Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 19 November 2014

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

I missed the meeting as well, and have not 
listened to the recording (and likely will not be 
able to before tomorrow), but Chuck's second 
bullet sounds like there was a re-discussion of 
an issue that I know we discussed and I thought 
settled on a previous call. (And I recall Chuck's 
comment regarding the previous IRTP from that 
meeting, so I am probably not hallucinating.)
Alan

At 25/11/2014 07:17 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> After listening to the recording I want to share 
> a couple of my thoughts regarding last week’s P&I WG:
> ·         I thought it was a very productive 
> meeting and I especially enjoyed J. Scott’s humor.
> ·         I disagree with what I understood to 
> be a suggestion that IRTs need to be broadly 
> representative.  I agree that they should be 
> fully open for all groups to be represented and 
> that should be encouraged.  But in some cases 
> there is not a need to be fully representative 
> and some groups simply aren’t interested enough 
> to commit the time, understanding that they will 
> have a say before the final implementation plan 
> is approved.  A case in point is the 
> IRTP.  Although it wasn’t specifically called 
> that at the time, an IRT was formed to develop 
> an implementation for the original IRTP about 10 
> years ago. Even though it was open to people 
> from all groups, it ended up being made up 
> almost exclusively of registrars and that worked 
> out very well.  In cases like this, it can be 
> more important to have operational expertise than broad representation.
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terri Agnew
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:32 PM
> To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: gnso-secs@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and 
> Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 19 November 2014
> Dear All,
>
> The next Policy and Implementation Working Group 
> teleconference is scheduled next week on 
> Wednesday 26 November at 20:00 UTC for 1 hour.
> Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and 
> Implementation Working group call held on 
> Wednesday 19 November 2014 at 20:00 UTC at:
> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20141119-en.mp3>http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-20141119-en.mp3
>
> On page:
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov>http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov
>
> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls 
> are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
> <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
>
> Attendees:
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr – At-Large
> Olevie Kouami – NPOC
> Stephanie Perrin – NCUC
> Anne Aikman-Scalese – IPC
> Jonathan Frost – RySG
> J.Scott Evans – BC
> Michael Graham – IPC
>
> Apologies:
> Tom Barrett – RrSG
> Amr Elsadr – NCUC
> Chuck Gomes – RySG
> Alan Greenberg-ALAC
> Greg Shatan – IPC
>
> ICANN staff:
> Mary Wong
> Karen Lentz
> Berry Cobb
> Terri Agnew
>
> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
>
>  Wiki page: 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag>https://community.icann.org/x/y1V-Ag
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Terri Agnew
>
> Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 19 November 2014
>     Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Policy & 
> Implementation Working Group Meeting of 19 November 2014
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hi Terri I am in a hotel 
> in Melb atm but need to get ready for a meeting 
> just 30 mins after our call ends yes looking 
> good after a late night does take work :-). so 
> rather than be tethered to the hotel room phone 
> best do the dial out to my mobile please... +61408647214...  Thanks
>   Terri Agnew:Will do
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:it can be right at the top of the hour if you like
>   Terri Agnew:I will ask our operator to dial out to you at top of hour
>   Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Cheryl - I have yet to 
> see you look anything but GOOD.
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)
>   Olevie Kouami:Hi !
>   Olevie Kouami:Please, have you started the meeting ?
>   Olevie Kouami:I've missed the Chairs and Vice-Chairs call
>   Anne Aikman-Scalese:I am stuck on the phone 
> waiting for a coordinator to let me into the call.
>   Terri Agnew:Hi Olevie, not yet, we are trying 
> to reach you via telephone but no luck so far, we will keep trying
>   Olevie Kouami:Ok. Terri
>   Olevie Kouami:I'm off on my phones
>   Olevie Kouami:I a
>   Terri Agnew:@Anne, I will alert our operator
>   Olevie Kouami:I was on the road back to my home office
>   Olevie Kouami:Tahnks Terri
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:wow well done
>   Mary Wong:Congrats from all the Policy Staff, J Scott!!!
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:congratulations J Scott
>   Jonathan Frost:Congrats
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:nothing from me based on a quick scan only
>   Terri Agnew:Michael Graham has joined
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes place switch
>   Karen Lentz:@Anne, as Mary is saying, that 
> was just moved to a different section
>   J. Scott:thanks Terri
>   Michael R. Graham:Also on hold on phone -- but listening online.
>   Terri Agnew:@Michael, I see you have joined on audio
>   Michael R. Graham:Cut "ideally"
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:minimum... At Least 24
>   Jonathan Frost:Agreed.  Putting the word 
> ideal makes it too easy to say 'well this isn't the ideal situation'
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:correct @mary
>   Terri Agnew:Stephanie Perrin has joined
>   Karen Lentz:ok, noted
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:why not refer to Chatham House here
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:that has been the default 
> standard in many groups any way
>   Jonathan Frost:sorry
>   Stephanie Perrin:Agree with Chatham House approach.  Also less ambiguous.
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:we should be more specific 
> and the guidelines don!t preclude they just don't state
>   Stephanie Perrin:Clarity is better than consistency in my view.
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree
>   Jonathan Frost:down!
>   Olevie Kouami:CLarity is better than consistency
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:@michael they would be 
> asked as part of the investigation why non attendance/participation
>  Michael R. Graham:Okay, but the provision is 
> sort of a "if we don't hear anything we will 
> presume everything is hunky dory."  Just a 
> matter of wording and affirmative 
> agreement.  Can't we presume the IRT is made up of active members?
>   Stephanie Perrin:I am not hearing anything, did I drop off?
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:you must have
>   Michael R. Graham:Stephanie --  Your name is on Participants and mic is on.
>   Karen Lentz:that makes sense to me, thanks
>   Stephanie Perrin:How odd, muting my 
> microphone also muted my speakers.  First time that has happened as I recall.
>   J. Scott:If you want to type your comments 
> here, I will read them to the group
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:wow that would actually be handy :-)
>   Mary Wong:Nice, J Scott!
>   Michael R. Graham:Is that "cloodjie"?
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-) :-) thanks JScott :-)
>   Stephanie Perrin:Links to the appropriate 
> "standard Methodology" would be v helpful for us lazy newbies as well.
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yes indeed base it on the guidelines
>   Terri Agnew:@Jonathan your mic is muted
>   Olevie Kouami:Yes
>   Terri Agnew:@Olevie, we are dialing back out to you on audio
>   Anne Aikman-Scalese:If so, can we modify the 
> deadline for input on the timeline?
>   Olevie Kouami:it's done
>   Olevie Kouami:thank you
>   Mary Wong:Thanks everyone!
>   Karen Lentz:thank you all
>   Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you J. Scott et all and staff!
>   Cheryl Langdon-Orr:bye thanks JScott
>   Olevie Kouami:thank you all
>   Stephanie Perrin:thanks!
>   Olevie Kouami:bye