules for the EPDP based on the charter we developed as a GNSO Council are very clear. ARS is not included.
Michele Neylon
01:40:41
I want a seagull
Rafik Dammak
01:41:11
@michele with your low-carb diet, it doesn’t look good for the seagull :)
Marie Pattullo
01:41:28
Sorry! old hand.
Michele Neylon
01:42:13
@Rafik - well I do like poultry
Marie Pattullo
01:48:19
Happy to put my hand up there, Keith. Thanks.
Darcy Southwell
01:48:31
I will volunteer
Paul McGrady
01:48:34
@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
Flip Petillion
01:48:36
I do as well
Marika Konings
01:50:27
See https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/pre-engagement-comms-assumptions-paper-17jun19-en.pdf
Elsa Saade
01:57:38
On ARS issue: Referring to Annex 4 of GNSO Operating Procedures on EPDP - the VERY FIRST paragraph on this annex says the following:
Elsa Saade
01:58:00
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;
Elsa Saade
01:58:06
; 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.
Elsa Saade
01:58:27
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.
Elsa Saade
01:58:29
Procedurally.
Michele Neylon
02:00:41
The 1k is a fixed number
Michele Neylon
02:00:53
It’s based on technical studies etc
Michele Neylon
02:01:04
`RSSAC confirmed
Rubens Kuhl
02:01:29
1k was based on the capability of ICANN of evaluating applications, not on the root system capability.
Philippe Fouquart
02:02:11
thanks!
Rubens Kuhl
02:02:16
What RSSAC suggested was for a rate of growth (% relative to zone size), not for any rate whatsoever.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:53
thank Rubens I was typing somethong re that rate of growth work
Philippe Fouquart
02:02:54
And thanks Rubens and Michelle, that's also what I was trying to get at
Rubens Kuhl
02:03:48
And considering scaling gains such as RSP Pre-Approval, it is to be expected that ICANN process ability would greatly increase compared to 2012.
Paul McGrady
02:04:16
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:05:59
@Paul the enquiries along the lines of getting such numbers from the SSAC/RSAC is how we got the rate calculations etc.,
Rubens Kuhl
02:06:01
If there are 2000 applications from a few dozen RSPs, that's very different than 2000 applications each with their technical infrastructure.
Rubens Kuhl
02:06:27
And the likelihood of having a few dozen RSPs is much greater, considering the overall landscape.
Paul McGrady
02:06:38
+1 Michele - it seems like Staff could come up with an optimized workflow amount (dollars to application review).
Michele Neylon
02:07:22
The document says 2000
Paul McGrady
02:08:22
@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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:09:43
Indeed @Paul which is why stated working assumptions on the planning side ( this discussion) is so important
Rubens Kuhl
02:09:47
@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.
Paul McGrady
02:10:12
@Rubens - one certainly hopes! :)
Marie Pattullo
02:11:29
Thought it was 30th August?
Rubens Kuhl
02:11:32
What still might be a constraint is the contracting capacity.
Paul McGrady
02:12:10
@Rubens - that is the one thing that can be scaled up easily by externallizing it to law firms.
Marie Pattullo
02:13:07
Seagulls ate it.
Ariel Liang
02:28:31
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
Julf Helsingius
02:36:05
We do have an EPDP meeting starting, but they can do without us for 5 min...
Marika Konings
02:36:29
I have warned Janis that we are running slightly over here
Julf Helsingius
02:36:40
thanks, Marika!
Mary Wong
02:39:44
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.
Pam Little, RrSG
02:40:18
Thanks all
Paul McGrady
02:40:22
Thanks Keith!
Tatiana Tropina
02:40:22
thanks all, bye
Marie Pattullo
02:40:23
Thanks to all - seagull recipes appreciated ;-).
Darcy Southwell
02:40:23
Thanks, all. Bye.
Julf Helsingius
02:40:25
Thanks!
Flip Petillion
02:40:30
Thx Bye!
Philippe Fouquart
02:40:31
Thanks Keith. Thanks everyone. Bye.
Osvaldo Novoa
02:40:32
Thanks, bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:40:32
bye for now do circulate the Survey to your groups
Elsa Saade
02:40:37
thanks all