14:06:35 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	This is the google sheet that we will be using and discussing today: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
14:11:31 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Urgency is a tricky concept. There are recommendations we made, as part of the CCT, that we considered "urgent" for the organization, such as greater use of data in all policy development. There are things we thought should happen prior to a new round, so urgency has to do with the proximity of a round. Finally, there are things like GDPR enforcement that redefines the nature of "urgent."
14:12:46 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	definitely support doing that
14:12:59 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	I know that may take us into an exercise of futility, but I think it might be worthwhile to try.
14:13:10 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	plus one
14:14:33 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	point of order, if we resort to polls, the alts (like me) don't vote unless subbing?
14:16:00 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	the whole purpose of such exercises is generally about preventing P3s from taking over your life.
14:16:18 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	we really need to understand what we mean by "urgent"
14:16:31 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=323459300
14:18:30 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	did we establish the urgency of the previous rec?
14:18:59 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	not yet.
14:19:39 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	as for previous rec, I think it is important but not urgent. I believe they are linked or interelated
14:20:08 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	other way round
14:20:54 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	Donna & Ken  + 1
14:21:47 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	I think I'd agree too with Donna.  It doesn't appear to be an absolute requirement for the holistic review
14:24:45 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	I wouldn't necessarily assume that.
14:26:10 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	ATRT is a pretty unique review that endeavors, at least, to take a holistic perspective and a less parochial
14:26:47 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	please. Cheryl, is doubly important on this particular recommendation
14:28:04 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	correct Becky'
14:29:06 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	Green check to validate agreement w org might be a way to meet our ambitious timeline on prioritizing these
14:29:40 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	I can answer that, if it's helpful
14:30:01 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	or even simply asking if anyone disagrees (red cross) which would then mean discussion necessary
14:30:15 From Ken Renard to Everyone:
	I had the same "issue" with #10.  As a matter of process for the next round, it would be useful to have more background or more complete understanding of each of the items
14:30:31 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@Chris: that's a great idea 🙂 easier to count 😄
14:31:34 From Susan Chalmers  to Everyone:
	Thanks, Jonathan.  As a general matter, agree wholeheartedly that policy should be evidence-based.
14:33:01 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	unfortunately, they are temporary so you need to count quickly
14:34:20 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Because it was bundled, Chris
14:34:37 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	It was marked low in 2018--it's now 2022
14:35:07 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	haha
14:35:42 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	and we came up with "prereq" as a category, which is kind of variable as "urgent."
14:36:06 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	So, if Rec 8, 11 and 13 are considered a package then agree with the priority level.
14:37:34 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	But we don't know how long it will take to start the process.
14:38:30 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	You might be right, @Donna, but it shouldn't take 4 years to get done. It's an interesting problem.
14:39:06 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	I think it rather depends how long it would take to develop a plan, implement and rollout.  We don't know that until the first step occurs of prioritising it and putting it in the pipeline
14:39:26 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	+1 Susan
14:39:37 From Alice Jansen - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Per ICANN Bylaws: “For each of its recommendations, the CCT Review Team should indicate whether the recommendation, if accepted by the Board, must be implemented before opening subsequent rounds of new generic top-level domain applications periods.”
14:40:13 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Well, THAT'S true. That's where I am on Rec 1. I was just trying to see if there was another way to look at the polling ones.
14:40:27 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	agree Donna
14:40:56 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Unless they've been OBE
14:48:02 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Doona, may I ask if you can reformulate the question?
14:48:19 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	@Donna
14:49:37 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	noted Chris.
14:50:37 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	right now I would struggle to agree any priority without further info so thanks becky
14:50:57 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	I guess my question is, would ICANN be developing the portal or common interface display or contracted parties. Like Chris, I'm struggling to agree to P1 at this point.
14:52:22 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	What this might be revealing is the need for rec shepherds to be available to this group?
14:53:23 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	as we have ongoing discussion about DNS abuse, this rec might be important but not urgent as community is still working on definition
14:53:26 From Ken Renard to Everyone:
	+1 @Jonathan
14:54:07 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	data protection agreement is pending as critical path as I understand
14:54:58 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Unless the rationale for the rec was the establish a baseline.
14:56:06 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	why would ICANN have a working defn on DNS Abuse absent agreemnt from the community??
14:56:25 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	For contract compliance, @Chris?
14:57:32 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	OK..understood...
14:58:02 From Mary Wong - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Hello all, not sure if this helps but in approving this SSR2 recommendation the Board specifically noted that “the
	Board approves this recommendation subject to prioritization, risk assessment and mitigation, costing and other implementation considerations” (that is language from the Board scorecard).
14:58:38 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	The clouds have cleared... :-)
14:58:48 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	So I would agree with P1
14:59:07 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	as would I…now :-)
14:59:39 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	I understand we're not getting into a discussion about what it would take to implement these recommendations, but it is a consideration in my own thought process.
15:00:04 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Yes Donna and thank you.
15:01:14 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	Agree it's an important consideration Susan.
15:03:25 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	And there we have a different notion of "urgent."
15:05:09 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	Given efforts to implement are already underway, along with Susan's comments about reputational risk, seems P1 is appropriate for Rec 21.1 SSR2.
15:06:08 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	p1 for sure
15:06:30 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	on current item
15:06:58 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	@Donna, yes it's apparently already underway and so we surely wouldn't want to deprioritise
15:07:50 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	Sorry all, I have to drop for now. I may be back.
15:08:01 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Noted Donna, thanks
15:09:29 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Row 17 - 21 are related.
15:13:11 From Susan Chalmers  to Everyone:
	Concur with Susan.
15:13:30 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	P4
15:14:46 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Exactly, it's something we know little about. I wouldn't fall on my sword for it.
15:18:57 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	recommendation ghetto! love the term, although  I hadn't envisaged that, just more about the order and how it might be dealt with
15:19:02 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	if P4 mean, never gonna happen, we are becoming a new board/review team, which has it's own challenges
15:20:39 From Susan Chalmers  to Everyone:
	Is there a "parking lot" option?
15:20:53 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	p4
15:21:04 From Barry Leiba to Everyone:
	I would prefer P3, but can live with P4, especially if we make sure we look at it again later to make sure.
15:21:12 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Victoria Yang - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Is the session up to 3:30: Should i announce timecheck?
15:21:28 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	if it's not P2 I think it has to be P4.  no-one is arguing it's urgent are they?
15:21:37 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	I'm back
15:21:40 From Giovanni Seppia-ICANN Org to Everyone:
	The recommendation deliverable is “domain usage data” to better understand the implications of parked domain names
15:21:41 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	P3 or P4 is ok as choice
15:21:50 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	based on the matrix, it's not a P3
15:22:09 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	we will stop at 3:25, Becky is noted.
15:22:17 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Sure
15:22:29 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Victoria Yang - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Sure
15:23:01 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	sorry was asking Victoria re. time
15:23:26 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Noted. thanks.
15:24:14 From Susan Chalmers  to Everyone:
	To what extent does this overlap with the previous data collection recommendation?
15:25:02 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	That's what I wondered too Susan Chalmers.
15:27:31 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	agree
15:30:49 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone:
	thx all
15:31:01 From Chris Disspain to Everyone:
	great progress
15:31:17 From Donna Austin CPH to Everyone:
	Thanks all
15:31:27 From Susan Chalmers  to Everyone:
	Thanks, all.  Look forward to next Tuesday.  Take good care.
15:31:36 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone:
	bye all
15:31:38 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Thank you everyone.