[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Attendance and Recording Policy and Implementation WG meeting - 22 April 2015

[Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

The next Policy and Implementation Working Group teleconference is scheduled 
next week on Wednesday 29 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 22 April 2015 at 19:00 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-policy-implementation-22apr15-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:
Amr Elsadr – NCUC
Alan Greenberg-ALAC
Chuck Gomes – RySG
Avri Doria - NCSG
Tom Barrett - RrSG
Greg Shatan - IPC
Anne Aikman-Scalese - IPC
 Cheryl Langdon-Orr - At–Large

Apologies:
Michael Graham
J.Scott Evans
Carlos Raul Guiterrez
Marika Konings

ICANN staff:
Mary Wong
Amy Bivins
Karen Lentz
Steve Chan
Nathalie Peregrine

** 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,
Nathalie

Adobe Chat Transcript for Wednesday 22 April 2015
Nathalie  Peregrine:Welcome to the Policy & Implementation WG meeting of 22 
April 2015
  Amr Elsadr:Hi folks.
  Greg Shatan:Hello all.
  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Hi everyone.  Happy Wednesday...
  Anne Aikman-Scalese:@Chuck - J. Scott sent apologies.  Anne
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Noted.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Avri Doria has joined the call
  Amr Elsadr:Motions can now be submitted past the traditional 10-day deadline, 
under specific circumstances.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Cheryl Langdon-Orr has joined the call
  Greg Shatan:@Amr, true that.
  CLO:I am only in the AC room but can talk if needs be...  plain boards at 
0540, but should be close to top of the hour before we taxi, so here for a 
short while...
  Mary Wong:Thanks, Cheryl - we'll be sure to watch AC just in case!
  Mary Wong:Re Roberts' Rules - however, we don't have supplementary or 
incidental motions etc. as well, so less rigidity/complexity in the GNSO process
  Amr Elsadr:Not that this solves anything, but a councillor could also ask 
that a motion be deferred. :)
  Mary Wong:@Greg, I think the Council does have that flexibility - for 
instance (in a slightly different but with similarities) context, that's sort 
of what happened with the competing motions for UDRP review back in Nov/Dec 2011
  Amr Elsadr:This concern shouldn't be labelled as being strictly associated 
with "gaming". There could be other reasons why there may be disagreement on 
which process be used.
  CLO:I agree with you Alan
  Alan Greenberg:Alphabet soup - I am going to run screaming from the room!
  Mary Wong:@Alan, @Nathalie - it just occurred to me that when this WG's 
recommendations are adopted, the GNSO newcomer webinars will have to be changed!
  Chuck Gomes:We need you on video Alan if you run screaming!
  Mary Wong:Alan "Edward Munch" Greenberg
  Amr Elsadr:Adjusting the voting threshold required to initiate a GGP would 
resolve all of these issues. It's really that simple.
  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Suggest we add that a factor in the consideration of 
competing motions will be the threshold voting level required.
  Amr Elsadr:From the bylaws: Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") 
Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more 
than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
  Mary Wong:Of course
  Mary Wong::)
  Amr Elsadr:A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the 
Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a 
majority of the other House."
  Greg Shatan:As clear as pea soup....
  Alan Greenberg:Split or green?
  Mary Wong:A pottage of acronyms - split votes for green newbies
  CLO:lol
  Alan Greenberg:OOOHH! Mary wins the prize for inovative use of language.
  Chuck Gomes::)
  CLO:naaa
  CLO:Enjoy
  Greg Shatan:Split, with bacon.
  Amr Elsadr:Sheesh!! Good luck to you all!!
  Mary Wong:EVerything is better with bacon (for most people)
  Amr Elsadr:@Mary: +1 :)
  Greg Shatan:I'm going back for seconds.  (Intensive work days, with a side of 
legal -- not pea soup)
  CLO:yup I'm there as well... So your not following me there Chuck?
  Greg Shatan:And the CCWG-IG meeting is directly before the 5 hour 
accountability/legal block
  CLO:and the rapporteurs get extra calls as well:-D
  Amr Elsadr:I just lost audio.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:Amr, we can dial out to you
  Nathalie  Peregrine:or log in and out of the Ac room
  Greg Shatan:I now have 12 hours of ICANN calls on my calendar for tomorrow.  
Thankfully I'm not a rapporteur (only a legal subteam member).
  Nathalie  Peregrine:@ Amr, is audio ok?
  Amr Elsadr:Thanks Nathalie. I think I'm having trouble with the AC room. If I 
need to, I can dial in. Just got back on.
  Nathalie  Peregrine:ok let me know if you need a dila out
  Nathalie  Peregrine:*dial out
  Amr Elsadr:Agree with Anne, and thanks to Mary for the text in the WG 
response column. That looks good to me.
  Avri Doria:we sould not use the word binding, not even if we define it special
  Alan Greenberg:Greg, 12?  I only have 10 (not counting an ALAC Chair call).
  Greg Shatan:A PDP recommendation isn't "binding" either.
  Greg Shatan:That ain't binding.
  Amr Elsadr:Yes. Binding may not be the best word here.
  Greg Shatan:Whatever the distinction, let's not use the word "binding" to 
characterize it.
  Amr Elsadr:Agree with Greg and Alan.
  Avri Doria:it is strongly suggestive.
  Mary Wong:Bravo, Alan - great pithy summary!
  Greg Shatan:Horse now well and truyly beaten.
  Greg Shatan:@Alan, I have an SO-AC-SG-C-RALO leadership call and I'm counting 
the Quarterly Stakeholder Group Call as well.
  Alan Greenberg:@Mary, "pithy"!  I take that as a compliment! Or even a 
complement  (to something).
  Mary Wong:Sorry, still having AC problem
  Alan Greenberg:@Greg, I counted those too. 6 hours of CCWg, 2 of lega, plus 
the two you mentioned.
  Mary Wong 2:I can't seem to share my screen any more - so I'll just take 
notes on the right hand side and insert them after the call today
  Amr Elsadr:@Chuck: So true. :D
  Avri Doria:indeed, dump the bums.
  Mary Wong:@Alan, pithiness these days with all the calls is DEFINITELY a good 
thing!
  Avri Doria:it is out of scope for this WG
  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Suggest we say " The WG notes that the suggestion is 
outside the charter of this WG
  Greg Shatan:What, and get out of show biz?
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:we should respond in some way
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:we should acknowledge it
  Amr Elsadr:I believe Tom is correct.
  Avri Doria:i simple it is out of scope should be sufficint.
  Avri Doria:sliced bread is a low bar
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:this reflects frustration with the entire ICANN effort, 
not just GNSO
  Greg Shatan:Sliced bread revolutionized the World!
  Greg Shatan:@Tom, even more out of scope then
  Mary Wong:@Amr, on the mathematical calculation point - a 1/3 affirmative 
vote doesn't necessarily mean a 2/3 no vote (and vice versa).
  Mary Wong:Council members can abstain, or vote yes or no to either (e.g. if 
there is no strong view one way or the other).
  Amr Elsadr:@Mary: it's more than 1/3, isn't it? Meaning NCA votes being 
counted.
  Mary Wong:NCA votes count in both situations, but yes, more than 1/3
  Mary Wong:(note that math has never been my strong suit)
  Amr Elsadr:I asked to be corrected, if I got my calculations wrong, but I 
don't think so. :)
  Alan Greenberg:NCA votes count for those NCAs who have a vote!  ;-)
  Mary Wong:I think my point was that NOT getting the "more than 1/3" doesn't 
automatically mean Supermajority is the result
  Amr Elsadr:Ah. I think I see your point. Councillors cold vote "no" for both 
motions? Is that it?
  Mary Wong:Yes, exactly
  Amr Elsadr:Yes. That is certainly a possibility. :)
  Amr Elsadr:@Alan: yes. :)
  Amr Elsadr:Fit for purpose is not necessarily = a policy question that comes 
up during implementation. It would depend on the circumstances surrounding the 
question.
  Mary Wong:Note also that the GGP cannot be used when the outcome might result 
in the imposition of new or additional contractual obligations on contracted 
parties - then that is something for a regular PDP (not an EPDP either).
  Amr Elsadr:Can't say I disagree with anything Greg has said, but it doesn't 
address the voting threshold issue.
  Mary Wong:Unless the EPDP conditions are satisfied.
  Mary Wong:Scope of GGP per the WG Initial Report: "A GGP may be initiated by 
the GNSO Council when a request for inputrelating to gTLDs (either a new issue 
or in relation to previous policy recommendations) has beenreceived from the 
ICANN Board or a gTLD issue has been identified by the GNSO Council that 
wouldbenefit from GNSO Guidance, and it has determined that the intended 
outcome is not expected to resultin new contractual obligations for contracted 
parties (in which case a PDP would need to be initiated). "
  Greg Shatan:+1 to Alan
  Mary Wong:So yes, it's intended to cover the type of situations Alan raises.
  Amr Elsadr:Can veto the process, but not the outcome.
  Amr Elsadr:Wouldn't the implementation process be worked out on an IRT?
  Mary Wong:Need to clarify what "new implementation processes" mean
  Amr Elsadr:@Mary: Yes. That'd be helpful.
  Greg Shatan:Brevity is the soul of wit.  And I wasn't trying to be funny.
  Greg Shatan:Ergo, I spoke at length.
  Avri Doria:Chuck, you are safe, you are a neutral chair.
  Greg Shatan:Yes, Chuck goes with any type of decor.
  Avri Doria:Greg, the exchange of comments we have had on this chat shows that 
we have become crispy, beyond burnt.
  Mary Wong:Bacon again
  Avri Doria:better to have agreement of the group
  Mary Wong:Section 5.4
  Mary Wong:NCSG comment re GGP and registrants, I mean
  Avri Doria:only need a minority statement if the WG does not agree that is 
shioudl not place obligations on tregistrants.
  Amr Elsadr:@Avri: Probably, yes.
  Avri Doria:are we trying to avoid mentioning registrant obligations?
  Mary Wong:@Avri, not from the staff end; just wondering if we are talking 
about the same thing.
  Avri Doria:Of course Mary, i did not tink the staf had any inteionality, 
except perhaps for us arriving at a reasonalbe set of solutions.
  Mary Wong::)
  Karen Lentz:thank you
  Tom Barrett - EnCirca:bye all
  Greg Shatan:Thanks, Chuck!
  Greg Shatan:Thanks, all!
  Avri Doria:goody, escaped another call without saying anything.
  Greg Shatan:Au revoir!
  Anne Aikman-Scalese:Thank you everyone.
  Amr Elsadr:Thank all. Bye.