Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: This is the meeting of the discussion on Pilot Holistic Review Tour version 2, and it is Thursday, the sixth of April, 2023, at 2,000 Utc.
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: With that the roll call is the attendees are Pamela Smith of I Can, or Jason King. You that email Hmm.
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: Giovanni Sepia and Mary Wong and Sam Eisner, and Theresa Spinehart of Icann Org.
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: I can't or excuse me, and then Ivr Doria Cheryl Langdon, or Vanda Scartesini Martin Bowman as Valdo Novoa
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: her way
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: a curve. I'm sorry I forgot you in the I can board people, Katrina Sataki, who will be kicking off the meeting, and Sebastian Bachel a. And with that i'll be quiet and hand the meeting over and put my cell phone meet.
Pamela Smith - ICANN Org: Thank you. Thank you very much, Pamela. Thanks. Everyone for for joining the call today. Yeah. So i'm Katrina. I'm.
Katrina Sataki: Taking off this meeting. My capacity to the chair of the Board Organizational Effectiveness Committee.
Katrina Sataki: That is, the committee that deals with
Katrina Sataki: different reviews, including at R. T. 3, and just a brief recap of where we are in. How we got this thus far.
Katrina Sataki: As you remember, we were following at t 3 suggestion regarding the
Katrina Sataki: A. Holistic review, and when the Board approved the recommendation, the Board to identify it, list of gaps, and to suggest that having a pilot holistic review, and I think more than a year ago or around the this time last year, we
Katrina Sataki: gathered this team of volunteers from at R. T. 3, and
from Oec to
Katrina Sataki: come up with terms of reference documents.
Katrina Sataki: Then I published it for.
Katrina Sataki: or public comments received a lot of comments, some supporting, some not so supporting, and
Katrina Sataki: after after that
Katrina Sataki: first round of public comment.
Katrina Sataki: a group of a small team from they always see, took another step at the the toward documents. We call it version 2 in. We met, thanks again to everyone who made it to the meeting.
Katrina Sataki: We briefly discuss the document, and then afterwards we shared the new version of version 2 of the terms of reference documents with you.
Katrina Sataki: I hope you you all had time to read it and think about it.
Katrina Sataki: And so today. yeah, well, we will, As you can see, agenda in front of you. We will. I briefly talk about public comments, analysis of public comments.
Katrina Sataki: and then we'll go straight to the tour.
Katrina Sataki: and
Katrina Sataki: we really would like to hear your thoughts, your feedback. So what you think? What were your impressions after reading version? 2, Will it work? Maybe you have some new ideas popped up, and
Katrina Sataki: and then we, at the end of the meeting today. I hope we will. We will come to an agreement to how to move forward.
Katrina Sataki: Most importantly. Are we still determined to to move forward. And are we brave enough to
Katrina Sataki: come up with some enhancements to the document and present it into to the community?
Katrina Sataki: Should we continue working on this aversion to that we presented to you, or maybe start something from the scratch and well. But if we decide to to work out on this version 2, and look at some meat tweet. Sorry to
those vegetarians among us, if there are any. So we may add this the but you you you. You probably sold Those
Katrina Sataki: have some placeholders in the document. So if we decide that okay, we go with this tour version 2. So how we're going to do that.
Katrina Sataki: Are you as a tour team ready to
Katrina Sataki: continue working on this document? Or you just say, okay.
Katrina Sataki: give it back to the always see and and say, okay, deal with it and and continue. But I really hope that we can. We can address this
Katrina Sataki: of this.
Katrina Sataki: Oh, can find the way forward as a team.
Katrina Sataki: and with with that.
I think, let's move to the next agenda. Item. So that was a very brief welcome
Katrina Sataki: from me and Yup. So analysis of public comments.
Katrina Sataki: I don't know, update on the status. So so I don't know who who who will take it? Jason, you or or Larissa?
Katrina Sataki: No, no. You want us to do that. Okay, we can do that. I i'll. I'll give it to left to to to, to. I'll read. Then.
avri doria: Okay, okay, sure, I'll do I? I I think
avri doria: the
avri doria: you know the folks of Staff did it did a very, you know. Careful analysis of the comments, the pros the negatives by commenter, by type of commenter, by by the
avri doria: by, and large as opposed to going down, that at the moment the sort of appraisal that came out of it is
avri doria: on almost everything where there was support. There was also a problem. and the most serious problem that came out was
avri doria: a disagreement in one way or another over the scope
avri doria: of the holistic review. There were lots of problems. There were lots of indicative, you know. There's that this needs to be longer. No, the 6 months isn't right. No, you know. I mean a year isn't right or year and a half isn't right. You need the option. Lots of things like that. But really the fundamental difference
avri doria: that that that we found in that is that
avri doria: you know the the the terms of reference. Just don't have an agreement. The scope of them, you know. Are you changing the organization? Is it just within a particular.
avri doria: you know, Sg: is it? The whole organization. Is that happening in this review? Is that not happening in this review? Do we have enough time to do that one in this review? But basically. So then a a post analysis of that.
avri doria: Looking at what can we do about it? There was one set of suggestions that, said Oops. We we need a cross community working group to sit down and figure out what an agreeable
avri doria: scope is for this. And you know, cross community working groups
avri doria: do do a particular job, and they could probably solve this one. It would delay this review by a long shot. There. There were other kinds of solutions that had to do with.
avri doria: you know. Maybe we can't do one. And and and you know we just admit that and sort of go back to Atrt for and say, hey, folks, you know we just couldn't get agreement among everyone to do this.
avri doria: I did want to do that, either, you know, and several other possibilities. The one that we settled on was.
avri doria: Can we come up with a term of reference that people can buy into?
avri doria: Can we come up with a term of reference that includes dealing with the scope. This is still a pilot. you know. We already had the pilot questions from the Board that we felt needed to be included, and those were part of the decision made by the Board.
avri doria: The other one that was left open. That wasn't made a specific decision was the the the scope.
avri doria: So basically can we build answering that scope question into this? Now, there was also a strong tendency from you know, some members of this group
avri doria: that this shouldn't just be Meta.
avri doria: that this shouldn't just be about a future
avri doria: holistic review, but that we should actually do some now
avri doria: doing someone we don't know what the scope is, would just I at least in my view, and I think the view of many others would be almost impossible, because whether what we were talking about was in scope or out of scope would be a constant subtext.
avri doria: and we'd constantly have to go there. So we really do have to have a fairly no good notion of what is in scope and what is not. But once we've done that
avri doria: will no longer have enough time to do the whole holistic panorama that there might be. But could we pick
avri doria: one or 2 of the most meaningful subjects, and perhaps the most definable holistic topics like, how does communication work between, You know, stakeholder groups, and such is there good communication? How do we communicate better or another one of the issues
avri doria: and apply the guidelines that were determined in the first part to that as a subject area, to basically do a test case of
avri doria: the the the holistic review methodology, while genuinely doing a piece of holistic review. That would be recommendations that we would have to figure out
avri doria: how to deal with, because we don't have a by law yet, and the other thing is to help the group help us to find the bylaw, because what we need to come out of this with
avri doria: is a bylaw for a holistic review, so that it can take its turn. It take its place in the sequence, as was defined by atrt 3 and and get that going. But until we know what this review is, so that we can define it clearly.
avri doria: such that all of the constituency, Stakeholder groups, etc., can agree to it is we we need to determine. You know we need to answer the questions first. So I think I've rambled on a little bit about sort of looking at
avri doria: the analysis of the comments, but more.
avri doria: You know how we did, how we analyze
avri doria: Post, that when we accepted that we had a difference of opinion that we couldn't really resolve on the scope.
avri doria: How did we move on? And so we moved on with this, you know.
avri doria: revision that that was put together. The
getting to the revision was was somewhat a a labor of persistence. because the first ever was to take the previous one
avri doria: and try and tweak here and there to try and bring it together. That was an effort that that didn't pan out.
avri doria: and eventually Katrina sort of sat down and and recast our form into something that seemed more logical seem to lend itself to this tripartite notion that I just spoke of. We didn't
avri doria: continue on it down to the nitty gritty, because we thought we had reached a point where it's time to come to you all and sort of say, because we did leave you for a while wondering what was happening. But but this is what we were doing in the meantime. Now that we've gotten to this a kneeling point that we think we have the beginnings of something
avri doria: that could conceivably work.
avri doria: So it was time to bring it back to you to see if you and I and Katrina already pretty much said that to see if you think this could conceivably work. Are you willing to work with us in terms of trying to finish it up.
avri doria: and we will have to go out
avri doria: for another public comment, because it is significantly different. It isn't just a tweak. Hopefully we would have answered the comments. We would have to go back to the comments we got, and say, how does this revision to respond to those comments.
avri doria: See how we do.
avri doria: and and and such. But
avri doria: there's as as Katrina said.
avri doria: the Oec has doing this on on its list of activities, and i'll either succeed at it or I'll fail at it, and I want us to succeed at it, even though I've passed care of that on to Katrina.
avri doria: but you know. does the we see? Just try to finish it up. or do we have a tour team work with us to try and finish it up. and i'll stop for the moment. and i'll hand the chair back
avri doria: to Katrina to call on anybody that wants to speak up.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, Thank you very much. Every thanks. That's very comprehensive and and clear analysis, and everything that's happening. Thank you, Cheryl: I see your hand, but maybe i'll give the floor to Matthew. Maybe he wants to add
Katrina Sataki: anything to what I said, because he was also on that small team that came up with version 2. Matthew, would you like to add anything?
Matthew Shears: No, I think every summarize it very well. I think what we tried to do was
Matthew Shears: really put in place a system whereby the work that the community or the concerns of the community had raised in the public comments were actually addressed.
Matthew Shears: not only through the 12, but, more importantly through the work that the Pilot Holistic Review would undertake. So I think in that sense that was a that's an important factor of this. But the the other one is, as as I've mentioned, is, we see this very much as a
Matthew Shears: a way of of I think we called it Alpha testing or testing. If you want some of the the key elements to a holistic review which we've we've talked about at the Meta level. But we Haven't really talked about in terms of how they would be developed or agreed, or indeed implemented. So I think there's
Matthew Shears: what we're looking at here is really an opportunity through the pilot to do that
Matthew Shears: fundamental and very important work that we know needs to be done, and it would probably be
Matthew Shears: detrimental to leave that to an actual holistic review, because it would probably certainly in my mind it would probably contribute to derailing it. So I think there's value in taking this very measured, productive way of approaching this, with the end result, which will be
Matthew Shears: Bylaws change, which is necessary to do a Bible's mandate to thanks.
Katrina Sataki: Thank you very much. Matthew Cheryl.
Katrina Sataki: I'm happy to let them go first. If you take one to Katrina.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: Okay. Well, just think out of the box. I do believe what the Matthew said. It's a okay.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: And my suggestion maybe is, go vice versa.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: So maybe the fine. the methodology. step by step.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: Then test that methodology
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: with some groups that maybe it's open to test that. So
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: if you, we can do that in a short period of time, and I believe it is possible.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: I believe that we will have more convincing
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: opportunities to show to everyone that the answer the question have been answered.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: So because, in my opinion, the first reactions from the holistic behind all
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: you know clear issues. That is also the
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: to
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: how to do this work
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: inside each constituency. How they will do.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: Who is gonna do that. How? How how much time will take for myself and my group to do that?
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: So those questions, when we start to token
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: after we finish atrt to we. You know individuals that show up some concerns
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: that was behind the questions
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: is, they don't know how they will do that
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: because we didn't present a clear methodology. and the how inside those constituents they will deal with this change. They will use it to have
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: contract. Someone make the change in the 2 or 3 guys inside the constituents with the decay this time. So
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: it's another overview.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: and then they were afraid they cannot face in day by day, dedication of time.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: So
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: my suggestion is thinking about this license. The problem with this
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: 2 first methodology. and then pick up
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: one
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: pilot really one example.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: because the opportunity to
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: get together all those constituencies
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: and the trying to work
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: the interrelations of them, I believe, will be very difficult
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: while they are not convinced it. How they will do that.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: So that's my point. Thank you.
Katrina Sataki: Thank you, Vanda. Oh, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: thanks, Katrina, I mean thanks, Vander. And and what I'm hearing from Vander, and I suspect, whilst it might not be universal amongst the full depth of feeling from each and every one of the at our t 3 shepherds. You are pretty much your tool team.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: your shepherd's, plus a couple.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: What I heard from Vander is a willingness
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: to do a couple of things. First of all, a willingness to work
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: with the Oec from my version to baseline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and ensure with a full, frank, and feel a set of analysis, the creation of a next generation document the public review. That will be a terms of reference which, to the best of all our abilities.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: we'll answer, or at least address the concerns raised in the first public comments. I think that's the answer to one of the questions, Katrina, you you raised in in the introduction. Should we do this? I suspect we
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I miss on the screen very loudly, and I can certainly speak on behalf of Pat here. But the answer is, Yes, we should at, because there's a couple of things we need to recognize at R. T. 3, and
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: that was a long time ago. Now let's face it right. A lot has changed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: But what Hasn't changed is the the need we saw
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: for the opportunity to rationalize. How reviews are done
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: across all I can, so that that kind of hasn't changed. How we proposed in it I. T. 3 of those recommendations would have worked, if, indeed, all the things had lined up, and all the pieces had fallen into place. They didn't
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: right, therefore.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Okay, except that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: worthiness of the exercise still exists. But we actually have opportunity now to
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: build a better and more detailed model. So getting to those layers that slicing the band referred to those particular aspects that Matthew articulated in terms of you know, making sure that the methodology is developed, etc., etc. will. That makes the initial desire
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: for change, opportunity and switching to continuous improvement in as fast to check as I. T. 3 had designed, and envisage No, it won't
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: but that forces already voltage.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So let's take the opportunity to also work closely with the
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: authors of the comments that came in
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: so part of the Mis alignment. Here is
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: no
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: actually understanding people writing documents that I believe, out there, and by articulating a certain meaning. And yet they're not, because when we get the responses back we go hang on. That's that. We thought that's clear. So let's make sure, before this next version goes out that there's been. I don't know. Some focus groups do some smart thinking. I'm sure there's enough people in this group to do that to just make sure that we know the messaging
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: is absolutely clear.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: because I think that's where we can perhaps gain some time and get back on a track again. Does that make sense?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I hope so?
Katrina Sataki: Yes, absolutely. And thank you very much, Cheryl. Anyone else would like to. Yes, Martin.
Maarten Botterman: Yeah. Just just one fault. Having looked at the list of organizations, groups that have reacted.
Maarten Botterman: Oh.
Maarten Botterman: should what should we do about exploring what those that didn't react. Think
Maarten Botterman: Isn't there react because they were happy, or they didn't direct the course.
Katrina Sataki: because
Maarten Botterman: I don't. That's the answer. So
Katrina Sataki: okay, now fair fair point for for point, and thanks a lot to to Wanda, Cheryl and and Martin so
Katrina Sataki: few things I i'll summarize one. So we're working together to to get this d10, okay, sorry before I summarize Sebastian, please.
Sébastien Bachollet: I think
Sébastien Bachollet: I don't know it will express all that. But it's a far from what we we're writing in at the
Sébastien Bachollet: we can't say, oh, because there are 2 years past we it's it's over it's a review, and therefore the review must be taken into account, and
Sébastien Bachollet: as it is written in the bylaw must be as it was accepted by the board, it must be implemented.
Sébastien Bachollet: and when I say it must be, it's not in 3 years, and it's where we we, we are.
Sébastien Bachollet: I I
Sébastien Bachollet: I am very concerned with all what it's happening. But
Sébastien Bachollet: I I was happy with with the agenda, because I think the first points
Sébastien Bachollet: we need to do
Sébastien Bachollet: it's to
Sébastien Bachollet: get together to answer the public comments.
Sébastien Bachollet: The analysis is one thing, but how? We answer, Why, we didn't.
Sébastien Bachollet: I understand the same thing.
Sébastien Bachollet: I have sure idea for that. But
Sébastien Bachollet: but we need to start by that, and and I wanted to take one
Sébastien Bachollet: example of what the Board is doing in policy development process. We's a. Jen. So
Sébastien Bachollet: when the they disagree with something, or they need more clarity. So I get it back to the team who have set up that.
Sébastien Bachollet: I know it's it's this bandit because it's just. It was just one year. and the genes so it still alive. But it could have been a good idea to get back
Sébastien Bachollet: to this group, and to say, hey, we don't understand that we want more element on that, and so on and so forth.
Sébastien Bachollet: I think we need to, on to some discussion
Sébastien Bachollet: on the on answering the public comments.
Sébastien Bachollet: because I think that there are a
Sébastien Bachollet: we we didn't discuss really, but we disagree, or we we we are not on the same page that we say not a disagreement, but
Sébastien Bachollet: the link between the continuous improvement program and the holistic review seems to be
Sébastien Bachollet: not understood the same by the one who write it, and the one who this read it.
Sébastien Bachollet: And
Sébastien Bachollet: if you do give me 2 min, I will try to explain what was in.
Sébastien Bachollet: I will not talk of your on in my mind, hopefully. It's, and it was on the mind of the full group. But I I can't talk on on, on Bf. Up.
Sébastien Bachollet: But the continuous improvement program it's to replace to take the place of the organizational review. and
Sébastien Bachollet: there is no link
Sébastien Bachollet: between starting one
Sébastien Bachollet: and and and not starting the other. Holistic review is not waiting for the continuous improvement program.
Sébastien Bachollet: It will be an input
Sébastien Bachollet: to realistic review, when and only when it, the continuous improvements for them will be able to
Sébastien Bachollet: publish things, to deliver information, to deliver
Sébastien Bachollet: decision or change.
Sébastien Bachollet: But if we don't start that in parallel. We will not get it even for the second holistic review, if it's happened one day
Sébastien Bachollet: and and when we talk about the self-assessment. I don't see the difference between the continuous improvement program and the science assessment
Sébastien Bachollet: Therefore we have to be
Sébastien Bachollet: careful on how we
Sébastien Bachollet: we we put things. The other point is that
Sébastien Bachollet: no, it is not something link
Sébastien Bachollet: with each and every part of this organization. It's an holistic review. It's a the view from the top.
Sébastien Bachollet: not from the top, because it's stopped down, but but from from the sky. And and to see how I can is working, and how we can
Sébastien Bachollet: improve them. If I I want to take an image
Sébastien Bachollet: we need to be able to
Sébastien Bachollet: create after a holistic review the split of the Dns. So in
Sébastien Bachollet: to this I don't know what will be the Ccs. So of this next side. If you review the the
Sébastien Bachollet: what will be the not just this, so as a name. But but what will be
Sébastien Bachollet: equal to what we have done in 2,002? But it must give this possibility and and
Sébastien Bachollet: ends it. Relationship between
Sébastien Bachollet: all those groups we are
Sébastien Bachollet: during 20 years done.
Sébastien Bachollet: Silo reviews the objective. It's 2 to 2
Sébastien Bachollet: continuous, continuously pro and program. That's a silo work, I will say, and and realistic for you. It's to have what it's happening in between and and amongst those groups, not in size. A group.
Sébastien Bachollet: I will say.
Sébastien Bachollet: because the tools need to be say, except if we need to to split one group, because it's important to set up
Sébastien Bachollet: once again. Me.
Sébastien Bachollet: that's that's some of the of of of the point I wanted to raise here, and I don't know yet if we need to start with a version 2 or or something else. I
Sébastien Bachollet: we can do. The same thing is that we have done for the first version. It's been the
Sébastien Bachollet: I was in in, in the in. In coming back to those this document I I start to do the same thing for the one in the 2, but
Sébastien Bachollet: I am not sure it's answering the but that's it.
Katrina Sataki: Thank you very much, Sebastian Giovanni, please mute, because you occasionally we hear you talking.
Katrina Sataki: Thank you. Oh, thank you, Sebastian. Please lower your hand, Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Thank you it just to to respond, and and I guess put some food for thought on the table to some of what Sebastian just stated.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think there's real risk in some of of what is proposed there.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and i'll come to that in a moment. But
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: it seems to be
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: pathways that we need to look at. Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and make first of all the analysis looking at, and from my perspective I would absolutely ignore version, one that went out to public comment. Just thank you very much. That's all very useful. But now we've got the public comments. Let's say with it, this: build on the work
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: that the Oec small team put into it
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: right, because I think it was as shocking as it was for a moment to me, and that it it. It is not other than a good.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: if it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: to meet the needs that were obvious from the public comments received, and therefore has to bring us along a further point a more 6 likely to succeed point to take to the next step, so I I wouldn't be
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: interested too much, if at all. Looking at the version, one version 2, I think we just okay. Here's version 2. Now, what we need to do is see where version 2 does or does not
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: meet what is articulated as concerns and suggestions from those public comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And how will we do that, and how interactive we do that, and what we do with people who we didn't get public comments from that can all be sort of bundled in along that same line of activity.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: So I think that's
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: from my perspective, at least
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: a very, very worthwhile starting analysis, right? I am concerned, however, if we try to hang on
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: for whatever good reasons to the overview that helicopter view that that that Sebastian was identifying, and then at R. T. 3 did absolutely note, has been at least 20 years since it was something similar was undertaken.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't believe
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: there is enough reward in trying to push that through as she's written.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and my reason for that is from where I came from, even back when we split the Dns I. Which yes, I was a member of.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Why, that way. In those days I lived in the CC. Community. not in the at large community.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: And unless things in Katrina you know better than me, have changed drastically.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: If I
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: autocratically designed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: superimposed modeling or thrust upon at least the CC. Community. They would simply go.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: you know, so long. Thanks for the fish.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: This wouldn't be an opportunity to create a more sensible layer between CC. And now generic management of policy development.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: It would be a destructuring, destabling and destruction of I in as we know it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I don't think that's a reason I'm certainly willing to to take. I think we need to bring the communities along with us. They didn't understand the purposes now. So we now need had to market this
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: as a benefit and opportunity
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: for building a better model from our own thoughts out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: but as desirous as it might be to just wave a magic wand, and, you know, create a new I can.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: I think there's too much entrenched concern, fear, and to have that react very well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and I certainly am well and surely aware that the community doesn't need I can.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I think we all want
Katrina Sataki: CC. To to to remain within. I can, and everyone who is that I can remain and and continue working together. So if there are no further
Katrina Sataki: immediate comments, then let me let me do the summary. So first thing we're working together right? So we're working together to get to this
Katrina Sataki: full rolling. Thank you very much for that, and thanks for for for Thank you very much for for your willingness to to
Katrina Sataki: collaborate on on this one.
Katrina Sataki: Okay, that's one thing. And next thing. Okay, we we we need to look what I hear that we need to look at public comments and see. So
Katrina Sataki: how and again another another take is that we continue working with Version 2. So we see how those public comments are addressed by by what we're doing, and what else we need to do to make sure that
Katrina Sataki: that we we move forward. So we address those comments. and then I I really love the the way you put it, Cheryl, and you said that now we need to do some marketing, right? So we have to sell the product, because obviously at this point it looks like we.
Katrina Sataki: we, we, we, we try to sell honey to bees and and be we're not happy with with with this approach. So we need to repackage the thing, and and we need to talk to.
Katrina Sataki: as always sees, probably before before we we we we move forward. So what how can we do that? So how can we?
Katrina Sataki: How can we organize these talks with us? Always sees
Katrina Sataki: one of the ways so we can. Well, maybe we could. We'll survey as always see that, and and and and ask some certain set of questions. Maybe we already have some ideas. And, Larissa.
Katrina Sataki: What would you say about the getting input from a O
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: Hi! Everybody! This is Lisa Browning. Thanks, Katrina. There there is possibly an approach that the Oec is using
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: for a different topic, but there are some similarities in in that. There could be an outreach, you know, correspondent to, you know, some some level of formality and organization to reach out to soac and leadership, so chairs and the the next level down
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: to to incorporate the the groups that comprise the different, those, those, and they see it. And
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: Well, this could also include some of the framing of the sort of the the Pr marketing kind of thing that Katrina was the show we're talking about, just to frame
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: where things are and ask certain simple. You know a a short set of questions to help understand where each group, whether what their feelings or ideas, or even understanding, is relative to
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: the holistic review, and gathering that information, you know, within a month's time, or something like that could then inform the Board, the Oec and and and others this group, perhaps to
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: to to to get that broader perspective of where.
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: how? How people are interpreting this, what their concerns might be, and then that could inform a way forward. This might also address Martin's question on what to do about those that didn't respond to the public comment. Perhaps they would respond to something like this and help everybody understand?
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: Kind of the temperature rate. Okay.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, thank you very much. So what to do others think about the idea.
Katrina Sataki: So we come up with the set of questions, and and then we try to
solicit Samantha. It's just Sebastian.
Sébastien Bachollet: Thank you.
Sébastien Bachollet: I know that it's a by well, the easy world, but I am not sure that we want to do marketing. We want to convince people in that the same thing marketing is to try to sell something.
even if you don't need it.
Sébastien Bachollet: Yeah, I think we need it. And we need to
Sébastien Bachollet: explain.
Sébastien Bachollet: discussed, and to answer the question, there it's not just one way.
Sébastien Bachollet: They up with comments in a.
Sébastien Bachollet: in in the in the coming during the common period, and the we we never
Sébastien Bachollet: get together to to try to answer this Inputs what is
Sébastien Bachollet: what is our our view on on the on, the comments and
Sébastien Bachollet: and and
Sébastien Bachollet: we why, I I feel it's we need to start by that. Therefore I I am not sure that it's asking them questions. If if we didn't get inputs on. What is
Sébastien Bachollet: what is our view on on on the holistic review we we will still have one way, discussion and not the other way, and it's what it's missing today.
Sébastien Bachollet: Thank you.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, thank you very much. Sebastian and I agree with Ivory, who wrote a comment in chat. The issue is that at this point community obviously things that they don't. Need you believe we we need it so i'm sure that we need to to to work
to enhance all this review thing
Katrina Sataki: but the what we gather from the community. They don't think so, and that is why we need to. That is why we need to talk to them and and to learn so what? And try to address their concerns and answer all their questions. Yeah. But to answer their questions. So we also need to
Katrina Sataki: ask some, because at this point they have provided us with a lot of information
Katrina Sataki: in in a. As as a as the comments in form of comments. Martin.
Maarten Botterman: Yeah, no, it just a second. The very much of, I I think.
Maarten Botterman: by the I local sympathy for what you say is the the the fact is that if you look to respect from the community.
Maarten Botterman: and to a large part of no response as well.
Maarten Botterman: we didn't put something on the table that has to buy in of the community. That's the least thing to say.
Maarten Botterman: and and because it's not only what we heard, but also we didn't hear that. I really like the idea from Larissa to go out for some questions
Maarten Botterman: you set in the input as well. So what we done so far with the comments is come up with the new draft. So we we have looked at the Commons. We we have done something with it.
Maarten Botterman: And yeah, it's different. But I I really
Maarten Botterman: i'm happy with the proposal that was made for Exactly. For that reason. I hope that that makes sense.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, thank you very much, Martin Matthew.
Matthew Shears: I think
Matthew Shears: I think one of the best ways, because this this is a is a somewhat contentious issue, and obviously we saw that in the diversity of responses in the public comment.
Matthew Shears: I think in a way, will be useful to have some try and see if we can secure some face to face time. Some of the differences between
Matthew Shears: the tour that went out for public comments and the tour version 2 that we're now talking about are how subtle
Matthew Shears: and do need explaining. And I think in that sense, if we just put out a paper on it that may not be
Matthew Shears: sufficient in terms of ensuring that those we're talking to understand where we're coming from, and why we feel this is a necessary approach, so I think. Question as fine papers are fine, but I think at the end of the day
Matthew Shears: trying to find time with some different parts of the leadership of the
Matthew Shears: For example in in Washington would be a a good idea.
Katrina Sataki: Yep, thank you. So first we survey them. We get to awesome
Katrina Sataki: Information exchange, and then in Washington we we tried to
Katrina Sataki: secure some slots where we can talk
Katrina Sataki: face to face, so if I understand you correctly, Thank you very much, Matthew. I've read
avri doria: Hi. I think that's a great track. For one part, I think another track
avri doria: is
avri doria: in terms of this Rev. 2. It is a sort of implicit
avri doria: answer to
avri doria: the analysis of the public comments, and what might be useful, since several of the people from the tour team sort of said we need to do an analysis of the public comments.
avri doria: while I'm. Not so sure it would be that useful for Katrina, Matthew, and I, and even Martin, who was, you know, reviewing them
avri doria: doing our analysis. But the rest of you actually sort of taking your understanding of those comments and looking at our response to it and sort of saying.
avri doria: Yep, you hit it here. You hit it here. You didn't quite hit it there.
avri doria: you know, or you missed dealing with the essence of this comment, or you didn't understand the nuance of that. Now, as I said, we didn't do this explicit. We're answering this by doing that, what we tried to do is create something that that
avri doria: answers as much of it as we could.
avri doria: And then, with the idea of going back later and seeing at the end of the day how much you know the answers and and the comments compare, but having others while we're doing all these other things, you know, sort of go through the Rev. To the the version 2,
avri doria: and and see to what degree it does or doesn't answer the the
avri doria: that the the the public comments. you know. We think we tried to average them out and and answer them particularly.
avri doria: Thanks.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, thank you very much. So I see 2 parallel tracks of work. So one is this. Oh, questions for
Katrina Sataki: serving so a. Cs. And I I hope that Larissa and Jason could help us with with some initial set of questions. So then we could all add our phone and and and discuss that one
Katrina Sataki: and second parallel track. It's. So we we will ask
Katrina Sataki: to our team to look at Version 2 and public comments, and see where we have misunderstood them, where we
Katrina Sataki: did not hit the nail between the eyes, and maybe where we
Katrina Sataki: completely went to Austria. Or maybe maybe, maybe, on the contrary. And say, okay, this one has been addressed properly, and we're happy with that. So okay. So that's for the Tor team. So homework
to do
Katrina Sataki: okay.
avri doria: Anything else, anything. I've missed this off so far. They accept that as homework. Just because I suggest, i'm actually going to say Pat and I will certainly get on to that homework and would welcome the rest of the toll team to have input.
Katrina Sataki: Okay, so anyone objects? No, nobody that's good.
Katrina Sataki: And so the plan is that we have those that. So those initial questions, then we we
Katrina Sataki: try to to survey, as always see
Katrina Sataki: with the with the some look at the endgame to have a face to face meeting in and Washington, DC:
Katrina Sataki: Yes, Jason.
Jason Kean - ICANN Org: thank you, Katrina.
Jason Kean - ICANN Org: so will there be a follow up call. Are you guys looking to schedule additional calls, and that's that's that's the next
Katrina Sataki: next thing on on on, on my again, because we have to agree. When do we meet? Sebastian?
Sébastien Bachollet: Yeah, if you, if we want to to meet with.
Sébastien Bachollet: we have a group we want to meet in Washington. We need to be in a hurry to decide which One
Sébastien Bachollet: groups we want to
Sébastien Bachollet: to meet, because the schedule is still
Sébastien Bachollet: is already work on, and
Sébastien Bachollet: it's already a headache there, for we need to really decide if we want to have one meeting with all the leaders, or if we want the meeting with the and they see if we want to, whatever we want.
Sébastien Bachollet: But we have to decide it quite, quite quick.
Sébastien Bachollet: and and maybe before the next meeting of this. Thank you.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, Thank you very much. Good point, Sebastian: Thank you. Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Yeah, just to. And I I mean, I probably not any person in this group as well. I probably would be in a better position to bring this forward, but not knowing what the response is yet. But there is certainly a request in
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: from the G. And so who I still take a close interest in. I can serve for several years with them from on behalf of the Alec to have an additional day
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: for them to do. Non, just non purely policy business in the Washington at the at the end of the Washington meeting. So maybe that if we do some clever scheduling that there are still opportunities, but it is, as Sebastian says, very difficult with the policy meeting of all meetings
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: to get there any additional time in place in people's agendas.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, that is true, that is true. Thank you. Thank you, Cheryl: for that's okay. We will. We will. Yeah, okay, Mary. Mary already is.
Katrina Sataki: That's very quick to respond in chat. So
Katrina Sataki: Mary will look into the schedule. But yes.
Katrina Sataki: of course you You You are right. Those are very tight.
Katrina Sataki: Okay. So next our next call.
Katrina Sataki: probably there's no it's. Next week will be too early. What about? In 2 weeks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: We can set the I for 2 weeks time.
Katrina Sataki: So twentieth of April.
Katrina Sataki: Okay, we might. Might, might, might need to ask for the to check availability. Matthew.
Matthew Shears: Yeah. Just thinking
Matthew Shears: it would be incredibly useful, I think, for us on the next call
Matthew Shears: to have feedback from, I think, Cheryl, you said yourself and Pat, and in terms of how
Matthew Shears: well or not
Matthew Shears: we have responded to the public comments, so I don't that that is a a quite a bit of work
Matthew Shears: so. But I think that will be a good thing for us to have a discussion around.
Katrina Sataki: Yeah, thank you. So well. 2 weeks be enough.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Well, I i'm suggest that we can at least have an update of progress. I'm not i'm not gonna. I promise the whole assignment. The whole thesis may not be done, but the outline of the this is my plan.
Katrina Sataki: Fair enough.
Katrina Sataki: Yep. Okay, Good.
Katrina Sataki: I know. Probably it may. Maybe maybe maybe we could share this, this excel file with with so sheet, with the all all the comments summarize that that the stuff prepared for us. Larissa.
Larisa Gurnick - ICANN Org: Thank you, Katrina, just a suggestion that maybe we go ahead and look to calendar 2 or 3 meetings, maybe leading up to I can 77 If that's okay, they can always be cancelled, but that way they'll be on the
Katrina Sataki: and, you know. Could you? Could you please also send the
Katrina Sataki: download, the the excel sheets with all the comments and
Katrina Sataki: share with the
Katrina Sataki: with the the team.
Katrina Sataki: Because that's easier.
Katrina Sataki: That's a very, that's a very good document. Very good. Cheat. Okay. So Thank you
Katrina Sataki: with that. If anyone.
Katrina Sataki: if nobody wants to add anything.
Katrina Sataki: and everybody is happy with the our agreement.
Katrina Sataki: so that thank you very much. Thank you very much for joining the call, and we'll be in touch with you regarding our next calls, and of course, so happy to to everyone who celebrates and those don't so just enjoy, enjoy, Enjoy the weekend. So thank you very much Again and
Katrina Sataki: and bye bye.
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: happy Passover, I need to. I was going to say it, and and any excuse for chocolate. I mean, that's true. That's a good fertility and good fertility celebration. But it's security. Yeah, absolutely thinking about it all. Yeah, and you know principle that's over to everyone and go the
Cheryl Langdon-Orr: and a happy yeah, i'm. You guys, the crackers. I'll go the chocolate every it's so we need to
Vanda Scartezini - Brazil: 2 pages of color, or that is good. Every like a small one works for me. Take care of everyone. Okay, thank you very much be safe. Bye, bye, bye.