Zoom chat: 2020-08-26 Consolidated Policy Working Group Call

15:37:42 From Yesim Nazlar : Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group Call taking place on Wednesday, 26 August 2020 at 13:00 UTC
15:37:53 From Yesim Nazlar : Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/SQC1C
15:52:47 From CLOSED CAPTION : Goodmorning :) Yes. I'm set.
15:53:25 From Yesim Nazlar : Thank you and welcome!
15:54:39 From Priyatosh Jana : hi everyone
15:56:00 From Joanna Kulesza : Hi everyone!
15:58:43 From Amrita Choudhury : Hi All, interesting discussion on quarantine part :)
15:58:49 From Michel TCHONANG LINZE : Hi Olivier and everyone
15:59:42 From Joanna Kulesza : A birthday invite that says "you're not invited" seems of general use :D
16:00:07 From Amrita Choudhury : lol
16:01:07 From Ricardo Holmquist : Good day everyone
16:02:15 From Michel TCHONANG LINZE : Thank Ricardo
16:05:21 From Heidi Ullrich : Welcome, All.
16:05:22 From Oksana Prykhodko : Hello everyone
16:06:11 From Heidi Ullrich : Evin is on vacation this week. Therefore, I will be taking Action Item this week. They will be available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Action+items%3A+2020-08-26+Consolidated+Policy+Working+Group+Call
16:06:48 From Yesim Nazlar : RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
16:13:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : correct to date from my knowledge @Alan;
16:18:14 From Judith Hellerstein : sorry i was late, earlier meeting ran over
16:18:49 From Javier Rua-Jovet : excuse extreme tardiness
16:19:42 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : How will accuracy be measured when most WHOIS data is anonymized or missing?
16:20:36 From Holly Raiche : Thanks for the summary of where we are (wherever that is!)
16:21:33 From Carlton Samuels : It boggles my mind why you need a PDP to determine that RD *must* be accurate. And, the collector is obliged to act in ways to ensure accuracy!
16:22:42 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : Thanks.
16:22:44 From Carlton Samuels : @John I think it goes without saying that at least the public dataset *must* be accurate!
16:23:45 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : It is highly problematic, Carlton. I've been working on measuring hoster/registrar concentration in the gTLDs and the quality of WHOIS is a bit iffy and a lot of it is anonymized.
16:24:26 From Alan Greenberg : @Carlton, the is virtually no current contact info required in the public dataset. I think that Country is the only one. Perhaps State/Province but I cannot recall.
16:24:45 From Heidi Ullrich : At-Large SubPro Workspace: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+SubPro+Updates
16:25:27 From Marita Moll : 111 page google form to fill in!!!! This seems to be the new way of commenting -- very hard to deal with.
16:25:30 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : Most records seem to have province/city and countr fields
16:25:43 From Alan Greenberg : Info from legal persons is allowed but few registrars publish it. Rules allow the registrant to say they want their info public, but not all registrars implement that.
16:26:08 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : The big registrars have different versions of what they publish in a lookup
16:26:15 From Alan Greenberg : City is not generally available.
16:27:05 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : The registrants have their own interpretation.
16:27:25 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : Some will use the city as the province
16:27:43 From Jonathan Zuck : form=structured data for later!
16:28:06 From Jonathan Zuck : Exactly
16:28:25 From Marita Moll : Yes, making it easier for analysts but harder for commenters. Also set up for individuals not groups
16:28:26 From Carlton Samuels : @John @ Alan so, seems to me what we need is assurance that a set of fields in addition to the public dataset must be verified. And I still cannot understand why thre should be a PDP to say that.
16:29:33 From Alan Greenberg : Carlton: It boggles my mind why you need a PDP to determine that RD *must* be accurate. And, the collector is obliged to act in ways to ensure accuracy! Perhaps, but 83% of the GNSO Council believes that. And what the GNSO Council believes rules! At least so far.
16:30:02 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : Registrars seem to want to make things simple. Registrants don't always follow ICANN rules on what should go in various fields.
16:31:03 From Alan Greenberg : @Carlton, the RAA already says they must be verified. For new registrations. It would be interesting to see just how accurate the new data is, but I'm not sure that was done during the late lamented ARS.
16:31:59 From Holly Raiche : I hate to be a pest, but is the weight of GAC advice an issue for us?
16:32:28 From Alan Greenberg : Holly? Do you mean do re object to it having more weight than ours?
16:33:22 From Holly Raiche : No - I am asking about the priority of discussing issues in this venue
16:34:29 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : In terms of market concentration, about 93% of .COM is hosted by approximately 2,500 hosting firms. The big registrars have most of the market. That narrows down some of the data quality issues with WHOIS.
16:34:47 From Alan Greenberg : GAC advice as ours goes to the Board. It can go elsewhere with no guarantee it is considered.
16:34:57 From Holly Raiche : (really asking about the amount of time needed for everyone to get their heads about all of the issues)
16:35:31 From Carlton Samuels : @Alan: That's my issue. Latest RAA obliges verification. That process is intended to vouch accuracy. The argument was that some registrars were working on older versions of the RAA. The latest RAA should have kicked in for everybody by now. Hence my view that a PDP for accuracy is specious, at best.
16:36:01 From Alfredo Calderon : I am afraid I have to agree with @Holly. Not clear why we are discussing GAC Consensus Advice. Should it not be treated as other communities Advice?
16:36:34 From Alan Greenberg : @Alfredo. No, the ICANN Bylaws give it a special treatment.
16:36:42 From Holly Raiche : Agree with Alan - after the 2013 RAA - everyone is supposed to be on board with the accuracy provisions. The bigger issue - the role (or not) of Compliance
16:37:15 From Alfredo Calderon : Thanks @Alan for the clarification.
16:37:32 From Javier Rua-Jovet : yes I hear
16:39:42 From Alan Greenberg : @Carlton, the new RAA is in effect but says nothing about contact data that is already there, and that is huge. Also, without accuracy testing , we have no way of knowing if registrars are actually fulfilling their obligations. Plus there are accuracy provisions related to ensuring data is consistent that are not in effect.
16:43:17 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : The market is so concentrated that most of the sample domain names will be on the large registrars. The small ones might not even be included. The number of active retail registrars is samller than the 2,500 or so accredited registrars with some operators having over 100 registrars.
16:43:53 From John McCormac - author of Domnomics : Any survey would need to check all registrars rather than using a simple random survey.
16:44:05 From christopher wilkinson : I think the strong presumption should be maintained. In due course ALAC will be seeking GAC support for our positions.
16:49:47 From Holly Raiche : @JZ - Your view since you were on the CCT?
16:52:03 From christopher wilkinson : @GAC advice: who designs the template? Fitting 160+ countries into a single template …..!!
16:52:42 From Marita Moll : I don't see a role for us there. Leave it to GAC.
16:52:45 From Jonathan Zuck : Agree that we should leave it to them
16:52:51 From Yrjo Lansipuro : +1 Alan and Justine
16:55:26 From Alfredo Calderon : +1 Alan and Justine GAC seems to have a clear enough ‘Early Warning” and “Consensus to Advice” to have more input in the process.
16:56:37 From Carlton Samuels : I have to drop off in 5 to go to a small group discussion on WHOIS Conflicts w/ National Law. This one needs a stake thru its heart! I am keen to know the ALAC's position on SubPro. I really do need some guidance for what my position should be here.
16:58:09 From Holly Raiche : The issue of ALAC standing is very important - if we don’t. It should be clarified
16:58:50 From Marita Moll : Agreed @ Alan, Holly. It is a good point to make sure that is clarified
16:59:58 From Holly Raiche : +1 Alan
17:00:16 From Marita Moll : +1 Alan
17:01:42 From Alan Greenberg : @Justine, that is YOUR interpretation, but not necessarily the view of the panels who will be evaluating objections!
17:01:57 From Holly Raiche : We need to clarify that the grounds for standing need to be broad enough to point to harm to end users
17:02:20 From Betty Fausta : +1 with Holly
17:03:47 From Jonathan Zuck : Makes sense
17:04:34 From Bill Jouris : +1 Holly
17:04:49 From Olivier Crépin-Leblond : but there is no such thing as a SINGLE At-Large Community
17:04:58 From Olivier Crépin-Leblond : what percentage of our community needs to be affected?
17:05:06 From Jonathan Zuck : Should we just request explicit standing. Our process for objecting is sufficiently Byzantine that we won’t abuse it ;)
17:05:28 From Alan Greenberg : It should NOT be a question of community. We should have implicit right to file objections just like the IO. Period. Otherwise it is a fool's game anad not worth participating in.
17:06:04 From Holly Raiche : +1 Alan
17:06:18 From Roberto : +1 Alan
17:06:36 From Jonathan Zuck : exactly
17:07:00 From Holly Raiche : Maybe use the term public interest rather than the term community
17:07:12 From Marita Moll : good resolution @alan
17:07:13 From Olivier Crépin-Leblond : Because the At-Large Community is a loose community, it will never be judged by an examiner as being the legitimate objector for THE community
17:07:20 From christopher wilkinson : ALAC should be able to address objections in relation to the precedent that would be created for other applications.
17:23:55 From Marita Moll : Or have a single issue call
17:24:21 From Marita Moll : I think having a video will not have the same result
17:25:06 From Jonathan Zuck : Marita, except that the huge majority of folks on this call or just watching a video”
17:25:14 From Holly Raiche : Thanks for doing the posting - it did help
17:26:19 From Roberto : @JZ but in a live call we can ask questions and there is also some activity in the chat
17:26:50 From Marita Moll : Exactly @Roberto
17:27:54 From Marita Moll : I wonder if other communities are as well versed in this massive topic as this community is now -- thanks to Justine and these CPWG calls
17:28:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thank you for an excellent overview of these matters and recommendations @Justine, Excellent work and as usual *most helpful*
17:29:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Moving on...
17:29:07 From Yrjo Lansipuro : At least we have been a model for the GAC
17:29:16 From Judith Hellerstein : we do not have RTT ability to do single purpose calls
17:29:43 From Justine Chew : As I said, we could try a combination of calls and discussion on the email list.
17:30:06 From Jonathan Zuck : Justine, people just don’t read things
17:30:16 From Alfredo Calderon : Bye to all. Have another call.
17:30:18 From Michel TCHONANG LINZE : Thank Justine
17:30:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Nor do they go ohh goodie I have some spare time let me sit and watch a Policy Info Video... Unless there is motivation
17:34:36 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : it is in each Agenda when we cover this topic is it not?
17:35:35 From Jonathan Zuck : Well, Cheryl, the motivation is to be able to discuss on the cpwg call. Time is simply finite
17:35:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye all
17:35:45 From Sarah Kiden : Thank you all
17:35:45 From Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong : Thanks and bye
17:35:47 From Hanan Khatib : thank youall
17:35:47 From Roberto : Bye
17:35:48 From Heidi Ullrich : Thanks All