Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Info

PROPOSED AGENDA




BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS


Charter Question - natural vs. legal person - 11 Oct 2018

AUDIO CAST INFORMATION AND VIEW ONLY ADOBE CONNECT FOR ALTERNATES AND OBSERVERS


To join the event, click on the link: 

Listen in browser: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01

Listen in application such as iTunes: http://stream.icann.org:8000/stream01.m3u

View-Only Adobe Connect room for alternates and observers: https://participate.icann.org/gnso-epdp-observers



Info
titleRECORDINGS

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

...

Note

Notes/ Action Items


High-level Notes/Actions:

 


Action item #1: Staff to put draft policy recommendations as found on page 4 up as a google doc. 


Action item #2: small team members to review the draft policy recommendations and comment on any parts they are not comfortable with for inclusion in the Initial Report by Sunday 13 October COB 


Notes & Action items


These high-level notes are designed to help the EPDP Team navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/2IpHBQ.

 

1. Roll Call & SOI Updates

  • Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect - attendees: Alan Greenberg (ALAC), Alex Deacon (IPC), Ashley Heineman (GAC), Ben Butler (SSAC), James Bladel (RrSG), Lindsay Hamilton-Reid (RrSG), Marc Anderson (RySG), Margie Milam (BC)
  • Please remember to mute your microphones when not speaking, and state your name before speaking for transcription purposes.
  • Please remember to review your SOIs on a regular basis and update as needed. Updates are required to be shared with the EPDP Team.

 

Discussion 


  • Primary goal is to develop answer to h3, 4 and 5 charter questions as well as any related preliminary recommendations for EPDP Team review.
  • See document that was shared prior to the meeting. Staff has attempted to bring together the different comments and edits.
  • IRT should not be responsible for adding additional data elements, that should be for this group to define. In principle no issue with having IRT recommend additional data elements, but it may not be acceptable for others? Need to be clear about what the role and scope of the IRT is. 
  • Further detail needed in relation to timing - especially with regards to registrations that may not have an expiry date. Consider reflecting this in Version B2. The timing on this one needs to be fixed, even if in the extreme it is the  10-year registration limit. Timing should be left to IRT. 
  • Need to be very judicious about what this group can take on and what needs to be dealt with later.
  • Consider 'should be required when'..... Should be for the EPDP Team to recommend.  If there is a commitment from registrars to distinguish between natural and legal person, it should be reflected here.
  • Optional requirement won't work here, should be a must with a pragmatic phasing.
  • Tone of edits in the google doc were very different than what was discussed on the call. This has created some frustration.
  • Does this put more responsibility on an IRT than what it typically has? At the same time, it allows for this work to be carried out in parallel as the EPDP Team already has a lot on its plate.
  • Could EPDP Team develop specific direction for the IRT which would then be tasked to sort out the practicalities of how this could work in practice?
  • Technical investment and cost needed to make this work is substantial. Who would pay for implementation?
  • IRT could commence earlier - as soon as EPDP Team would reach agreement on this so work could start in parallel?
  • IRT should also look at minimizing costs for parties as part of implementation options.
  • Instead of IRT, could also consider committing to an investigation and report as to an implementation plan and feasibility study to be delivered at some point in time.
  • Small team to review page 4 of the document and have small team focus on adding comments for those areas where the small team feels uncomfortable / cannot live with, so it can be brought back to the full team for review and consideration.
  • Further questions / issues can also be called out as part of the Initial Report.
  • Consider note in relation to timing of IRT.
 


Action item #1: Staff to put draft policy recommendations as found on page 4 up as a google doc. 


Action item #2: small team members to review the draft policy recommendations and comment on any parts they are not comfortable with for inclusion in the Initial Report by Sunday 13 October COB