[Gnso-review-wg] Mp3, attendance , AC chat and AC recording / GNSO Review Working Group 13 April 2017
Terri Agnew
terri.agnew at icann.org
Thu Apr 13 14:08:16 UTC 2017
Dear all,
Please find the mp3, attendance, Adobe Connect recording and chat below for
the GNSO Review Working Group held on 13 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC.
mp3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-review-13apr17-en.mp3
Adobe Connect Recording:
<https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=436763efcaabf56fd0227f108d44d3c705d81ed2dd669eac5ee8f7b29a7d3189>
https://participate.icann.org/p55qqjixk6i/
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master
Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DQMFAg&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=xZIJEMTVQJAaGhrSEs-mGNP1af5ZhtLo5tjqyJUr5j4&s=zi8HqkcJPzyRZtbiQ-TlsxBQhcExCdcb-3Ezk1dDjec&e=>
Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/>
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/
Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/ZhmsAw
Attendees:
Members:
Heath Dixon (RrSG Primary)
Sara Bockey (RrSG Alternate)
Jennifer Wolfe (RySG Primary)
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (ISPCP Primary)
Lori Schulman (IPC Primary)
Donna Austin (RySG Alternate)
Lawrence Olawale-Roberts (BC Primary)
Rafik Dammak (NCSG Primary)
Participants:
Pascal Bekono (NCUC)
Avri Dori (NCSG)
Apologies:
Renata Aquino Ribeiro (Participant NCUC)
Marika Konings - Staff
ICANN staff:
Julie Hedlund
Negar Farzinnia
Amr Elsadr
Berry Cobb
Terri Agnew
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri
-------------------------------
Adobe Connect chat transcript for 13 April 2017
Terri Agnew:Welcome to the GNSO Review Working Group Meeting on Thursday,
13 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_obbRAw
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_obbRAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=4Hoy9oJOmVuv9pB2Wb8KL_eW6naqoFnxwbRG9w088LE&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=4Hoy9oJOmVuv9pB2Wb8KL_eW6naqoFnxwbRG9w088LE&e=
Lori Schulman:Hi
Terri Agnew:Welcome Heath Dixon
Heath Dixon:Good morning.
avri doria:subdividing into teams does take a bunch of extra human overhead
Rafik:indeed Avri
Lori Schulman:Agree with Avri. No subteams.
Lori Schulman:Sorry, Avri, I may have imputed
Lori Schulman:"no subteams"
Lori Schulman:I agree much human capital needed and human capital is in
short supply
avri doria:not that i am against subteams in all cases. but it has to be
worth the overhead.
Sara Bockey:Agree with Lori & Avri. No subteams.
Lori Schulman:Avri, I understand you rpoint. I think we are too small even
with a large number of tasks in front of us.
Amr Elsadr:Principles concerning implementation and IRTs were developed by
the GNSO Policy and Implementation Working Group:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_policy-2Dimplementation-2Drecommendations-2D01jun15-2Den.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_policy-2Dimplementation-2Drecommendations-2D01jun15-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=jkd6RAQvbL6h6v4atDvjnxYOUBmmDPT0Y_hpsbjJa-4&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=jkd6RAQvbL6h6v4atDvjnxYOUBmmDPT0Y_hpsbjJa-4&e=
Amr Elsadr:..., and have been included in GDD's Consensus Policy
Implementation Framework:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_gdd-2Dconsensus-2Dpolicy-2Dimplementation-2Dframework-2D31may15-2Den.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_files_gdd-2Dconsensus-2Dpolicy-2Dimplementation-2Dframework-2D31may15-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=sfr2FwYqVSITI_U9lPrKif7F_6MJ7ZSPjAwBe_684PY&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=sfr2FwYqVSITI_U9lPrKif7F_6MJ7ZSPjAwBe_684PY&e=
avri doria:Amr, but are they being used, and how are they working?
Amr Elsadr:In my experience, GDD often refers to these principles while
working on implementation issues with IRTs.
avri doria:is this a tussle over Roles and Responsiblities or mutal ageement
on R&R
Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri, the CPH has encountered some differences of
opinion about roles and responsibilities when it comes to implementation.
Amr Elsadr:@Avri: The roles and responsibilities portions of the principles
pertain to (for example) that it is the GNSO that develops gTLD policies. So
when/if IRTs face implementation difficulties, they are on a tight leash in
terms of deviating from the original intent of recommendations, and must refer
these back to the GNSO.
avri doria:thbanks Donna, so there may be some more work to do in making
sure that the IRT method is meeting the requirements of this review.
Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr, the CPH experience is not consistent with your
description, in that we believe staff can become immovable on interpretation
and does not refer things back to Council.
Amr Elsadr:@Donna: My understanding is that the GNSO Council is working to
clarify the role of Council liaisons to IRTs, which may be helpful in that
regard? At least in terms of improving communication between IRTs and the
GNSO?
Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr, it certainly may. to the extent that it's relevant
to this discussion the CPH did write to the Board recently highlighting some
concerns on a number of things including implementation of policy:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_cph-2Dto-2Dicann-2Dboard-2D24feb17-2Den.pdf
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_en_system_files_correspondence_cph-2Dto-2Dicann-2Dboard-2D24feb17-2Den.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=GOytgxOs-5Lv_n90tUyMhxmC7dB_lJU89MhvV8sX6Lo&e>
&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=DT7n3ukdFBoqobiqXRynduCNSzFgcpAcshSoTvT26bY&s=GOytgxOs-5Lv_n90tUyMhxmC7dB_lJU89MhvV8sX6Lo&e=
avri doria:Donna, that is a critical point. Also in terms of the Staff
Accountabitliy subteam work.
Amr Elsadr:Another example of "chunking" may be IRTP?
avri doria:exactly,
avri doria:and that is what i was thinking was meant. phases was called
out, and the gTLD subteam approach is not really chunking.
Amr Elsadr:Next-Gen RDS PDP and Review of RPMs is also broken up into phases
(not sure that counts as "chunking") that have independent initial report,
public comment periods, final reports, Council votes, etc...
avri doria:sort of a softer chunks
avri doria:and even the community comment 1 & 2 approach of new gTLD might
be considered phasing, though the tail of one phase overlaps the beginning of
other pahses and the have an end to end dependency.
Amr Elsadr:I actually need to check to make sure my last comment on RPMs is
accurate. It is on RDS, but thinking about RPMs..., not so sure.
Berry Cobb:RPM is too. Phase 1 is the RPMs for New gTLDs. Phase 2 is the
UDRP review
Lori Schulman:Confirm Berry's comment. RPMs are being done in 2 distinct
blocks of work
Amr Elsadr:Yup Berry. Just wasn't sure if each phase would have it's own
initial report, public comment, etc..., which I probably should be more sure
of. ;-)
Lori Schulman:I believe that each phase is intended to have separate reports
Lori Schulman:but definitely need to confirm with co-chairs
Amr Elsadr:I think you're right, Lori and Berry. :-)
avri doria:Amr, i thinkl that is one of the issues, many different ways of
doing phasing, maybe some advice on how different forms can be used and why?
Donna Austin, RySG:Is there a distinction between phasing and blocks of
work? The RPM WG has two distinct tasks, rather than breaking the work into
phases.
avri doria:a note on ways to speed up PDPs. In my expereince whenever we
talk of speediing one up, it ends up taking longer, becasue of the extended
discussions of whether it can be sped up and how.
Donna Austin, RySG:could providing more opportunity for face-to-face
meetings of the WG lead to speeding up work?
avri doria:but the autopsy of a PDP looking for thing that could be done in
the future is a good thing.
avri doria:Donna sometimes, but sometimes there is a lot of overhead into
preparing for a f2f and then debreif. So it has to be well planned to be be
useful. They are good for working hard issues, but not necessarily as a speed
up factor.
Amr Elsadr:@Donna: My guess is that meetings at Policy Forums will help
answer that question. :-)
Donna Austin, RySG:Good points Avri
avri doria:Policy Forums may be too short to accomodate all the f2f time
that people need.
Berry Cobb:ERRP is in data collection phase for now. Analaysis and initial
report are on deck. Once complete it will be delivered to the GNSO Council
Donna Austin, RySG:@Avri, that's why we should have two a year, and and
ICANN AGM.
Lori Schulman:Yes, Meeting A confuses me.
Lori Schulman:2 meeting B formats and 1 big meeting would make sense
Lori Schulman:Sorry, that is a tangent
Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work"
Lori Schulman:How does "ongoing" work? Super labor intensive?
Lori Schulman:Yes, I would like to understand "ongoing"
Lori Schulman:Agree with Amr
Donna Austin, RySG:@Amr, has the GDD actually done any reviews?
Lori Schulman:yes very helpful
avri doria:but in general this scope of work look reasonable
Amr Elsadr:@Donna: That's actually one of the questions this WG might want
an aswer to. It might be premature to recommend changes to "periodic" reviews,
if none have been completed and assessed yet?
Lori Schulman:What are the 2 workstreams?
avri doria:on 16/18 not sure how one does ongoing without some sort of
periodicity.
Terri Agnew:next GNSO Review Working Group Meeting will be scheduled on
Thursday, 27 April 2017 at 12:00 UTC
Lori Schulman:Very good call today. Thank you. Happy Spring Holidays!
Donna Austin, RySG:I don't agree on the GNSO GAC Liaison fulfulling the
liaison role.
Lori Schulman:I don't understand this charter as well.
Lori Schulman:bye
Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.
avri doria:bye and thanks
Sara Bockey:thanks all
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben:Thanks and bye
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170413/2d2e109a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5018 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-review-wg/attachments/20170413/2d2e109a/smime-0001.p7s>
More information about the Gnso-review-wg
mailing list