08:34:07 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi Adigo, Hi Interpreters 08:37:18 From Kimberly Carlson : Thanks, Claudia, Paula and Sabrina 08:48:04 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi all, welcome. We will start at the top of the hour. 08:52:33 From Kimberly Carlson : Welcome to those who just joined, we will get started at the top of the hour 08:56:14 From Kimberly Carlson : Hi all, welcome. We will start at the top of the hour.
Welcome to those who just joined, we will get started at the top of the hour 09:00:21 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : Hi all 09:00:48 From Graeme Bunton : Hullo Keith, All 09:00:49 From Joan Kerr : Hello Everyone 09:01:21 From Kimberly Carlson : As a reminder, we do have ES interpretation on this call 09:01:32 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : Greetings! 09:01:57 From Manal Ismail : Hello everyone .. 09:03:39 From Jorge Cancio : hi all! 09:04:23 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : Hello all! 09:04:42 From David Olive : WELCOME ALL 09:05:15 From Kimberly Carlson : Thank you all for joining today’s call. As a reminder, the call will be recorded and transcribed. Also, to avoid background noise, please mute your phones and mics when not speaking 09:06:29 From Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) : One theme seems to be; don't simply replicate the existing agenda. So a key question seems to be what, if anything, do we cut out. 09:08:01 From Rod Rasmussen : Maybe we should start from the other side - what must be kept and what would be nice to keep and cut all the rest.\ 09:08:09 From Jorge Cancio : let's apply the Eisenhower approach: cut away what is not most important and most urgent 09:08:24 From Donna Austin, Neustar : One suggestion I've had is whether it's possible to move the meeting dates from 7-12: to 8-13 March to avoid weekend work given folks will now be working from their home base and an interruption over the weekend could be problematic. 09:08:27 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : I would suggest setting a timezone first 09:08:32 From Katrina Sataki (ccNSO) : Agree with Rod 09:09:06 From Netchoice : Agree, Keith 09:09:17 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Agree with Jorge, understanding that individual priorities will be different. 09:09:31 From Mary Wong : Thanks all for the comments and suggestions here in chat. We’re taking note of all of these. 09:09:54 From Rod Rasmussen : I think Keith said basically what I was thinking from just a slightly different angle. 09:10:33 From Joan Kerr : I agree to the prioritizing and the groups can focus on their constituency afterward 09:10:42 From Jorge Cancio : EPDP and SubPro seem to me both urgent and important - I would suggest building on those as transversal efforts for the community (or almost all the community), plus the public forum 09:10:47 From Graeme Bunton : Donna's point is important. Needs to be weekday only. Agreed with Keith that we need to pare this down to necessary only. 09:12:01 From Susan Payne : agree with Jorge re EPDP and SubPro. SubPro had been planning a session or two where GAC had little/no conflict and it would be important for the efforts of that PDP to retain that opportunity 09:12:07 From Jorge Cancio : +1 Manal :-) 09:12:11 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : +1 for keeping EPDP and Subpro, maybe sessions for ATRT3 and SSR2 due to the report. 09:12:46 From Joanna Kulesza : Agree with Jorge, EPDP and SubPro seem most urgent at this point. 09:12:58 From Jonathan Zuck : Actually @Graeme, the At-Large might try to have a few meetings on the weekend where we have more control of people’s schedules. 09:13:52 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : I agree with keeping the focus on the policy work and cutting from less critical non-policy mtgs. 09:13:59 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : The GNSO Council will prioritize our PDPs (SubPro, EPDP, RPMs) and our formal Council meeting, but all else is on the potential chopping block. 09:14:28 From Manal Ismail : we need to think out of the box, in terms of topics not sessions then based on other givens start scheduling our joint then individual sessions .. 09:15:11 From Jorge Cancio : let's define the "important&urgent topics core" which impacts all or various SO/ACs first, and then leave it to SO and ACs to build their own schedules around that... 09:15:58 From Manal Ismail : +1 Jorge .. 09:16:00 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : Agree with Manal and Jorge 09:16:14 From Jonathan Zuck : What limits do we have? 09:16:42 From Rod Rasmussen : +1 Jorge 09:17:15 From Graeme Bunton : Isn't that true for literally everything? 09:17:16 From Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) : The application of urgent and important criteria seems very sensible in conjunction with weekdays only. 09:17:37 From Rod Rasmussen : What is the limitation on simultaneous sessions? We have them at the F2F of course, but there are staffing overlaps that limit just how many you can hold at once even virtually. 09:17:39 From Jonathan Zuck : We had a couple hundred on Zoom yesterday 09:17:54 From Joanna Kulesza : ATRT would likely also fall into the "important and necessary" bucket as would NomCom, but maybe as inside meetings as opposed to plenaries. Is there any option to have a plenary in Zoom? with 700 participants? 09:18:18 From Jorge Cancio : this is an opportunity for streamlining and prioritizing work on a community-wide basis :-) 09:18:38 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Thank you David.. we need to look at how we will structure our meetings over the timeframe of a week (or more) 09:18:39 From Manal Ismail : can’t agree more Jorge :) 09:19:12 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Me too Jorge 09:19:29 From Jonathan Zuck : This is what the ALAC came up with as a taxonomy: 09:19:33 From Jonathan Zuck : A. Move to Webinar B. Move to local RALO choice of time C. Keep as ICANN67 - in house - can be done at a later time if needed D. Keep as ICANN67 - arrange with support staff to coordinate with other SO/AC, probably needs to stay during ICANN67 week 09:20:21 From Joanna Kulesza : Jorge, I also feel this challenge holds potential, also with regard to our carbon footprint ;) 09:21:02 From Jorge Cancio : absolutelyy, Joanna, hopefully sth we can present at the IGF 2020 as a good experience :-) 09:21:39 From Rod Rasmussen : @Jonathan, this seems like a useful approach, but I would add a couple other options: move to cancel, ICANN68, schedule as a conference call (mainly bilateral meetings) 09:22:04 From Ash Rangan : @Rod R - We are capacities get for a max of 8 concurrent sessions 09:22:14 From Rod Rasmussen : That was supposed to read, “cancel, move to ICANN68” 09:22:18 From Ash Rangan : Zoom can handle multiple concurrent sessions 09:22:36 From Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) : So; if the individual groups can prioritise their own work. Perhaps the challenge for this broad planning group is to understand what bi-lateral / multi-group / cross-community sessions can be cancelled, postponed or moved to ICANN 68. 09:22:50 From Joanna Kulesza : Rod, while extanding over a longer period of time? 10 days? 09:23:09 From Jonathan Zuck : Right move to ICANN68 is a good category although, that’s 3 months, so I suspect folks will not want to put a lot there, I think. 09:23:10 From Donna Austin, Neustar : @Ash, are you saying the maximum concurrent meetings is 8? 09:23:25 From Rod Rasmussen : @Ash - thanks for that. I think we have further restrictions based on support staff that have multiple responsibilities that make that a bit more of a challenge. 09:23:49 From Manal Ismail : this is an important piece of info Ash .. thanks .. 09:23:57 From Ash Rangan : Yes, we need "rooms" to be manned with 2 techs to proctor the technology. That is our limitation 09:24:27 From Ash Rangan : Indeed @Rod 09:24:37 From Rod Rasmussen : @Jonathan - the folks running the IoT session have already requested this for example. They felt that doing that virtually was not worthwhile and that it isn’t time-sensitive. 09:24:44 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : If we were to move stuff for 68, it could be 7 days, maybe. Policy forums already dont accommodate Constituency work. 09:24:51 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : Will every constituency be able to have access to to interpretation and RTT for all their conference related meetings?? 09:25:01 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Is it possible to show what the schedule looks like now? So far it seems the PDPs should be prioritised and interaction with the Board. What else is there? 09:25:26 From Fred Baker : There is an issue with extending the meeting to other times. In my case it's the IETF meeting in Vancouver - I'll bet many of us have other jobs, as Keith points out. 09:25:49 From Jorge Cancio : two additional ideas: 1) An additional criteria is to what extent a session correspond to a workstream which is used to working in a remote setting; 2) - I would also suggest that enough time is allotted between sessions, in order to take breaks and oxygenate our brains. Especially for non-native speakers, following virtual meetings can be exhausting. 09:25:53 From Rod Rasmussen : Of course, K-L is currently on several companies’ no-go lists due to the same situation we’ve cancelled ICANN67 for, so putting anything on ICANN68 is fraught with risk. 09:25:59 From Donna Austin, Neustar : @Bruna, thinking about this as a swap of meetings could be a good starting place. 09:26:14 From Jonathan Zuck : Excactly 09:26:22 From Susan Payne : @Maureen - we don't all have access to translation and RTT anyway for the in-person meeting 09:26:27 From Ash Rangan : @jorge +100 09:26:45 From Jonathan Zuck : Or really, focus on things that are community wide. Joint and solo meetings are easy to schedule on our own. 09:27:09 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : @Susan - how does your group engage the multistakeholder community? 09:27:14 From Joan Kerr : Let's look at the schedule and start to prioritize 09:27:18 From Ash Rangan : @Jonathan - Indeed, that is a good approach... from a tech enablement PoV 09:27:30 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : +1 to looking at the schedule 09:28:18 From Jonathan Zuck : @Ash, do we have a “Zoom Room” license. Folks are talking about creating little hubs in a few cities so it would be good to use the conference room tech 09:28:35 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : @Donna I agree = what is important to keep for ICANN? 09:29:16 From Jonathan Zuck : Yep 09:29:26 From Ash Rangan : @Jonathan - Zoom licenses will not be a limitation 09:29:40 From Susan Payne : @Maureen - many groups' meetings are English only. We don't get interpreters. I think only GAC, At Large and HITs/plenaries do 09:30:38 From Tanzanica King to Kimberly Carlson (Privately) : Hey just emailed schedule to you 09:30:56 From Jorge Cancio : important to note: EPDP and SubPro are "cross-community" for us :-) 09:31:30 From Jonathan Zuck : @Ash https://zoom.us/zoomrooms 09:31:38 From Jorge Cancio : and actually the GAC f2f agenda was already meant to be built to a large extent around SubPro and EPDP 09:31:45 From Rod Rasmussen : @Jorge - good point! Some X-community items are “owned” by one constituency as a meeting sponsor. Need to flag those. 09:32:01 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : Agree with Manal to prioritize Public Forum 09:32:07 From Donna Austin, Neustar : We can probably forgo the opening ceremonly. 09:32:16 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : definitely 09:32:24 From Jonathan Zuck : +1 Donna 09:32:26 From Jorge Cancio : +1 Robin 09:33:09 From Rod Rasmussen : Can’t we have the lunches shipped to everyone listening in? ;-) 09:33:36 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : pliis 09:33:45 From Jorge Cancio : afraid the carbon-footprint would suffer ;P 09:33:56 From Jonathan Zuck : We COULD have an “opening ceremony” streamed from the underwater museum 09:34:25 From Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) : There is a plenary session on Monday 09:34:30 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : I has been pointed out that if At-Large volunteers who had had to apply to employers to attend an overseas meeting may be expected to be at work if they are not travelling. This will impact on participation in regular sessions in the original week. Meetings planned during the night after a work day may make it difficult for their attendance as well. 09:34:52 From Jorge Cancio : couldn't we do some survey-monkey voting on sessions with cross-comm interest (as EPDP, SubPro)? 09:34:55 From Flip Petillion : This is still UTC-5, right? In other words, Cancun time zone? 09:35:18 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : Still TBD Flip 09:35:26 From Mary Wong : Please note that ICANN org is not assuming that the schedule will stay as Saturday-Thursday. What you ar seeing is simply a stripped-down schedule that removes the “physical” aspect of an ICANN meeting (e.g. meals, socials, side events etc.) 09:35:32 From Rod Rasmussen : @Katrina - what is the thinking on Tech Day? The DNSSEC workshop folks still want to hold that one virtually. 09:35:47 From Flip Petillion : Thx Keith - also to check: is there a switch to Summer time around that period ? 09:35:51 From Katrina Sataki (ccNSO) : @Rod - I have my hand up. Be patient! :) 09:35:56 From Joan Kerr : @Maureen, perhaps a letter from ICANN to the employers to let them know that in light of the circumstances, a remote option is being offered 09:36:16 From Rod Rasmussen : @Katrina - aha! 09:36:16 From Susan Payne : @Jonathan, I think that decision may be a case by case one for the plenaries 09:37:09 From Maureen Hilyard (ALAC) : @Joan.. probably not practical in developing countries where keeping their jobs would take priority if they are at home. 09:42:18 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : Agree with Bruna. 09:42:27 From Graeme Bunton : I suspect it will be easier to subtract then add. I would start with everyone taking a look at their own sponsored sessions, cutting what they think can be postponed, and then sending that on to ICANN staff so they collect to see what remains. The RrSG is looking at cancelling the majority of our sponsored sessions. 09:44:00 From Katrina Sataki (ccNSO) : to be clear, regarding our bilateral meetings - as I said, we are going to discuss all the details on Monday, but the current feeling is that we will move forward with cancelling our bilateral meetings too. We will be happy to hold webinars explaining our PDPs to those who are interested 09:45:29 From Jorge Cancio : on interpretation we should try to keep the same levels as for the f2f meeting... as e.g. GAC sessions may be reduced, that could allow some flexibility 09:46:27 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Will live transcription be availabe on all sessions? 09:46:59 From Katrina Sataki (ccNSO) : I also forgot to mention the plenary on IoT we co-organised with SSAC. The organisers agree to cancelling it 09:49:07 From Manal Ismail : thanks Katrina for letting us know 09:49:44 From Jonathan Zuck : The PRIMARY benefit of a virtual meeting is greater participation than a physical meeting and that means MORE languages, not less. 09:50:30 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : One additional point made by a GNSO Council member yesterday. As we conduct this first-ever fully remote meeting, it would be good to establish some tracking/assessment parameters to gauge the success and impact. This is obviously a secondary point at this time as we build a new schedule, but I wanted to share it. 09:50:38 From Donna Austin, Neustar : @Ashwin, I appreciate your teams will be based in LA and as such it makes sense for logistical purposes to run primarily in that timezone, but is it possible to manage your teams across 12 hours or 8 hours? If it's 12 hours that would give us more flexibility. 09:50:50 From Jonathan Zuck : +1 Keith 09:51:18 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : +1, Jonathan. Also, as this will be the first fully virtual, a lot of us is assuming it will most likely attract new people. 09:51:19 From Mary Wong : @Donna, we are definitely looking at how we can accommodate different time zones. 09:51:23 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : I should have used the term "metrics" ;-) 09:51:36 From Rod Rasmussen : On the joint IoT session, my understanding that there is a desire to hold it in K-L, should we have a meeting there and there is room fort. 09:51:39 From Jonathan Zuck : @Keith, I was going to give you. Pass... 09:51:46 From Mary Wong : Also, we will be able to provide live-scribing to a number of sessions. 09:51:56 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Thanks Mary 09:52:01 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes! 09:52:18 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : I suggest we have a follow up call on Tuesday 09:52:22 From Katrina Sataki (ccNSO) : @Rod: theoretically, correct. In practice... is there gonna be a f2f meeting? 09:54:07 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : Yes thanks David 09:54:14 From Jorge Cancio : when? 09:54:15 From Joan Kerr : Yes, 09:54:19 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : wednesday would work better for me 09:54:31 From Jonathan Zuck : Without any plenaries, there’s no point in having a public meeting 09:54:32 From Rod Rasmussen : @Katrina - indeed! June is only 4 months away. I think that its critical that we have a decision on K-L very soon so we can plan accordingly. 09:54:40 From Jorge Cancio : next week is madness... 09:54:44 From Julie Hammer : Terrible time, but maybe works best for the majority. 09:54:53 From Joan Kerr : @Katrina, I agree 09:54:59 From Joanna Kulesza : +1 Keith. To me this also means we might want to allow ourselves more time to prepare properly, making sure we do our best. 09:55:08 From Jenn Taylor Hodges : Sorry, to be clear, is the idea that the bilat/constituency meetings will be decided by the individual groups (possibly for Tuesday), then added to a master calendar (if they're going ahead)? 09:55:16 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : +1 Katrina 09:55:17 From Mary Wong : @Jenn, I believe so 09:55:19 From Donna Austin, Neustar : Thanks to everyone, very productive call. Much appreciated. 09:55:31 From Robin Gross (NCSG) : thanks all, bye! 09:55:34 From Keith Drazek (Verisign) : Thanks all 09:55:37 From Joan Kerr : Bye for now. Thanks 09:55:41 From Jorge Cancio : thanks all and bye! 09:55:46 From Manal Ismail : thanks everyone.. bye .. 09:55:49 From Joanna Kulesza : thanks all. great call. 09:55:53 From Jenn Taylor Hodges : thanks! 09:55:58 From Mary Wong : May we confirm it’s Tues for next call? 09:56:02 From Susan Payne : thank all 09:56:08 From silvia.vivanco : Thanks all 09:56:08 From Bruna Santos (NCUC) : goodbye 09:56:16 From Flip Petillion : Thx