13:54:36 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Victoria Yang - ICANN Org(Direct Message): me 🤐 13:57:15 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message): 🙏🏻 13:59:05 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Hello everyone :) !! I'm filling in for Susan Chalmers on this call .. 13:59:33 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Thank you. 13:59:48 From Matthew Shears to Everyone: Hello all 14:00:03 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Hello all! Thank you for joining 14:00:35 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: hello all 14:00:45 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: @manal eid mubarek 14:01:07 From Evin Erdogdu - ICANN Org to Everyone: Hello all! Eid mubarak to those observing 🙂 14:01:43 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: Hi Becky, Susan sent her apologies. I'll be here today 14:02:11 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: @evin thanks! 14:02:56 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Many thanks @Evin :) !! 14:03:19 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Thanks a million @Rafik !! 14:04:16 From Jothan Frakes to Everyone: Donna from CPH sends her regrets so I am here for CPH 14:04:35 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Thank you very much Jothan. Noted. 14:07:40 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Rec 22.1: For each service that ICANN org has authoritative purview over, including root zone and gTLD-related services as well as IANA registries, ICANN org should create a list of statistics and metrics that reflect the operational status (such as availability and responsiveness) of that service, and publish a directory of these services, data sets, and metrics on a single page on the icann.org website, such as under the Open Data Platform. ICANN org should produce measurements for each of these services as summaries over both the previous year and longitudinally (to illustrate baseline behavior). 14:07:58 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: also, here is the list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12JgPKVzTM_egHyIumXxUGnnpGgmskH5j/edit#gid=779409148 14:08:20 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Thanks @Victoria .. 14:08:22 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: +1 to Ken 14:08:38 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Get that man a lozenge, stat 14:08:41 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone: Noted Jothan. 14:09:17 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: @Victoria looks like I need access .. 14:10:02 From Barry Leiba to Everyone: Jothan, I’ve losenged, and it hasn’t seemed to’ve helped enough. Probably be fine again tomorrow…. 14:10:29 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: My feedback was that we were OK with P4 but obviously P3 is OK as well 14:10:30 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Ok, Manal. 14:10:31 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HNnH4Wi2wmHqQcQ1hbT0pCY9Mz_moHEIiMvNZtN977U/edit#gid=2036121294 14:11:40 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Less and Less is our view Yes Barry 14:11:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: but if others want to shift up ... 14:12:24 From Barry Leiba to Everyone: I agree with Ken on that one! The matrix is not a happy thing. 14:12:30 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: P3 and p4, to me, are “not as later” and “later” so this feels as if we are splitting hairs when we apply the urgent/important math - it is important but not p2 important 14:12:44 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I just can't see P2 out of it 14:12:49 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: agree 14:13:21 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: But none of us are saying that it is not important 14:14:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: nor that it doesn't need attention to be done 14:16:09 From Chris Disspain to Everyone: Happy for 3.5 and 3.6 to stay as P1 if that's what the majority thinks… 14:16:32 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Appreciated @Chris 14:16:45 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: +1 Wolf-Ulrich on the need to compare .. 14:17:20 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I have considered this and think row8/ATRT3 Rec 3.5 is P1 14:17:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: our view is as stated P1 14:18:27 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Same as Chris, Happy for 3.5 and 3.6 to stay as P1 if that's what the majority thinks… 14:18:36 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: 3.6 could be either p1 or p2 but seems like it is tethered to 3.5 so move it to p1 14:18:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Sorry I have not read your message @Rafik please reiterate here 14:19:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: The tethering makes sense and of course it does follow on as well as is adjunct to Rec 3.5 14:22:10 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: No members suggested p3 or p4 for Rec 3.5 or 3.6, which indicated to me some unified thought on these being P1 or P2. 14:22:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Indeed @Jothan 14:22:32 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: @cheryl thanks, in my email I suggested P2 14:22:56 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Are these parallel or serial activities (3.5 then 3.6) 14:23:00 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: As you have from the start I wondered if there was additional rationale 14:23:34 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: If these are activities that can be done in parallel then p1, but if serial, perhaps 3.6 could be p2 14:23:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: And 3.5 p1 14:23:53 From Barry Leiba to Everyone: Jothan: yes, we all agree on importance, and are debating urgency. And, yes, 3.6 follows from 3.5. 14:24:07 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Same question Jonathan .. 14:24:41 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: To me I read p1 as “Now” and p2 as “after that” 14:24:50 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: I would argue that measuring the success of these recommendations is far more important than any particular recommendation 14:25:06 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I find myself agreeing with Jonathan 14:25:30 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Thank you for answering Cheryl 14:26:20 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Sorry I meant same question as Jothan .. 14:26:31 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Thanks for the answer anyway .. 14:26:46 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Happens a lot Manal 🙂. I think folks understood what you meant 14:27:03 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: 🙈 14:27:19 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: That needs to stay P1 for us 14:27:31 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: +1 Cheryl 14:27:47 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: No objection 14:29:46 From Chris Disspain to Everyone: Does anyone think it should be P1 or 2??? 14:31:02 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I do not 14:31:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Nope we had it P4 14:31:25 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: It seems p4, or p3 at best 14:31:37 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Forget I mentioned p3 🙂 14:31:45 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: So we can move forward 14:31:47 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Ok with 3 or 4 14:32:23 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: This is a sensible change, as it would sit until other things would have to conclude before it would start 14:32:40 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Yeah! to the end of the initial list 14:33:02 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Exactly @Jothan 14:33:51 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: High Fives all around 14:33:51 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Thank you everyone. A wrap up email and final list will be shared following this meeting. 14:34:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Not p5's 14:34:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I'm *way past* salvation @Becky ;-) 14:34:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: QQ: was there a window to look at the 9 deferred items to see if we agreed with them not being on the 45 list 14:35:30 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I appreciated that there was a pre-culling from 54 to 45, but wonder if there may have been dissent from the group on those 14:35:47 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Noted your Q Jothan, we will address 14:37:27 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: The 9 on a different tab, are Rec that are either NOT YET applicable (has dependencies, not actionable) or Not applicable (the ATRT3 prioritization rec) for prioritization. 14:38:17 From Margaret Benavides - ICANN Org to Everyone: Jamboard link to view as org scribes: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1xtuK7ZIKmogHFeHCSRRs0VuWgpr4wfXWFiIClQcTDDg/edit?usp=sharing 14:38:48 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: as we progress, these Rec might be moved to the tab to be priorized, as this is a annual process, the list of activities to be prioritized will evolve and be updated. 14:41:26 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Do you want hands so as to reduce chaos? 14:41:32 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: Yes please 14:44:43 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: moving to a quiet place to be able to speak .. 14:46:23 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: Becomes a bit of a 3D matrix at that point but these simple categories are difficult, for sure. 14:47:48 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I neglected to mention that we needed a bit more elegant granularity like decimal points 14:48:00 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: The "any objection?" approach requires a starting point to object to, as opposed to Donna’s request to do the exercise without a starting point. 14:50:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Yes we almost lost a whole meeting in the learning of the tools subtelties/quirks 14:51:57 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Chris is before me .. 14:52:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: But Xavier if we use the tool to establish for ourselves THEN we all understand the tool better, THEN we come together with a predetermined/suggestion there is then debate/polling and discussion before consensus and call for objections 14:52:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: thus my $ each way comment 14:52:46 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: one comment I want to add is about grouping : we viewed through descending order based on icann org assessments but I think we saw some times there are some dependencies and made sense to prioritise within a same grouping 14:53:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I liked how Cheryl described the “pre-review in group, then come here with summary” - if this team provided the various groups an ability to poll their members in a manner that was normalized to the process that Plan/Pri would use, so that those inputs could be weighed (and perhaps even used by ICANN staff in their estimating) before our Plan/Pri work group would commence, and then a poll among us. Like sandpaper on wood, start course, then get finer-grained 14:54:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I tried that in the 1st meeting of course but we were not well enough prepared 14:54:25 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: We brought the mountain to mohammed 14:54:41 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: In the end, though 14:56:32 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: ideally a second round would be ideal I agree @Wolf-Ulrich, but we were crunced to much this time 14:56:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: crunched 14:56:46 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Agree, ala sandpaper on wood 14:56:53 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Finer grained second pass 14:57:38 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: did you see my butcher block restoration, @Jothan? 14:57:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: audio 14:58:01 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I did not, please dm 14:58:38 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: @Manal: the first call was the prep call… 14:58:58 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Prep call to establish understanding does make sense as well @Manal it does not mean a full 90' 14:59:17 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: And woodworking is completely understandable as it has completable objectives and not much tech or policy involved … so a nice ‘zen’ hobby 15:00:26 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: yes the starter points are essential s I trust I stated clearly 15:01:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I have noted lately a downtreand in a lot of list discussions @Chris hopeh=fully that may change 15:02:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: typos *SIGH* 15:02:52 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: @Xavier Thanks .. Noted .. for some reason I felt the start was not easy for everyone .. Not talking about myself as I was more familiar with the tool than others .. 15:03:11 From Ken Renard to Everyone: Question for alternates: Did you attend all sessions? I would feel very "lost" without context of all previous meetings. Do you recommend that all alternates attend all meetings as possible? 15:03:34 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: and tool familiarity *is* important @Manal I agree 15:03:41 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Agree @Cheryl .. 15:03:47 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: @Ken. I did and DO believe it would be harder without attending 15:04:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I think it impoetant for alternates to attend so they understand all the perspectives 15:04:11 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone: We will be moving to the next page in a few mins. 15:05:07 From Ken Renard to Everyone: Maybe "secondary" might be a better role/title than "alternate" 15:05:20 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: @Ken yes as an alternate I did attend and I agree on the importance .. Otherwise very close coordination after each call would be needed between the prime and alternate representatives .. 15:05:36 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Effort does make the matrix much more complex 15:05:38 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: @Ken: yes, Alternates preferably should participate in all meetings. I had to miss one of them 15:06:20 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Effort can be applied post Imporrtance : Urgency priority is established 15:06:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I am enjoying the ‘Tetris’ of post-its 15:07:11 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: MUCH more complex I agree @Xavier 15:07:54 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: looks I got problem 15:08:21 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: back 15:08:35 From Ken Renard to Everyone: +100 Barry 15:08:45 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: agree 15:09:10 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: need another framework then. absent some sort of measures, we would have been lost 15:13:25 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: "granularity" could be replaced by a second ordinal pass 15:13:55 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: Interesting: the Board used an urgent/important matrix that had 10 categories, instead of 4. The consensus feedback was that it was too many categories, whcih made the exercise too complicated. 15:14:06 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Perhaps - the challenge tho is which of the x P1 get more immediate attention 15:14:15 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: and spend too much time to debate small differences… 15:14:32 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Agree Xavier. 15:14:39 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: Agree Xavier 15:14:51 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: Here's a tool for live polling... https://www.sli.do/ 15:15:30 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: I thought that the Staff effort in giving a daunting amount of _stuff_ an “easy button” approach was appreciated and helpful to build upon and they did great work 15:16:00 From avri doria to Everyone: Yes, Xavier we did find it too complicated, but I am not sure we were right. I think the granularity issue is important. 15:16:48 From Barry Leiba to Everyone: To be clear: I was not proposing increasing the number of priority levels, but only allowing flexibility to choose between P2 and P3. 15:17:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I understand @Barry it was frustrating indeed 15:18:09 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: but tools I have used in the past allow for a degree of customisation to assist in that 15:18:37 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Agree @Ken that could happen in the Prep call @Manal proposed 15:18:46 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: that being a run through 15:19:30 From Chris Disspain to Everyone: I can understand something being important but not urgent. I struggle to see how something can be urgent but not important… 15:19:36 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: don't ordinal lists come out from the next phase where resourcing and effort also come into play though?? 15:20:13 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Becky Nash - ICANN Org(Direct Message): Becky time check 10 minutes 15:20:46 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org(Direct Message): Thanks. 15:21:00 From avri doria to Everyone: Urgency could possibly be understood in terms of timeliness. Is something a short term need or a longer term need. 15:21:21 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: In the interest of time, may I also suggest members to provide feedback to the other elements of the framework - scope of work (all implementation work); participants (the structure, nomination, etc etc) Thank you. 15:21:30 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: as well as dependancies 15:22:09 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: fully agree to Manal 15:22:47 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Fully agree on iterations @Xavier 15:22:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: indeed @Xavier that is important to back in for future runs 15:23:16 From Sara Sarraf - ICANN Org to Everyone: Apologies Time check please 15:23:35 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: basic triage always involves review 15:23:52 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone: Yes there was a suggestion to read through the list for an understanding of all of the items 15:24:31 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Categorization to start with, then iterations to end up with a relatively ordered list .. 15:24:42 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: yup 15:24:58 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I made comment for Participants 15:25:04 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: hope it get addded 15:25:30 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Experience does assist in this I agree @Jothan 15:26:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: but with alternates it allows fresher people to also skill up 15:26:27 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: You need 5+ years to recall when the recommendations were made... 🤪 15:26:40 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: @JZ ;-) 15:26:49 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: You are not wrong JZ on some of this 15:26:51 From Xavier Calvez - ICANN Org to Everyone: RE: roles/responsibilities. We have suggested to carry out this pilot with each of you providing an individual view, not committing the SO or AC who appointed you. 15:27:03 From Manal Ismail to Everyone: Agree on experience as a pre-requisite though we are suffering lack of volunteers at the first place 🙈 .. 15:27:06 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: GREAT work by staff and it was a privilege to serve this group with you all 15:27:10 From avri doria to Everyone: It has been a pleasure to be an alternate observer in this process. Impressed at how it went. 15:27:13 From Matthew Shears to Everyone: excellent sessions - thank you all 15:27:13 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: Also worth figuring out the role of ATRT as a culler and prioritizer of recommendations. 15:27:17 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: Thanks for this nice experience! 15:27:19 From Margaret Benavides - ICANN Org to Everyone: Thank you, all. 15:27:30 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Thanks to all involved This has been worthy work indeed! 15:27:57 From Ken Renard to Everyone: When is the prioritization framework pilot happy hour in the Hague? :-) 15:28:05 From Becky Nash - ICANN Org to Everyone: We appreciate all of the participation from the members and alternates. 15:28:16 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Thank you all for the additional input re participants via the chat here, they are all captured on jamboard 15:28:22 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: thanks all 15:28:22 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: I'm up for that @Ken 15:28:51 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: @Ken, cheers! 😄 15:29:15 From Matthew Shears to Everyone: Been a pleasure observing - really important process and outcomes - thanks all 15:30:40 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Are we getting to the place Xavier hosts a reception at #74? 15:30:50 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: :-) 15:31:05 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone: I reiterate that the continuous improvement recs can play an important role in understanding how we do with this. 15:31:16 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: That’s agreed 15:31:17 From Rafik Dammak to Everyone: only it is P1 for him :) 15:31:18 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: ++ 15:31:29 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: Pre count as of now: P1=11; P2=19; P3=2; P4=13. Again, this is just pre count while this session is ongoing. we will confirm after the meeting and email it out. 15:31:42 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: P3 looks lonely 15:32:06 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: But that just means p4 less-not-faster 15:32:12 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Thx @Victoria 15:32:33 From Victoria Yang - ICANN Org to Everyone: 🙌 15:32:58 From Wolf-Ulrich Knoben to Everyone: So ICANN saved money through our exercise? Please pay back at the bar in The Hague 15:33:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone: Well noted @Xavier 15:33:33 From Jothan Frakes (RrSG) CPH to Everyone: Wolf-Ulrich, that is important and urgent 15:33:34 From Chris Disspain to Everyone: AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH! :-)