13:55:59 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone:
	hello all
13:57:24 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Welcome everyone.
13:58:54 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Xavier is on another meeting - he might join in
13:59:05 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	noted
13:59:25 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Could Org share a link to the google doc in the chat?
13:59:54 From Ken Renard (RSSAC) to Everyone:
	https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
14:00:07 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Thank you Ken. You are fast 🙂
14:00:24 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Yes, thanks Ken!
14:01:02 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Just a quick reminder that we said we would go back to ATRT Holistic Review, not that Cheryl is on the call. Thanks!
14:02:46 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Hi Jonathan, yes we will go back to all open items, so far we have 3 🙂
14:04:28 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Here is the link again for the Rec list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
14:10:22 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	here is my full list of varies  from the proposed rationale list...  Row 23-28 34 & 41-44 & 48  ranked P1:  30 P4 ; 32&33 35 , 36&38  P3/4;
14:10:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	so I was considering the linkages
14:11:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Not going to die in the ditch over increasing it to P1  but letting you all know
14:12:15 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Cheryl, in regards of row 23-28, would you mind sharing the rationale of moving those to P1?
14:13:41 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	In general the matters out of CCTRT  have held higher importance to At-Large  noting that we are only talking  a minor difference in the P1/P2 in this discussion
14:13:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	on 23-26/8
14:15:09 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	And the CCT recs have been repeated by both the GAC and the SSRT
14:16:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Exactly @JZ  as we say  P2 is all OK in reality  BUT  the original At-Large view was higher
14:16:22 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Yes it is the urgency matter
14:16:32 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	and so....
14:16:51 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Undeed @Becky
14:17:09 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Indeed
14:18:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	No 28 is not grouped
14:19:16 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	but again row 28 we also had as P1 so here there is a match with @Susan's point on urgency
14:19:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Agreed @Susan
14:19:45 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I’d suggest p3 / p4 on this - I thought it was largely there to measure the hyperbole over ‘billions of dollars’ in costs
14:20:20 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294
14:20:26 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Re rec 26
14:20:32 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	P3/p4
14:21:13 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I can talk sure
14:21:36 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	It's interesting @Jothan, it was actually Jordyn's rec and was based on the realization that the brunt of the cost of defensive registrations, etc., was borne by a small number of firms
14:22:54 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	So the aspect of Follow on study is not an issue then Jothan?
14:23:11 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	This is only a discussion of the prioritization
14:23:24 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	They all need to be done  as I understand it  it is the queing of them we are commenting on at this stage
14:23:28 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	true, Susan
14:23:34 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	And the feedback was this might work better behind other things
14:23:56 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	As far as urgency
14:26:29 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	So I am not confused with the greet mr Zuck, I have a strange first name, pronounced Jaw-Thin
14:26:47 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I only correct people I like 🙂
14:26:54 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Leave it as proposed
14:27:07 From Irina Danelia to Everyone:
	+1
14:27:39 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	I don't agree because it is the baseline for future studies
14:28:16 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Well P2 still has it in the shorter order que @Susan re Urgency  better than dropping it down
14:28:28 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	It is not that it will not get done, just it won’t get done as fast
14:31:22 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	It is also helpful sometimes to look at all the other rec under the same review, and see how many of rec that are already at P1, to balance it out. I can perhaps sort the list by CCT review at the end after we review this entire list.
14:32:18 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I had thought we had been assigned to come back with pri where we diverged from the org first-pass
14:32:41 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Agreed Jothan, that's my recollection too.
14:33:49 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I fear if this is our last of these calls, that this is not reasonably accomplished
14:33:56 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Under time constraints
14:35:11 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	I assume I don't need to repost
14:35:19 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Noted Jothan on time constraint. We will be doing a status check after 1 hour to discuss where the group is.
14:35:32 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	For #31 it seemed p3 or p4 might be more apropos as it may be inactionable under current or other policies or may ruin inn conflict with them
14:35:42 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Run in
14:36:29 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Pardon , row #32 not #31
14:36:46 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Have we done row 31 and 32?
14:36:52 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	agree with Susan C on this
14:37:00 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	RDS-WHOIS2 CC.1
14:37:09 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	P3/4
14:37:30 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	And also I agree w susan C on row 33
14:37:33 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	p1
14:38:17 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	We had Higher as well but OK with P2 over our P1
14:38:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	KSK rollover is what I was refering to
14:39:04 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	This illustrates the benefit and challenge of distinguishing  importance from urgency…
14:39:08 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Donna, that is my fault.  I "bundled" them together.
14:39:36 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Exactly @Xavier
14:40:05 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	33 KSK Rollover should bump up from my pov.  If that carries 37 as a inter-related / inter-twined item, it should have parity in its priority
14:40:57 From Ken Renard (RSSAC) to Everyone:
	and this is talking about ALGORITHM rollover in addition to key rollover.  We have not done that before.
14:42:09 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Rows 33/37 This is one of those measure 100 times before you cut  items that  starting on sooner will help
14:43:17 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Sorry to intervene but was wondering whether you as a group have considered concluding on a rec with a question. for example for SSR2 23.2, you could recommend to org to evaluate and analyze the urgency of the work involved with 23.2?
14:44:09 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	This is possibly a case where evaluating the effort/result ration might be a valuable addition, @Xavier
14:44:35 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	ratio
14:44:49 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Agree.
14:45:01 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	@Jonathan, wouldn't that be applicable to all these recommendations?
14:45:24 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	that sounds like a next step
14:45:37 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I was suggested row 32, RDS WHOIS 2 CC.1 - practically, this should be bumped down due to it being in potential conflicts with other inn-works pdp / _stuff_ which should be allowed to complete first as it may poorly mix
14:45:41 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Agree Cheryl. I was thinking more evaluating the urgency, rather than the effort. If both urgent and important, a large level of effort should not lead to deprioritization.
14:46:09 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	@Donna, you're absolutely right. I guess I was thinking it could be a kind of tiebreaker when "urgency" becomes muddy
14:46:30 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Again, row 32, perhaps lower pri
14:47:33 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	I'm sorry - I am also seeing the row numbers differently on my end...
14:48:05 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Same here on the one I’d done my homework on @ Susan
14:48:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Same here we need to reference the Rec reference  not just the row
14:48:53 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Donna's point is why I was suggesting putting the question of urgency on this topic to org.
14:48:54 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	What about bringing 37 into alignment with 33 at p2 donna?
14:49:55 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	I am noting the comments about the rows. I am not sure why.   We will need to investigate this. We are reading out the review. and rec number
14:52:28 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	From a methodology standpoint, we should also not overestimate the difference between a P1 and P2. P2s are not going to be ignored, and only P1s are not the only ones receiving attention at the time of planning for work.
14:52:57 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	How do we make that less abstract, @Xavier?
14:53:37 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	CCT and WS2 recs have been on the books for literally years, so it's not surprising folks might be concerned about something slipping in priority
14:53:58 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	And remember that it is the relative positiion of a rec vs another that you need to evaluate: is rec x the same or lower priority than rec y which is a P1.
14:54:17 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	As Barry jsut said…
14:54:20 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I would defer to Barry about 37/33 alignment
14:54:22 From Manal Ismail - GAC alternate to Everyone:
	Would it help if we just think of everything as one relatively ordered list ?
14:55:08 From Manal Ismail - GAC alternate to Everyone:
	Instead of talking about baskets of Ps
14:55:54 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I had commented about the RDS contact data actions because there are many other PDP that are ‘fiddling’ with RDS output, validation or other aspects of inter-related elements, so the thought was if this dropped I priority the other things would complete their ‘baking process’
14:56:22 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Happy for Jothan to speak.
14:57:19 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	P3 or p4
14:57:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	P3/4  OK for me
14:58:09 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	P4 then 🙂
14:58:15 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	Aye, there's the rub
14:58:41 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Congratulations on lowering a priority level!
14:58:57 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Always a difficult endeavour…!
15:00:23 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	+1 Donna
15:00:43 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Thank you Donna - and Susan - understood.
15:01:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Line by line works for me
15:01:53 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	I think we can do line by line and if no-one objects to the categorisation we don't need to spend much time on something
15:02:03 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	ok
15:02:09 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	+1 on line by line
15:03:35 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Apologies all for my confusion. I must have missed the introduction explaining today's process.
15:03:39 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	I think it's actually more important but less urgent
15:03:43 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Thank you everyone for the comments on the list and order
15:03:43 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	P3/4
15:03:56 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	but fine with P3
15:06:11 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	@Jonathan, wouldn't that make it P2?
15:06:51 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	I thought it would make it a P2 as well.
15:07:13 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	yes a limitation of the matrix used in our pilot
15:07:17 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	You're right Susan and Donna. It might not even make a difference but struck me as important to raise.
15:07:43 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	agree with Susan.
15:07:54 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	should follow the matrix
15:07:56 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	yes
15:08:01 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	isn't it arbitrary how importance and urgency were ranked?
15:08:18 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	The urgent/important stuff is confusing folks a bit…
15:08:50 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Jothan - understood.
15:08:52 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	yes @Jonathan, but we shouldn't categorise it as urgent/less important if it isn't
15:10:29 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	@becky I think where the 2/3/4 Priorities result
15:10:40 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	You may be right, @Susan. I'm not sure that "competition" is as important to folks in the community as it once was. It depends on whether we make decisions, about price caps, etc., based on those assessments.
15:10:52 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	There is a natural tendency to view those as order of operation
15:12:02 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	was pretty important to our GAC rep, at the time.
15:12:15 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Row 35 agree with p3 - this was hot and then not w gac
15:12:16 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
	this one might be a P2 frankly
15:14:18 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	we had it P4 actually
15:14:22 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	but OK to stay
15:14:33 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	+1 to CLO
15:14:36 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Noted Cheryl.
15:14:46 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Agree Cheryl, P4 would not be objectionable.
15:16:17 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Thank you, Barry.  I defer to your recommendation.
15:16:37 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	We can agree @Barry
15:16:57 From Barry Leiba to Everyone:
	Kewl…
15:18:38 From Barry Leiba to Everyone:
	Still quite a bit to get through in about 10 minutes.
15:19:23 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Becky - time check- LMK if you’d like me to announce it
15:19:45 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message):
	Yes and then we will pause to identify what to do next
15:20:08 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Apologies- Time check please
15:21:04 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	I think row 38 and 39 are similar
15:21:20 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	I'm in two minds here
15:21:29 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I agree Donna if it helps
15:22:03 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Related  yes  but  we had 1.2 as more urgent
15:22:58 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	good point Donna
15:23:19 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I believe public input should be a priority despite them being inconvenient, and finding ways to have it be quality input (and relevant) will be helpful
15:25:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	yes there will still be a spectrum in each quadrant  IMO
15:26:02 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Exactly  the point ATRT3 was making @Susan
15:27:19 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Maybe “Urgent” and “important” can have decimal points vs 1 / 0 next pass of this exercise
15:27:33 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Save that comment for next week
15:27:43 From Susan Payne CSG to Everyone:
	I could agree to P2
15:28:24 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I agree w Susan on p2 for this
15:28:59 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	we have 10 rows left
15:29:05 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	I do think we lose that the latter of the two was more P than the other due to our inability to put the granularity in place
15:30:05 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	I'll probably fail, but if we could wrap the last 10 up via email would be good.
15:30:30 From Jothan Frakes CPH Alternate to Everyone:
	Compliments to staff on getting all these wrangled as well as they were, though…
15:30:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	Well I have mentioned  we had all of them higher than P4
15:30:38 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	sorry some of them
15:30:42 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	about half
15:30:56 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
	OK...
15:31:11 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	Ok, we will follow up with email re the remaining 10 row
15:31:16 From Donna Austin, CPH to Everyone:
	Thanks all
15:31:18 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone:
	the next meeting will be lesson learned
15:31:22 From Susan Chalmers to Everyone:
	Thanks all, take good care.