Logo

Extraordinary Council meeting to discuss EPDP phase 1 recommendations - Shared screen with speaker view
Rubens Kuhl
33:20
The coffee icon in Zoom means the participant is tired and wants a break...
Maxim Alzoba
33:45
or just coffee
Martin Silva Valent
35:18
nice
Tatiana Tropina
35:25
oh. music was nice, please more
Martin Silva Valent
35:49
Instead of background noise, background music
Rubens Kuhl
38:44
Time permitting, I have an AOB item. But I understand the chances of having such time are not good.
Rubens Kuhl
39:15
IDN Guidelines
Maxim Alzoba
42:30
as I understand the formal part of 6 of Annex A-1 modification is for the Council, and for the Board - either rejection or approval
Marika Konings
43:01
The Bylaw provision provides some flexibility as it notes: “as soon as feasible after the Council's receipt of the Board Statement”
Michele Neylon
43:48
I guess my question is more - do we expect to have a meeting with them in the next couple of weeks or are we going to be doing email ping pong for weeks
Marika Konings
43:53
The method for discussion is also flexible as it notes that it can be by teleconference, e-mail or otherwise.
Michele Neylon
44:01
so very open
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:30
a nieve question perhpas but I assume that thy bylaws and all that flows from it in this interaction between GBSO COuncil and the Board, did not (necisarilly) envisage an ongoing (stage 2 here) PDP process is there any reason or need to 'stall'and aspects of phase2?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:44
Ahh Paul is asking the same thing mpre elloquently I see
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:02
sorry about the typos
Rubens Kuhl
45:34
Not by the board action, but the Council could stall phase 2 if we think it's necessary while we go thru this process with the board.
Marie Pattullo
46:50
Agree Keith- no need to pause/stall Phase 2
Marika Konings
48:29
I think Michele summarized it quite well :-)
Paul McGrady
48:35
Deathmatches with the Board should be our last choice...
Maxim Alzoba
49:24
they might have more weight in terms of policy
Nathalie Peregrine
49:35
Full agenda can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Final+Proposed+Agenda+28+May+2019
Nathalie Peregrine
49:48
Documents for the meeting: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Documents+28+May+2019
Julf Helsingius
50:04
I like the idea of a death match as a public session
Julf Helsingius
50:16
can we get a roman arena for that?
Maxim Alzoba
50:36
russian style - forest, torches and axes
Rubens Kuhl
51:13
Yes, but even the bridge might be tainted by the Board not following procedure.
Maxim Alzoba
51:21
theological question, if it is possible to follow the expired policy (dead one)
Rubens Kuhl
51:50
Not only selective on a per-recommendation basis, but also selective on parts of a recommendation.
Maxim Alzoba
51:57
post mortal policy procedures
Julf Helsingius
53:43
Ah, but who represents the EPDP team?
Michele Neylon
54:50
To who?
Rubens Kuhl
54:53
I strongly suggest all SGs and Cs represented in the Council and in the EPDP to ask their representatives for an opinion, including on which is the better forum to discuss them.
mary.wong
55:33
The Bylaws provide for the Board to adopt “any PDP recommendations” unless “such policy” is determined to be not in the best interests of ICANN/community. This can potentially be read to apply to recommendations that, as a whole, reflect just one policy; or multiple recommendations that each have a policy impact.
Michele Neylon
56:16
Rubens - we have already spoken to ours
Michele Neylon
56:21
(RrSG that is)
Maxim Alzoba
56:27
RySG too
Rubens Kuhl
57:23
Mary, on a partial basis even ? Like some words but not others of a single recommendation ?
Paul McGrady
57:37
So, I guess we should ask if anyone is unhappy with what the Board did and, if so, whether or not we envision it is possible for us to reach a unified position on what to do about.
Maxim Alzoba
57:58
following this logic it is possible to remove words ‘no’
Maxim Alzoba
58:04
from the recommendation
Maxim Alzoba
59:02
@Mary , in the Section 6 of Annex A-1 , the word modify is for GNSO Council only
Rubens Kuhl
59:04
Paul, procedurally, sure. But even in substance we agree with the board, like Purpose 2, we fear that Board is destabilizing a hard-fought consensus.
Pam Little, RrSG
59:21
Agreed with Marie with regard to the need for ICANN org to discuss with DPAs.
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:12
So our SG prefers acting in tandem instead of cherry picking what we liked and what we didn't of the rejections.
Rubens Kuhl
01:01:01
But in the case of purpose 2, at least that there is new information (the EC position) that wasn't available at deliberations.
Marika Konings
01:01:38
@Rubens, note that even at the Council level the Council can separate out recommendations or parts thereof, although PDP WGs are encouraged to indicate if recommendations are interlinked, and if so, the Council is strongly discouraged from separating out recommendations (but it can still do so)
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:06
it is more about principles being not followed, then about rejection and fight
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:19
*than
Pam Little, RrSG
01:02:21
The Board’s ask regarding #12 is quite specific :”The Board requests that as part of Phase 2, the EPDP consider the extent to which deletion (as opposed to redaction) that results in loss of or changes to the name of the registrant is in the public interest and consistent with ICANN’s mission.”
Marie Pattullo
01:04:25
Agree that we need to move forward; the Board has a wider public interest view and it seemed a pretty thoughtful response.
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:41
Even if the bylaws allow for all selective text rejections, we might invoke tradition as well. But the selective editing still "smells funny".
Marika Konings
01:04:47
Note that the minutes, when published, will document the voting record.
Philippe Fouquart
01:06:32
Maybe it's just my reading, but the "Preliminary Report" is enough to figure this out.
Philippe Fouquart
01:06:44
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/prelim-report-2019-05-15-en
Pam Little, RrSG
01:06:46
Here is the language in the scorecard re #1:
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:52
do we need a disclaimer of “the following reccomendations created as the wholistic elements, modification is not recommended due to lack of the basis for it in the bylaws” ?
Paul McGrady
01:07:01
I think this is a tempest in a tea pot. If we don't think what the Board did was irrational, even if it wasn't exactly what the members of the Council who voted "yes" on what we sent to the Board, there doesn't seem to be a huge upside to doing anything here other than meeting with the Board once to talk through why they did what they did. Getting in a tussle with them seems counterproductive.
Rubens Kuhl
01:10:16
And while I would prefer referring substantive comments to EPDP, on Rec. 12 ICANN is showing to not obey data minimisation principles of GDPR. So this is very likely to either be slapped by DPAs, or to trigger more lawsuits for ICANN to lose in EEA courts.
Paul McGrady
01:14:43
Great question Flip - what do we want here? For them to reverse the decision? For them to be better communicators in the future?
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:11
Paul, first and foremost, to not set bad precedents.
Paul McGrady
01:16:18
It might be nice on Questions/Comments/Concerns if we labeled the C's and SG's who have them. I don't think we want to give the Board the impression that all of us are onboard with all of the Questions/Comments/Concerns. I expect we will be all over the place substantively on these issues.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:34
+1 Pam
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:24
Paul, I believe we should do the opposite. Listing specific concerns is what would allow the board to play us one against the other.
Pam Little, RrSG
01:19:06
Thanks, Keith. That helps
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:39
So even though not having much of a quarrel with the rejection of purpose 2, we believe that upholding the agreements of EPDP is a better way.
Paul McGrady
01:25:11
@Rubens - except there was not uniformity on who wanted to send this to the Board and I doubt there will uniformity on substance on how to respond or even to respond.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:25
could we say something like “Council recognizes the concerns of the GAC, and notes that the consideration of the ICANN Board is expected on the recommendations 1-4.Council encourages all interested parties to continue participation in the RPM PDP Phase 2 to ensure thatthe multistakeholder approach helps the community to find mutually acceptable recommendations.”
Nathalie Peregrine
01:30:00
Carlos has his hand raised
Marie Pattullo
01:31:32
Agree with Carlos - we need to meet them & talk.
Paul McGrady
01:32:34
+1 - Agree with Marie. We need to meet them and talk. If there is a small team to be put together, I am happy to serve on it.
Julf Helsingius
01:34:32
Rafik +1 - the GAC is probably more comfortable with bilateral negotiations as opposed to following the process
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:30
Godzilla attack at Rafik's location
Martin Silva Valent
01:35:30
Submarine attack (?)
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:35
another submarine pings, it is a danger
Paul McGrady
01:35:59
I think having this meeting with the entire GAC in that huge room will move anything forward. I think a small team approach here makes the most sense. It will be far easier to convey to them that part of what went wrong with the PDP was that we couldn't get consistent GAC participation. That can be phrased nicely in a small group - it will just be viewed as nasty if we say it in front of everyone...
Paul McGrady
01:37:49
+1 Keith
Philippe Fouquart
01:38:19
+1 Agree too that we should talk, about what we can talk about, now.
Rafik Dammak
01:38:22
@Rubens I hope it is not the case :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:36
when and who is going to draft the amendment to the RPM PDP Charter?
Marie Pattullo
01:41:39
Agree Keith - let's talk.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:37
It can also perhaps be seen as an(other) opportunity to assist the GAC better ubderstand the GNSO processes and Councils role at his point in all this as manager...
Marie Pattullo
01:43:39
Good point, Cheryl. And "working with" is always the way to understanding.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:51
NP
Philippe Fouquart
01:44:23
Silly quesstion: does that rechartering entrirely independent from the board's vote re. the other recs?
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:30
+1 it is a good idea to wait for the reaction of the board
Philippe Fouquart
01:46:32
Thanks Keith.
Philippe Fouquart
01:47:08
(It'd be good to have that "dependence matrix" )
Keith Drazek
01:47:22
Thanks Paul, very helpful and welcome
Julf Helsingius
01:47:42
I would also like to be part of the small team discussíons.
Paul McGrady
01:48:17
Julf - you are in, but it is your turn to buy the beer
Julf Helsingius
01:48:28
:)
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:37
is it no?
Rafik Dammak
01:49:43
@Paul just to double-check, the small team for which purpose?
Paul McGrady
01:50:00
@Pam - agree, but we can get started with the Rechartering since there are structual issues (the PDP 3.0 issues) that we can start tackling now while waiting on the Board to deal with this PDP recommendation.
Paul McGrady
01:50:55
@Rafik - happy to "chair" the Drafting Team for looking at the RPM Phase 2 PDP and to the extent that we have a small team discuss this with the GAC, I'd like to be on that small team as well (but think Keith would need to lead it, or else the GAC may feel slighted(.
Paul McGrady
01:52:08
@Pam - agree. I don't see the need to drag the Board into discussions between us and GAC.
Marie Pattullo
01:53:29
Paul - in the draft, please make clear that we'll need experts on international access to courts in that group; it's not about RPMs per se.
Marie Pattullo
01:54:05
And if you can solve world hunger while you're at it that would be fab.
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:22
@Paul , please add me to the group (it would be nice to have something implementable on the tech level)
Paul McGrady
01:54:38
@Maxim - thanks for volunteering!!
Marie Pattullo
01:55:14
Thing is Maxim, Rec 5 would be "implementable" by going to court - there's nothing there on a Ry level.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:27
Makes perfect sense @Kieth
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:53
policies are obligatory to follow for ROs and RRs, it would be nice to ensure we do not add something like “prior to this , RO and RR have to do this and that”, when the requirement is not possible to follow
Paul McGrady
02:01:39
I think today's call was very helpful
Maxim Alzoba
02:01:44
bye all
Pam Little, RrSG
02:01:45
AOB?
Flip Petillion
02:02:12
Thanks all !
Pam Little, RrSG
02:02:13
Thank you all
Michele Neylon
02:02:14
ciao
Syed Ismail Shah
02:02:15
Thank you
Philippe Fouquart
02:02:15
Thanks Keith, thanks all.
Rafik Dammak
02:02:17
Thanks all
Osvaldo Novoa
02:02:20
Bye all, thank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:20
bye
Tatiana Tropina
02:02:20
thanks all - bye
Marie Pattullo
02:02:26
Bye all!
Darcy Southwell - Domain.com
02:02:32
Thanks, all, bye.
Rubens Kuhl
02:02:38
Bye all!