[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 08 April 2015

[Terri Agnew <terri.agnew@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled 
next week on Wednesday 15 April 2015 at 19:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Please find the MP3 recording for the Policy and Implementation Working group 
call held on Wednesday 08 April 2015 at 19:00 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-08apr15-en.mp3

On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#apr

The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master 
Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/

Attendees:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At-Large
Amr Elsadr - NCUC
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC
Alan Greenberg-ALAC
Greg Shatan - IPC
Chuck Gomes - RySG
Olevie Kouami - NPOC
Avri Doria - NCSG
Carlos Raul Guttierez - GAC
Michael Graham - IPC
Tom Barrett - RrSG

Apologies:
J Scott Evans - BC
Wolf-Ulrich Knoben - ISPCP
Mary Wong (Staff)

ICANN staff:
Marika Konings
Amy Bivins
Steve Chan
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

Thank you.
Kind regards,
Terri Agnew

Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 08 April 2015

  Marika Konings:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG meeting of 8 April 
2015

  Carlos Raul:Thnaks Marika

  Carlos Raul:txs

  Amr Elsadr:Hi all.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:slight echo someone needs to mute their computer

  Terri Agnew:Michael Graham has joined

  Terri Agnew:Greg Shatan has joined

  Marika Konings:Avri has just joined the AC room

  Terri Agnew:Welcome Avri Doria

  Greg Shatan:Avri and Cheryl, we have to stop meeting like this.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed Greg  although yoou and I have managed an extra one 
between the  last 2 for most

  Terri Agnew:@Avri, we are unable to hear you

  Avri Doria:sorry i am talking and off mute

  Terri Agnew:@Avri, I sent you a private chat

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:probably wore it out  with all the calls your on lately 
@Avri

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I think Alans 'in particularly; can be added as am 
inoccuous but friendly ammendment ;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:the GNSo reference is (sdly still ) necesarry reduncy  IMO

  Amr Elsadr:OK. Thanks Alan. In that case, I have no objection to adding this 
to the principle.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Thanks  Amr  I thoink it is a good adition as @Avri is so 
excellently outlining now...

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:dear me i wish you could edit the typos out of this chat 
pod *sigh*

  Amr Elsadr:I think that my point is that I don't see how the contracted 
parties may have a conflict with the standards listed in this principle. :)

  Amr Elsadr:fairness, notice, transparency, etc...

  Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1. I think sending the issue back to the GNSO is the chief 
take away from this recommendation.

  Avri Doria:Amr, i think it also includes that the AC issue are taken into 
account.

  Amr Elsadr:Yes..., AC issues need to be seriously considered by the board as 
well as the GNSO. Important to point out that the board shouldn't act 
unilaterally on gTLD policies in response to ACs, but direct the GNSO to either 
initiate or reconvene a discussion to attempt to work things out.

  Amr Elsadr:..., which I think the recommendation does nicely.

  Carlos Raul:well said Avri

  Amr Elsadr:@Avri: +1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Not suprisingly I agree with @Avri here,   and then of 
course the last sentence is no longer 'redundant'

  Avri Doria:sorry

  Michael R. Graham:Please revise "in their view" (refering to the Board) to 
"in its view"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:good point @Michael

  Michael R. Graham:High School and College English Teacher coming out . . .

  Michael R. Graham:;-)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr::-)

  Amr Elsadr:@Tom: +1

  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:can i propose a freindly amendment?  can we replace 
"or" with "to" as in "to initiate broader consideration"

  Carlos Raul:+1

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Ok Anne i see your point.

  Carlos Raul:as non englihs speaker did not dare to mention that one

  Avri Doria:its me, i am more nto discovery that determination ( :

  Avri Doria:... than determination ...

  Carlos Raul:discovery sounds pretty dependent on random

  Avri Doria:but discovery requires that something actually exist .

  Marika Konings:@Avri - are you talking about the principles section?

  Avri Doria:i thought i was refereing to recommendation section

  Marika Konings:I don't recall a 'community' section ,but will have a look

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:5.3 third comment of IPC  re early GAC involvement - 
Refer to, for example, p. 46 of the Initial report, Annex C - Proposed GNSO 
Input Process - "The GIP Team is encouraged...", etc.  Add a sentence after 
that sentence (and in the same place in each of the three processes such as "In 
this regard, it is recommended that the GIP Team Leader or Chair consult with 
the GNSO Council GAC Liaison regarding the best way to achieve early GAC 
participation or consultation with respect to the issues under consideration."

  Amr Elsadr:@Marika: I believe Avri is suggesting to add the languange as a 
principle under "Policy and the Community".

  Marika Konings:Thanks Amr

  Avri Doria:i was sorry.

  Amr Elsadr:Section 4C(2)

  Amr Elsadr:Alan is correct.

  Avri Doria:though we do have the situation with SSAC now.

  Avri Doria:Amr is the spokeperson for all NCSG comments

  Carlos Raul:woops

  Carlos Raul:I;m lossing Amr

  Carlos Raul:he is back

  Alan Greenberg:My recollection is that a PDP init threshhold is very low. Are 
these lower??

  Amr Elsadr:@Alan: I believe they are similar thresholds.

  Amr Elsadr:If I recall correctly.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Marika - Is there no scoping phase for an EPDP?

  Marika Konings:Referenes to earlier scoping efforts are required to be 
provided as part of the request, but presumably someone could argue that 
previously scoping efforts were not sufficient?

  Carlos Raul:Am I loosing the audio?

  Marika Konings:I still have audio, but am on the phone bridge

  Carlos Raul:if I;m the only one , I maight need to have a dial out....

  Carlos Raul:+506 8837 7176  pls

  Carlos Raul:maybe my connection is too narrow

  Terri Agnew:@Carlos, will dial out to you

  Carlos Raul:Danke

  Carlos Raul:much better now TXS

  Amr Elsadr:Also forgot to say that I certainly agree with Alan in that I 
wouldn't want multiple processes tackling the same issues.

  Amr Elsadr:The complexity could be easily avoided by raising the voting 
threshold. :)

  Avri Doria:i tink it good to have a recommendation that only 1 process per 
issue at a time.

  Alan Greenberg:I tend to agree with Avri that we do not need to cover every 
edge case. At some level, it is the Chair's responsibility to make sure that 
the GNSO is following reasonable process.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:tat fits with mty memory as well @Marika

  Amr Elsadr:The audio keeps on dropping on my end. :(

  Alan Greenberg:Initiation CANNOT require a supermajority.

  Amr Elsadr:Very difficult to follow what Marika is saying. Losing audio.

  Terri Agnew:@

  Amr Elsadr:Can I please get a dial out?

  Terri Agnew:@Amr, please let me know if you would like us to dial out to you

  Amr Elsadr:Terri: Yes please @ +47 450 33 237

  Michael R. Graham:@Alan + Avri -- I agree.  The more specifics and complexity 
and votes for votes we include, the more likely the process we propose for 
expediting and enabling resolution of P/I issues, actually has a reverse effect.

  Marika Konings:Just to confirm, the current recommendation is indeed that the 
voting threshold for initiation is the same as for a PDP

  Alan Greenberg:"Sending things to PDP Hell."  I like that phrase!

  Avri Doria:thee should not be many places where they do compete unless our 
descriptions are too loose.

  Amr Elsadr:Hi. Just dialled in and can hear you all now. Lost audio when 
Marika was speaking.

  Alan Greenberg:Agree with Chuck. Ultimately we will not address every edge 
case in the rules.

  Michael R. Graham:+1 -- Alan and Chuck's points.

  Avri Doria:recommended that the apporpriate process be used.  and that only 
one process, per topic at a time.

  Avri Doria:I also think we may need to tighten the wording describing when 
the various methods are used.

  Amr Elsadr:How could the topic be blocked, if it could potentially lead to a 
PDP instead of one of these processes?

  Amr Elsadr:The topic wouldn't be blocked, just which process would be used to 
address it.

  Marika Konings:@Amr - but isn't that addressed by Alan's suggestion to have 
the Council first agree on which process is to be used before any vote is taken?

  Marika Konings:if there are different views and motions on which process is 
to be used

  Amr Elsadr:Missed that part. Didn't hear Alan's suggestion on this. How would 
that be done?

  Amr Elsadr:That might actually work out the issue.

  Marika Konings:it is currently recorded in the document as: Clarify that 
parallel efforts on similar / identical topics should be avoided - if there are 
multiple motions on the same topic for different processes, the Council as the 
manager of the process would first need to resolve which process to use before 
voting on the motions.Leadership of GNSO Council is encouraged to manage to use 
of these processes to minimize potential conflicts as outlined in this comment.

  Amr Elsadr:But then how would that decision be made?

  Amr Elsadr:@Greg: There's a flip side to that arguement, which is the point 
I'm trying to make.

  Marika Konings:I think Alan suggested using normal GNSO processes, first 
dialogue and then simple majority vote if needed.

  Marika Konings:@Anne - that is indeed one of the possible outcomes of a GGP - 
that a (E)PDP is initiated if it is deemed that new / different contractual 
obligations are needed.

  Terri Agnew:@Carlos, we are dialing back out to you

  Marika Konings:@Amr, please note that the Initial Report already notes that 
one of the possible outcomes of a GGP can be: 'j. Recommendations on future 
guidance or policy development process activities'

  Amr Elsadr:For the record..., it was my personal belief that (from a 
substantive perspective), Spec 13 could have gone farther than it did in 
allowing brand registries to not be required to deal with registrars at all. 
Just saying. :)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:oh well we can but try ;-)

  Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Talk again next week. Bye.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Good cll thanks huck thnks everyone