Yesim Nazlar: (2/27/2019 15:27) Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call taking place on Wednesday, 27 February 2019 13:00 UTC
Yesim Nazlar: (15:27) Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/aY02Bg
Antonio Medina Gómez ACUI: (15:41) buenos días a todos
Yesim Nazlar: (15:44) Welcome Antonio
Yesim Nazlar: (15:44) We have ES channel available for this call. ADIGO ES:1738
Yesim Nazlar: (15:44) Please let me know if you need a dial-out. Thank you
George Kirikos: (15:56) Hi folks.
Evin Erdoğdu: (15:59) Hello all, welcome.
Jonathan Zuck: (16:01) I take no prisoners
Alberto Soto: (16:01) Hello everyone!
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:02) Prepare for ICANN64 by reviewing the Pre-ICANN64 Policy Report, now available here >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__go.icann.org_2H45M0L&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=oxPKoHZIv-ILsZipL6Eao7jvASqcy5PAZXUynZviJzI&e=
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (16:03) hello All
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (16:03) Thanks @Evin for the report
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:05) Most welcome Abdeldjalil!
Alan Greenberg: (16:07) No understandable.- echo
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:08) repeat, Yes please
Maureen Hilyard: (16:08) Thanks Daniel
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:09) ALAC Position on Government Engagement Approach (blog): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_icann-2Dorg-2Dpublishes-2Dcharter-2Don-2Dgovernment-2Dengagement-2Dapproach&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=rt1bOB-jieN1rnn6LiowdY3JLXO8ICN58k8QBEXvdyI&e=
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:10) *Government Engagement Approach (blog): https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_blog_icann-2Dorg-2Dpublishes-2Dcharter-2Don-2Dgovernment-2Dengagement-2Dapproach&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=rt1bOB-jieN1rnn6LiowdY3JLXO8ICN58k8QBEXvdyI&e=
George Kirikos: (16:11) That blog post claims that ICANN doesn't do lobbying. "we will not be lobbying." However, note the following page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_lobbying-2Ddisclosures-2Dcontributions-2D2015-2D11-2D18-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=n0dpo3ALYxsD2-T-8gb0x-G_g44e7FXEjgax4UtuxQk&e= Hard to reconcile those!
Maria Korniiets: (16:16) Sorry had connection problems :(
Alan Greenberg: (16:17) Perhaps not wanting to repeat the GDPR fiasco?
Jonathan Zuck: (16:20) @
Jonathan Zuck: (16:20) @Alan, by doing less?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:22) These concerns were raised in the CCWG on Orgnaisational Acccountability in the Transparancy Review Team discussion so I read this as part of the 'Implementation' by ICANN of recommendations the COmmunity has made in recent times.
Jonathan Zuck: (16:23) that's why it feels a bit more like a new policy than a clarification
George Kirikos: (16:23) Eduardo was referencing this page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resources_pages_lobbying-2Ddisclosures-2Dcontributions-2D2015-2D11-2D18-2Den&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=n0dpo3ALYxsD2-T-8gb0x-G_g44e7FXEjgax4UtuxQk&e=
George Kirikos: (16:23) (reposting in case it scrolled off the page)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:23) During the JPA, the Affirmation of Commitments and IANA Transition ICANN did need to have an active 'lobby' effort .... dare I say **obviously** so these mandatory declarations are both correct and valid IMO
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:24) and IF/when the ORG needed to "lobby" it would transparantly be declared in this way as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:25) clarification will be appreciated on this Leon though thanks
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:26) 'ÍCANN org engagement (...) will be limited to providing technical information on the impact on ICANN’s Mission or Articles of Incorporation (“ICANNImpact”)
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:26) Sounds like lobbying to me
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:26) which is fine
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:26) But good to frame it explicitly, limit it, and be transparant
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:27) it is also something that is clearly in the Remit of ICANN Mission as well @Bastiaan
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:27) Yes agree
George Kirikos: (16:27) +1 Bastiaan. And have disclosures for all countries, not just the US mandatory disclosures.
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:28) @George: yes I agree
Jonathan Zuck: (16:28) because platforms are under fire right now
George Kirikos: (16:29) It's naive to think that "technical" info doesn't overlap with political or legislative matters, or are always "neutral".
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:29) 'And have disclosures for all countries, not just the US mandatory disclosures.' - that seems to be the intent of the charter as I read it
Jonathan Zuck: (16:29) yep
George Kirikos: (16:30) +1 (who is speaking right now? Good to say one's name before speaking, for transcripts, etc.)
Jonathan Zuck: (16:30) Alan Greenberg
Bartlett Morgan: (16:31) its Alan
George Kirikos: (16:31) Thanks Jonathan.
George Kirikos: (16:31) and Bartlett.
George Kirikos: (16:31) (I don't recognize everyone's voice, yet, but will over time) :-)
hadia Elminiawi: (16:32) so I am now on adobe as well :)
A-Eduardo: (16:32) or maybe use a different set of words
George Kirikos: (16:32) Their own letter says there are "local definitions of lobbying"
George Kirikos: (16:33) So, which definition are they using? "-)
George Kirikos: (16:33) :-)
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:33) 'we will not be lobbying' is mentioned in the blogpost, not in the (draft) charter
Alan Greenberg: (16:33) @Leon, I think that "no lobbying" is actually an ICANN Board issue, and not and ICANN Org issue.
Jonathan Zuck: (16:33) this is all about figuring out what org can do autonomously I think
George Kirikos: (16:34) @Bastiaan: true, but I read "government engagement" to often be "lobbying"
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:34) I agree with you, George
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:34) So for that part in the blog is somewhat confusing
George Kirikos: (16:34) Each time they use the word "engagement" in that charter, one might argue it's "lobbying".
George Kirikos: (16:35) (draft charter, rather)
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:35) yep - and FWIW I do not have a problem with the lobbying activities as proposed in the draft charter
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:35) to quote the Charter... As part of ICANN org’s work to identify Proposals, ICANN will continue to follow the development of legislation and standards-setting work. If the ICANN community is aware of Proposals for which ICANN org could consider engagement, those items can be flagged by the community to ICANN org’s Government Engagement team; Global Stakeholder Engagement team and through trackingfeedback@icann.org.ICANN will also continue to coordinate and collaborate, where appropriate, with theother I* organizations to help identify Proposals, as well as to understand other engagement work already underway on such Proposals.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:36) part of the DRAFT
Bartlett Morgan: (16:36) my only concern - the draft charter doesn't speak to the role of the community in helping set the agenda. Saying we can flag proposals seems a tad loose
Jonathan Zuck: (16:37) agree @Bartlett
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:37) Remember the Communinty via CCWG-Accountability demanded that ICANN clearly worked *within* its mission, mandate and parameters...
George Kirikos: (16:37) As an example, suppose Australia asks to reduce the encryption strength of DNSSEC for signing of the root. Is that "technical" or "political" / "legislative"?
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:38) @Bartlett: I see your point but it's ICANN the org we're talking
George Kirikos: (16:38) https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wired.com_story_australia-2Dencryption-2Dlaw-2Dglobal-2Dimpact_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=dkGwQ5dSbMqEmWsHrBvDQMY9R84sHrjmTGtn7HTfet4&e= (for context)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:38) but we need to raise this concerns and needs for clarification in our response (and I guess we **will** be making them) to this draft
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (16:39) what is the next Step of the Bureau of Veni Markovski based in New York, and is responsible for the relations with the United Nations, the UN Agencies in New York, and the Permanent Missions to the United Nations.
George Kirikos: (16:39) (although, technically that's more for "signing" in DNSSEC, rather than "encryption", strictly speaking)
Jonathan Zuck: (16:39) well we can still "comment" via correspondence or "advice"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:41) @George our efforts as part of the Internet Community in AU to this more than dissapointing and poor/faulty legislation, was extensive via our ALS (makes sense but not in the name of ICANN but as Internet Australia, and we DID have excellent support from ISOC... which seems reasonable , we did not utalise any direct interaction that could be seen as resultant from ICANN.org
George Kirikos: (16:43) @Cheryl: wasn't meant as a criticism of Australians (just happened to be a topical issue). Other governments also have ideas/legislation that could benefit from "neutral" information.
George Kirikos: (16:43) But, everyone might have different ideas on what exactly is "neutral".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:43) Ohh it is well worth critisising @George, but I was noting we did not need to use ICANN.org in the process
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:43) Thank you, Leon!
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:44) Thanks, Leon
George Kirikos: (16:44) I think Apple/Google/etc will have more impact on that issue. :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:44) Thanks Leon
Alberto Soto 2: (16:44) Thanks Leon
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:44) Yes OCL
George Kirikos: (16:44) EPDP phase 1 is done.
George Kirikos: (16:45) Posted today that Phase 2 planning/prep work will happen in Kobe: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001760.html
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:47) the GNSO Council WILL vote on the Phase 1 Final Report on Monday 4th, and has a discussion item open to follow that vote (associated with the Vote motion) regarding Phase 2
George Kirikos: (16:48) There will be a public comment period before the ICANN Board votes on it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:48) Fingers crossed they can stay on in Phase 2 work
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:48) Yes @ George that is as usual...
Jonathan Zuck: (16:48) no kidding!
George Kirikos: (16:49) @Cheryl: will At-Large file a public comment for that, or just rely on its statements within the final report?
Bastiaan Goslings: (16:49) wow that sounds like it was a full time job!
George Kirikos: (16:49) (individuals can always comment on their own, of course)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:50) Oh indeed the E part of EPDP is intensive and demands extraordinary commitments from its volunteers from COmmunity
hadia Elminiawi: (16:51) EPDP Sunday meeting is at 17:00 -18:30
Alberto Soto 2: (16:51) That dedicated time is similar to the At-Large review ...
Maureen Hilyard: (16:52) We would be very lucky to be able to retain both Alan and Hadia on the EPDP
Alberto Soto 2: (16:53) I agree Maureen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:53) With our activities in somewhat of a state of flux, we are writing to let you know that we plan to maintain most of the Kobe meeting schedule. During a call with GNSO Council leadership, we agreed to use the opportunity for planning and prep work for Phase 2, while waiting for any additional GNSO Council instructions.We will use the Saturday meeting slot for Phase 2 planning, and a discussion on how to manage the coincident Implementation and Phase 2 efforts. We will plan to start Saturday at 11AM and spend 60-90 minutes reviewing GNSO Council decisions and guidance, take some early input from each group and set meeting objectives. We’ll break for lunch and continue through the afternoon until 18:30. We are hoping to provide some recreative refreshments around 1700 or so. We currently have meeting slots reserved at Sunday 1700-1830; Wednesday 1030-1200; Thursday 0830-1015. It is likely that we will meet the Technical Study Group either Sunday or Wednesday depending on their availability. Thursday, we will
George Kirikos: (16:53) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2019-February/001760.html
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:53) from the message from Kurt
hadia Elminiawi: (16:53) ok
hadia Elminiawi: (16:54) I sent an email to the CPWG about the kobe meetings
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:55) Thanks Hadia
hadia Elminiawi: (16:55) :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:56) Not disagreeing on that Alan, just trying to manage expectations
Maureen Hilyard: (16:57) tend another non-ICANN meeting
Maureen Hilyard: (16:57) apologies I have to leave to attend another (non-ICANN) meeting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:57) We usually don't comment on LGR's
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:58) See: ICANN64 agenda for Sunday, 10 March - https://community.icann.org/x/96AWBg
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:58) Thank you @Maureen, noted
Yrjö Länsipuro: (16:58) I have to leave. Bye!
Evin Erdoğdu: (16:58) Thank you Yrjö
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:58) Bye @Maureen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (16:59) Bye Yrio
Alan Greenberg: (17:00) Who from NCSG?
judith hellerstein: (17:00) sorry I have to leave for auction proceeds
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:00) Bye Judith
hadia Elminiawi: (17:01) Bye Judith
Bartlett Morgan: (17:02) i like the proposals generally
Alan Greenberg: (17:02) Off to Auctions...
A-Eduardo: (17:03) Bye
Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong: (17:03) https://meetings.icann.org/en/kobe64-prep-week
Evin Erdoğdu: (17:03) Thanks Abdeldjalil
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:08) ahh but letting actual facts get in the way of a 'good' story OCL ;-)
Alberto Soto 2: (17:08) Thanks, bye bye!!
Antonio Medina Gómez ACUI: (17:08) thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:09) I am NOT be available next week
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:09) on a plane
Jonathan Zuck: (17:09) I'll be travelling
George Kirikos: (17:09) Is there any pressing topic next week? (likely no new topics that we didn't cover today)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:09) so people can phine OCL directly ;-)
George Kirikos: (17:11) Thanks Olivier.
Evin Erdoğdu: (17:11) I will unfortunately be unavailable next Wednesday.
Evin Erdoğdu: (17:12) But can help with prep as needed
George Kirikos: (17:12) Elon Musk on meetings: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.entrepreneur.com_article_312247&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mrDeztziKLa7gZqGADzxcnHA3QXmXYsnChWYBR4NElI&m=MIuCqfEB5Xj-Wwo1B5LgQG1hcLuu8DeM2JsU1oMWq4I&s=k07842F4Aju46HfiFZYIllgzu-KFOS5Xxe8A7SaDLVA&e= :-)
Evin Erdoğdu: (17:12) Will do
George Kirikos: (17:12) "“Excessive meetings are the blight of big companies and almost always get worse over time. Please get of [sic] all large meetings, unless you’re certain they are providing value to the whole audience, in which case keep them very short,”
Evin Erdoğdu: (17:12) Thank you all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:12) Bye
hadia Elminiawi: (17:12) thank you all bye
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO3): (17:12) Safe Travels
George Kirikos: (17:12) Bye folks!
hadia Elminiawi: (17:12) safe travels
Leon Sanchez: (17:12) thanks everyone
Gordon Chillcott: (17:13) TYhanks and bye for now.
Abdulkarim: (17:13) bye
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
