Logo

Julie Bisland's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Judith Hellerstein
31:56
Hand up
Marika Konings
38:57
I think the questions in the survey would be two-fold, one would be ranking the mechanisms and secondly whether there would be a preference to put forward one single mechanism or whether there should be two (or more)
Becky Burr
39:49
I am now in the zoom room
Marilyn S Cade
41:33
I think that everyone is participating in their individual capacity — e.g. I doubt that the CSG would want to be bound by a GNSO agreement, as I think they will want to express their view as CSG, even though they are part of the GNSO. So, can I ask if we are agreeing that each individual participant is expressing the view of themselves. ? I am also noting, still, that some individuals or groups have different levels of active engagement so it is important to have discussion time, as you note.
Judith Hellerstein
42:24
Exactly Alan
Marika Konings
42:41
@Marilyn - as I understand it, members are appointed by their chartering organization and are expected to represent their views. I am double checking to see what the charter says.
Sylvia Cadena-APNIC Foundation
43:16
It will be good to clarify the language on the slide
Sylvia Cadena-APNIC Foundation
43:39
Your explanation now makes more sense, but the clarity on the slide will help us
Marika Konings
44:13
In addition to the role that Chartering Organization appointed members have in relation to potential consensus calls or decisions (see below), they are expected to serve as a liaison between their respective Chartering Organization and the CCWG. Members must, if and when necessary, ensure that the Chartering Organizations are kept up to date on the progress and deliberations of the CCWG as well as sharing any input from the Chartering Organization with the CCWG.
Vanda Scartezini
45:06
i understand members indicated by AC/SOs after the consulting back - members shall talk among themselves and come back if possible with one option or even with prioritizing the options
Judith Hellerstein
45:27
Yes Alan, I was not clear on this so thanks for seeking clarity on it
Alan Greenberg
45:28
@Marika, yes, but that does not guarantee unanimty.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
45:46
I agree with what Alan has said about members providing their own views rather than trying to get consensus from member groups when there are diverse views
Marika Konings
45:53
Of course - I think how some groups deal with this is to reflect this diversity in the survey
Marika Konings
48:01
This may be something for the members to discuss with their respective groups, to better understand what their expectations are?
Vanda Scartezini
48:06
@maureen to facilitate may be prioritizing , for instance, 2 members has same opinion, one not so percentage indicates previous options is more representative then the second one…
Marika Konings
48:44
At the end of the day, the chartering organizations will need to vote/adopt the recommendations so if there are difference of opinions that can already be addressed here, it would increase the changes of support by chartering organizations?
Judith Hellerstein
50:29
@sylvia I agree with you
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
51:04
@Vanda I agree that when we look at our constituency but we have to look at overall views and a different view may be held by a larger group overall
Vanda Scartezini
51:38
@ sure Maureen. just look to our group
Vanda Scartezini
52:45
agree ALAN
Marilyn S Cade
52:52
I am still of the view that we need to have a final round of public comment, but that it needs to be very directed and concise with background, concise questions, and a clear set of questions that the public comment process is about.
Sylvia Cadena
52:57
Agree Alan
Alan Greenberg
54:14
Let's just get on with it. The time-line is tight and we need to start making decisions, despite not having 100% concurrence.
Maarten Botterman
58:23
Pleasure
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:00:29
yes
Sylvia Cadena
01:02:57
Agree, panel is ok.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:03:21
Yes, community definitely needs to be involved
Vanda Scartezini
01:03:28
will is ok for me
Stephen Deerhake
01:03:54
(To Staff): Am I correct that Zoom does not support "self-scrolling" of documents displayed?
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:04:18
OK with panel and also "will include"
Judith Hellerstein
01:04:43
@stephen, yes because it is a screen share and not an upload
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:04:52
Maureen did suggest compensation
Jonathan Robinson (RySG)
01:04:58
@Alan. No remuneration for PTI Board members
Sylvia Cadena
01:05:03
Take it out
Stephen Deerhake
01:05:04
Ah. Thank you Judith.
Marika Konings
01:05:10
Correct - but note this is the same document Alan shared on the mailing list.
Judith Hellerstein
01:05:25
so self scrolling is not possible since you are just seeing another person’s screen
Judith Hellerstein
01:05:42
Can you post this URL to the chat
Stephen Deerhake
01:06:16
I believe "Panel" will be a new ICANN Glossary term... I don't recall it ever being used before...
Vanda Scartezini
01:06:49
I agree with would - limited amount of payment…
Vanda Scartezini
01:07:07
could , sorry
Sylvia Cadena
01:07:11
Is good to use a word that doesn’ have loaded meaning at ICANN. Good to use Panel
Marika Konings
01:07:15
Here is the document that is also on the screen
Carolina Caeiro
01:07:21
I agree with Marilyn about the benefits of compensation. I support using the word “Could”
Sylvia Cadena
01:07:32
Could is ok to be used, although I will prefer not to do that
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:09:25
I agree with Marilyn and note that the discussion about compensation arose when it was mentioned that experts would be paid but volunteers wouldn't
Stephen Deerhake
01:09:25
Alan, I wasn't objecting to it. I think actually it's a good proposal as it differentiates this from other ICANN groups.
Rudi Daniel
01:09:37
perhaps a "one time fee" ? or similar?
Erika Mann
01:10:27
Thank you Stephen. I think it’s good too.
Becky Burr
01:11:10
Could I suggest that we not wordsmith the independent panel compensation issue. I suspect a truly independent panel with sufficient expertise will require compensation, and that issue should be explored during implementation.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:11:22
It is a rationale. We can debate if it is valid or not.
Marilyn S Cade
01:11:50
I am not sure why there would be more GNSO members. I did suggest that there be independent and expert participants as well. Happy to comment on this.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:12:06
@Becky I am happy with the change to "the panel could be compensated
Sylvia Cadena
01:12:15
Agree with the lean approach
Stephen Deerhake
01:13:37
Thank you Marilyn for that clarification regarding the "source" of the funds.
Becky Burr
01:14:00
+1 Mauareen
Becky Burr
01:14:10
Excuse me @Maureen
Becky Burr
01:14:49
The Board does not have a view on GNSO but we feel strongly that RSAC and SSAC should be part of this group
Marilyn S Cade
01:16:14
I personally believe that the RSAC and SSAC [and GAC] should all have participation, so agree with Becky/Maarten on this.
Sylvia Cadena
01:17:05
All SO/ACs
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:17:26
+1 Sylvia and Marilyn
Marilyn S Cade
01:17:34
We NEVER would have an ICANN unless we had the root server operators/ the ccTLD managers, and the governments — so inclusiveness is critical.
Judith Hellerstein
01:17:45
I agree with Maarten. @alan thanks for clarifying it
Becky Burr
01:18:33
+1 Marilyn
Stephen Deerhake
01:20:01
+1 Marilyn as well.
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:20:33
Board Governance Committee can select
Becky Burr
01:20:37
Expertise could also be provided to the community panel if needed
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:21:42
The annual review team doesn't nec
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:22:07
necessary be compensated
Jonathan Robinson (RySG)
01:23:40
I need to move over the regular RySG call now. Apologies. Jonathan
Vanda Scartezini
01:23:52
Understanding what Marilyn talked I am in agreeinment with her point.
Becky Burr
01:24:15
I HOPE the panel is NOT charged with deciding whether the selections were right. That opens up huge risk. The question is are the funds being used in furtherance of the specified purpose
Becky Burr
01:24:30
Critical to stay away from project level analysis
Vanda Scartezini
01:24:48
clear becky
Becky Burr
01:25:17
Yay
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:27:34
Sylvia's example is a good model - experts in project management who have nothng to do with selection but just review the process
Marilyn S Cade
01:28:04
Exactly. Evaluation expertise if different. Agreeing with Sylvia.
Sylvia Cadena
01:28:46
Yes, is just about the language clarification. Thanks!
Judith Hellerstein
01:31:13
@sylvia. It is a word document that Marika posted to the chat
Marika Konings
01:31:19
Note that what is on the screen, is the document that Alan shared by email.
Carolina Caeiro
01:31:30
perhaps we can say what the panel is not meant to do.
Judith Hellerstein
01:31:32
It was also sent as an attachment that alan had sent
Carolina Caeiro
01:31:46
so that it’s as clear as possible
Sylvia Cadena
01:31:46
+ 1 Caro
Maarten Botterman
01:33:42
correct, Alan
Vanda Scartezini
01:34:29
agree ALAN
Rudi Daniel
01:34:37
agree Alan for scrap item.
Sylvia Cadena
01:35:13
Agree with remove it
Becky Burr
01:35:23
Yes, Alan is correct.
Marilyn S Cade
01:35:25
I support removing it.
Judith Hellerstein
01:35:32
Let’s remove it. I agree with Maarten
Becky Burr
01:35:35
The Board feels strongly about this.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:35:37
Remove
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:35:55
no need for it
Carolina Caeiro
01:36:07
+1
Becky Burr
01:37:41
Why not leave it for a group trigger if needed?
Erika Mann
01:38:59
Becky, it\s very common to do these major reviews after a certain period of time. They’re quite substantive. The annual one should be light.
Becky Burr
01:39:02
And OEC is fine too
Becky Burr
01:39:31
agree Erika - and the ability to do this is important.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:40:14
EVery 3 years unless something triggers action is needed
Marilyn S Cade
01:40:22
I think we need a VERY light one year, then a regular 3 year review. The Board changes in membership. I prefer to keep the major review in every 3 years.
Sylvia Cadena
01:40:32
+1 Erika
Marilyn S Cade
01:40:33
Perhaps I can speak.
Judith Hellerstein
01:40:50
I agree with Erika and Becky
Vanda Scartezini
01:41:12
I have participating also Erika and you right need to go deeply some time after the beginning
Carolina Caeiro
01:41:42
I think every 3 years, 5 years is too long
Judith Hellerstein
01:42:19
I agree with a 3 year review but 5 years is too long
Sylvia Cadena
01:42:22
+1 Carolina
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:42:40
2 or 3 years maximum
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:43:31
+1 Marilyn - 3 year review
Marilyn S Cade
01:45:16
Alan with due respect, we are not addressing ICANN or the Board. We are addressing a unique process.
Marilyn S Cade
01:45:50
Remember we are not mirroring ICANN mechanisms.,
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:46:11
+1 Erika
Sylvia Cadena
01:46:35
+1 Erika
Marilyn S Cade
01:46:43
Yes to Erika.
Judith Hellerstein
01:46:49
I agree with Erika but think 3 years is good
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:47:08
+1 Erika about a mandatory review at least after 3 years
Judith Hellerstein
01:47:37
That is fine with me
Carolina Caeiro
01:47:38
sounds good
Sylvia Cadena
01:47:56
Sounds ok, but better 3 years all round.
Sylvia Cadena
01:48:49
Sorry, I don’t think that is what Alan did
Carolina Caeiro
01:49:45
I think the first interval being 4 is OK
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:50:07
3 years all around
Sylvia Cadena
01:50:10
Agree
Sylvia Cadena
01:50:17
4 years, then3
Sylvia Cadena
01:50:23
And triggered earlier if needed
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
01:50:25
I still think it should be 3 years of operation
Sylvia Cadena
01:50:48
yes
Carolina Caeiro
01:50:53
yes, keep the trigger
Judith Hellerstein
01:50:58
Yes . Keep the trigger
Sylvia Cadena
01:51:02
Yes, keep the trigger
Rudi Daniel
01:51:11
yes plus trigger .
Sam Lanfranco
01:51:12
Agree
Nadira AL-ARAJ
01:51:17
yes for the trigger
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
01:51:25
yes
Joke Braeken
01:57:29
Stepped forward to the small team:Marylin Cade, Maureen Hilyard, Vanda Scartezini, Ching Chiao, Thato Mfikwe, Alan Greenberg, Jonathan Robinson, Elliot Noss
Marilyn S Cade
01:58:33
Just preliminary as a read, based on the discussions, I hope we are very close and welcome all comments.
Sylvia Cadena
02:02:02
I will add applications or proposals to the title to avoid confusion with project implementation evaluation. Maybe Independent Applications Evaluation Panel
Carolina Caeiro
02:03:19
I agree with the text too
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:03:20
I can remember that there was general agreement of the diirection of this definiton
Carolina Caeiro
02:03:31
who selects the members of the panel?
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:03:38
volunteers
Carolina Caeiro
02:03:40
apologies if I missed that info
Vanda Scartezini
02:03:49
yes Maureen it is my remembrance too
Sylvia Cadena
02:04:50
Yes, he added those comments
Carolina Caeiro
02:07:52
so, the implementation team will be the one deciding who volunteers/experts will actually be accepted into the panel?
Sylvia Cadena
02:08:07
Agree to use experts
Sylvia Cadena
02:08:55
Yes Caro
Carolina Caeiro
02:09:09
Thanks Sylvia for the clarification
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:10:58
Sorry my suggestion was a misunderstanding of which panel Carolina was asking about - though she meant the small group discussing the definition of independence
Marilyn S Cade
02:11:34
So we need to be able to differentiate about experts?
Sylvia Cadena
02:11:44
Thank you
Carolina Caeiro
02:12:02
Thanks Maureen, I meant who selects the experts on the Independent Evaluation Panel
Marilyn S Cade
02:12:47
I’ll just provide brief comments.
Maarten Botterman
02:13:42
As Marika says
Vanda Scartezini
02:13:53
requisites on knowledge
Carolina Caeiro
02:14:11
Marika, what do you mean that “the mechanism” is doing the selection?
Marika Konings
02:14:14
Ok, thanks for clarifying :-)
Joke Braeken
02:15:17
ok
Maarten Botterman
02:15:32
... knowledge and independence ...
Sylvia Cadena
02:18:00
Agree with Alan
Marilyn S Cade
02:18:08
Agree
Marika Konings
02:18:26
@Alan - do you have specific suggestions for how the language should be updated?
Carolina Caeiro
02:18:42
+1 Alan
Judith Hellerstein
02:19:11
I disagree with that. I think they should be given some feedback
Sylvia Cadena
02:19:54
Feedback is different from explaining why not
Vanda Scartezini
02:20:03
that is my experience too Marilyn and I have said no appeal mechanism too.
Judith Hellerstein
02:20:20
I do not say an appeals mechanism, just feedback loop
Sylvia Cadena
02:20:30
Good to help with feedback, but without appeals
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:20:43
+1 Sylvia and Marlyn :)
Vanda Scartezini
02:21:13
feedback here is just congratulations you have been selected and those are the next steps
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:21:21
Marilyn
Vanda Scartezini
02:21:43
or thanks for your application but you have been not selected this time. feel free to apply again
Sylvia Cadena
02:21:55
+1 Erika
Marilyn S Cade
02:22:04
and it could be: $$$ was allocated for XX region and all funds were awarded. The next round … as Vanda has commented.
Sylvia Cadena
02:22:05
Clarity for the implementation team
Alan Greenberg
02:22:28
Feedback implies identifying good/bad parts of application and is virtually equivalent to "reasons". Fraught wilth workload issues, and liabilities.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:22:48
Especially if the application process and preparing for their applications is important
Marika Konings
02:23:40
So how about updating it with “applicants not selected should receive further details about where information can be found about the next round of applications as well as any educational materials that may be available to assist applicants.
Marilyn S Cade
02:24:01
I like this, Marika, as suggested language.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:24:23
Yes to Marika's suggestion
Nadira AL-ARAJ
02:24:43
if there is clear criteria or guidance for applicants then there is no need for the feedback
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:24:58
Agree Nadira
Stephen Deerhake
02:25:13
+1 Alan.
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:25:19
+1 Nadira
Carolina Caeiro
02:25:41
dear all, I must step out
Carolina Caeiro
02:25:49
thanks for everything, very productive call
Marilyn S Cade
02:26:03
Nadira, good point.
Maureen Hilyard (ALAC)
02:26:10
Bye Carolina
Erika Mann
02:26:14
Take care Carolina!
Maarten Botterman
02:26:44
AGree with Alan
Sam Lanfranco
02:26:58
We need to do a bit more due diligence here. I am familiar with World Bank and other competitions where there is a separation between "rejection" and any (if any) feedback. This is not an issue unique to us.
Marilyn S Cade
02:27:45
I need to depart at this point and will listen to the rest of the call. But the mechanism will have hundreds of applications and so what ever we propose needs to take into account that the “mechanism” will bear a lot of cost for feedback. Apologies I must drop off.
Erika Mann
02:28:20
I finalize the call anyhow Marilyn!
Judith Hellerstein
02:29:04
Thanks Sylvia for all this information
Vanda Scartezini
02:29:08
yes here is first resume -a accepted or not and next steps shall be follow by those pre selected
Vanda Scartezini
02:29:58
guess we have a great meeting!!!
Stephen Deerhake
02:29:59
Bye all!
Nadira AL-ARAJ
02:30:28
this was a productive meeting
Sam Lanfranco
02:30:32
bye
Vanda Scartezini
02:30:32
bye all nice days till next call
Nadira AL-ARAJ
02:30:33
thank you
Julf Helsingius (NCSG)
02:30:34
Thanks everybody!
Sylvia Cadena
02:30:45
Bye everyone, happy to be back
Judith Hellerstein
02:30:47
Thanks all