Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
32:34
Hello
Zakir
32:57
Hello All.
Kristina Hakobyan
36:46
hello, everyone
Caleb Ogundele
37:59
Hi, Kristina
Jorge Cancio
50:19
Dear all, you may be interested in the input delivered by GAC to GNSO Council on these efforts: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20191126/434207c6/GACInputonGNSOPDP3-0Documents25Nov2019Final-0001.pdf
ariel.liang
53:55
Thanks for pointing to the GAC input, Jorge! GNSO Council Small Team is in process reviewing the input received and will take into consideration the input when updating the various documents
Jorge Cancio
55:27
@Ariel: thans, great news! GAC is ready to provide clarifications if needed :-)
ariel.liang
56:10
Thanks Jorge!
GUIGUEMDE Rodrigue
57:12
Thanks Jorge. It's very important
Michele Neylon
01:00:08
audio die?
Hadia
01:00:18
Rafik we lost you
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:30
Rafik, we do not hear you
Nathalie Peregrine
01:00:33
We’re working to et Rafik back on audio
Lori Schulman
01:00:45
Welcome back Rafik
Zakir
01:00:46
back now
David Olive
01:00:59
Thanks Rafik. We can hear you
ariel.liang
01:07:22
FYI - Q&A will be at the end of the presentation
Heather Forrest
01:12:05
Handbook for liaisons will hopefully go (at least in this initial phase) not just to new liaisons, but to all liaisons.... so that all are on the same page as regards Council's expectations of them
Heather Forrest
01:12:17
?
Rafik Dammak
01:13:35
@heather yes, and all documents will be public
Rafik Dammak
01:14:05
Those documents are also good to communicate to WG members etc to understand about liaison role and build awareness
Lori Schulman
01:15:56
Will liaisons be trained in conflict resolution techniques?
Lori Schulman
01:16:31
If we expect conflict resolution then I think some professional development may be in order depending on the background of the liaison.
Lori Schulman
01:16:47
Not everyone is equipped for that.
John Gbadamosi
01:18:42
Can we have this presentation or a link to it?
Rafik Dammak
01:19:23
@John yes it will be available after the call
John Gbadamosi
01:20:14
@Rafik that will be great then
Carlton Samuels
01:26:52
Um, Is this a good catalog of reasons to be labelled "behaviour issues"?
Jeff Neuman
01:31:19
I would consider amending the Complaint Committee to allow other people to be invited other then current or former Councilors. It could include former chairs or just others in the community that can be neutral and have experience with PDPs and conflict resolution
Jeff Neuman
01:32:02
I should have said I would ask that you all consider.....sorry, its early for me
Jeff Neuman
01:36:40
Because of the impact of the recommendations regarding "Consensus" (including the playbook and other recommendations), I would ask that these be considered separate and apart from the other recommendations (especially because we have not seen the playbook yet).
Jeff Neuman
01:38:35
The current Consensus document is based almost exclusively on IETF processes, which was explicitly rejected during PDP 2.0 discussions. This is because the IETF recommendations are "voluntary" meaning that no one is bound to follow them.
Susan Payne
01:38:57
could you please put the link in the chat
Jeff Neuman
01:38:59
Whereas here, contracted parties are required to abide by "Consensus Policies"
Steve Chan
01:39:01
@Jeff, fwiw, the Consensus Building Playbook will be about process and techniques for achieving consensus, not revising consensus definitions.
ariel.liang
01:39:01
This is the wiki page that includes all the PDP 3.0 improvement documents: https://community.icann.org/x/v4rkBg
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
01:39:18
Will the outcome of this work be a report or a platform?
Jeff Neuman
01:39:55
@Steve - Given how vital "Consensus Policies" are and that they are incorporated into contracts, the impacts could be far greater than you make it sound
ariel.liang
01:40:08
@Benjamin - it should be a final report that includes all the final implementation documents
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
01:40:52
how do you evaluate intending members project mgt skills or ability to achieve consensus when they apply for WG membership?
J Chew
01:41:02
Will the Consensus playbook and the remaining package be made available for community comment in due course?
Carlton Samuels
01:41:26
Thanks Rafik. I will look further in context.
J Chew
01:42:17
Thanks Rafik
Jeff Neuman
01:42:27
@Steve / Rafik - I understand your points, but it is hard to react to an unseen document, but you all should just understand that extreme sensitivity
Mary Wong
01:42:54
As Steve may have mentioned already, approval of funding for the Consensus Playbook was expressly conditioned on its being prepared in such a way as to be usable across the community (not just the GNSO, as Rafik also mentioned).
Steve Chan
01:43:31
Thanks Mary, I didn’t mention that, but it’s a good additional point.
Heather Forrest
01:43:31
YES that's it
Heather Forrest
01:44:40
We need to start thinking about how to transition to make that process as effective as possible
Heather Forrest
01:44:47
for our existing PDPs
Heather Forrest
01:44:49
Thanks, Rafik
Jeff Neuman
01:45:03
@Steve/@Mary - Totally understand and think the effort is a good one. All I am asking is that it has ample opportunity for review and comment and completing this by the January workshop when we have not seen it yet, sounds unrealistic
ariel.liang
01:46:06
@John & all - the webinar slides are published on this wiki page, recording will be added later: https://community.icann.org/x/LgNhBw
Zakir
01:46:32
thank you @Ariel.
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:48:11
the table only mentions GNSO participation in the representative models....
ariel.liang
01:49:01
No problem! The slides provide summary/highlight, and more details of the implementation can be found on the wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/v4rkBg
Lori Schulman
01:49:23
Just confirming what I think Rafik said, each PDP may have a different model? One that is suggested by GNSO council?
Beckham
01:49:48
Section 13.1. EXTERNAL EXPERT ADVICE(a) Purpose. The purpose of seeking external expert advice is to allow the policy-development process within ICANN to take advantage of existing expertise that resides in the public or private sector but outside of ICANN. In those cases where there are relevant public bodies with expertise, or where access to private expertise could be helpful, the Board and constituent bodies should be encouraged to seek advice from such expert bodies or individuals.
Jeff Neuman
01:50:03
@Lori - I would think that the model would be specifically set in the Charter, right?
Rafik Dammak
01:50:48
@greg you think you meant the consensus designation. It is about ensuring balance but it is not restricting representation
Jeff Neuman
01:51:41
Question: If we go to a representative model, should we require that Councilors not serve as the representatives in order to ensure that the Council is seen as the managers of the process as opposed to participants?
Heather Forrest
01:52:55
@Jeff - it's an interesting idea that takes us deeper into (helpful in my view) the role of Council in carrying out the requirements of Bylaws Article 11
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:53:17
radio, what weight is applied to non-GNSO participants in the consensus process?
Greg Shatan (ISOC-NY)
01:54:04
sorry - Rafik not “radio” — blame autocorrect!
Rafik Dammak
01:54:19
Unfortunately I don’t have a radio voice :)
J Chew
01:54:24
To @Greg's point, which implies AC's positions in the Representative Model and Representative & Open Model aren't properly in weighted.
J Chew
01:54:57
*aren't properly weighted
Keith Drazek (Verisign)
01:55:00
I don't think we'd want to tie the hands of SGs and Cs in appointing representative members, particularly with a limited number of volunteers/contributors, but Jeff's point on differentiation of roles is an interesting one.
Jeff Neuman
01:55:59
@Keith - Understood. But then a Representative/Open model should be considered the default as opposed to going to a Representative model.
Lori Schulman
01:56:08
@Jeff, yes it would be in the charter but I am still not clear how it gets into the charter.
Jeff Neuman
01:56:12
Sorry
ariel.liang
01:56:40
@Lori and all - a follow up work for PDP 3.0 is to revise the PDP Working Group Charter Template. So some of the improvements will be reflected in the revision
Jeff Neuman
01:56:42
@LOri - the Council approves the charter (and in theory is responsible for drafting)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:57:03
Agree with both Keith and Jeff: I think it would be good to aspire to Jeff's point, but Keith's point is important too in recognising potentially small pool of volunteers.
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
01:57:20
@Rafik I posted this : how do you evaluate intending members project mgt skills or ability to achieve consensus when they apply for WG membership?
Lori Schulman
01:57:53
@ Jeff, so then council chooses?
Lori Schulman
01:58:07
ultimately its a council decision?
Jeff Neuman
01:58:13
@lori - that is what I understand
Jeff Neuman
01:58:51
(But I am not on the small team, so I am going off of history)
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
01:59:34
Thank you :) for clarifying that
ariel.liang
02:02:16
Again, webinar slides and recording will be published here: https://community.icann.org/x/LgNhBw
J Chew
02:02:29
@Lori, according to the documents, it's the GNSO Council and/or Charter Drafting Team, giving reasons.
Carlton Samuels
02:02:40
Thank you Rafik and Ariel as main presenters. Thank you all
Zakir
02:02:46
thank all. bye.
Abdalla
02:02:49
thank you
Heather Forrest
02:02:50
Thanks Rafik and team
ariel.liang
02:02:51
Thanks everyone!
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:52
Thanks Rafik