Zoom Chat: 2021-09-08 At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)

13:55:12 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
hello everyone. I am awaiting a dial out
13:55:28 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
but in the meantime the ALAC calendar entry for this call should be updated ASAP
13:55:46 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
yes I need a dial out
13:55:55 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
strange that it goes to VM. French line is fine
14:00:22 From Evin Erdogdu - ICANN org to Everyone:
Hello all, welcome!
14:04:49 From Alfredo Lopez CTPD to Everyone:
Buenas tardes a todos
14:04:58 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
14:04:58 From Dave Kissoondoyal to Everyone:
Hello everyone.. sorry for being late.. connection issues
14:05:52 From Vanda Scartezini to Everyone:
hi everyone for some reason my Zoom didi not work.... guess need to reinstall and enter by my browser did not allow me to hear
14:07:04 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
I am back using zoom
14:10:52 From Greg & Deborah to Everyone:
I suggest "Nonetheless," rather than "That notwithstanding," in the highlighted sentence.
14:11:39 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
14:16:48 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
publishing based on differentiation was actually deemed less risky to contracted parties
14:19:50 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Was any justification for the differentiation position given?
14:20:29 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
If we are talking about liability - if the CP discloses data based on self characterization and personal information is disclosed by mistake the CP most probably faces real legal risks only if it fails to address/correct the mistake.
14:21:06 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Thanks Hadia
14:21:59 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
agree Hadia. the law here is similar.
14:23:24 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
@Holly it seems that CPs do not want to commit to something they don't really need to commit to, some of them are already doing things in a particular manner and they see no reason to change it at this point in time
14:23:56 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Thanks Hadia
14:24:31 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Hadia - to follow on - is that about the cost of changing processes?
14:26:32 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
I support inclusion of the clause
14:26:53 From Bill Jouris to Everyone:
Absolutely we want to include that statement about the Contracted Parties reluctance (refusal)
14:27:13 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
I still feels as though this looks like advice rather than comments on a draft document
14:27:48 From Bill Jouris to Everyone:
@Jonathan, perhaps we should put it in both places
14:27:48 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
i believe the sentence could add "no rationale was offered"
14:28:10 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
I agree with Hadia, the sentence is important
14:28:13 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ JZ - are you objecting to the wording or the inclusion of the concept?
14:29:06 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
@Holly, I guess including the concept. I'm not sure about it but it feels wrong and potentially distracting. I think documenting all this is VERY important but a distraction, in this document.
14:29:36 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
No just in my thoughts I believe explaining that no rational was offered give more clarity to our point. I support the comment
14:30:51 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@JZ - so maybe a separate statement - leaving it out of the document - but at least saying to the Board that there is a real problem with PDPs if the contracted parties will never change their position.
14:31:42 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
like take the last bullet from the advice
14:32:08 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
@Johnathan I thought you were talking about the entire statement
14:32:29 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Hadia - that would be part of the larger statement JZ is talking about
14:33:14 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
I believe deserves to maintain because this is minority statement , no a comment on the report
14:33:21 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@JZ Unless these points are mentioned, the context to some of the points mentioned in the minority statements would remain largely unsubstantiated.
14:33:32 From Abdulkarim Oloyede to Everyone:
+1 Jonathan
14:34:28 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
Sorry - like take the last bullet out of the minority statement. However, the last bullet is the reason for which we could not accomplish many things
14:34:49 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Good point Siva. But maybe it would be possible to expand on the statement and the fourth dot point is an example?
14:37:18 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@Holly The point 4 is expanded by including the specific instance where the EPDP members said "In some jurisdictions, not following a "good practice" amount to an offense, or otherwise makes the party liabale, but it wa
14:37:47 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
... but the EPDP did not come up with an example of a jurisdiction that treats a good practice as binding
14:37:47 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
That will be rather telling in and of itself of course @Greg
14:38:58 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@Greg It can be here, and it can also go the Board from ALAC as an advice, or even as an extraordinary advice.
14:39:14 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
I think if we include this commentary, at the end, we should support it with more evidence, perhaps. I'm sorry this isn't a fully formed reaction but more visceral.
14:39:40 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
first paragraph
14:40:05 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
This is at the core of the issues surrounding the multistakeholder process and as @CW remarked, imbalances such as this in the policy process makes the multistakeholder process quite different from the one conceptualized
14:40:31 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
ALAC is Not a ‘minority’. The size of the user interest trumps all others. I would only accept that the ALAC position is a ‘DISSENT’ not a minority statement.
14:40:52 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
This == The barriers to good policy / gaming of the policy process
14:40:57 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
I would support a strong statement on the failure of the process up front, and then responses to this EPDP
14:41:28 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@CW excellent suggestion. This could perhaps be termed as a statement of dissent
14:43:00 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
A more pointed question is this: In the multistakeholder process, where the stakeholder groups are meant to be balanced, how is it that the contracted parties rule over a WG, be it styled PDP or EPDP?
14:44:28 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
This should be, at best, "Strong support but significant opposition" (the lowest level of "consensus" in the GNSO system). Calling this "Consensus" is a joke.
14:45:07 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Was there "strong support" even?
14:45:33 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Following a ‘process’ that allows for the majority of groups’ point of view to be ignored is not a true MSM process.
14:46:02 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Maybe the "process" bullet point is too short to be clear. We should expand it.
14:48:11 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
@Greg what we mean is that processes were not followed
14:48:39 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Hadia, Understood.
14:48:57 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
@Holly exactly this is not a correct process
14:49:55 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Hadia - EXACTLY. Either right up front - of a very strong statement at the end - not for the GNSO but for the Board
14:49:57 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
I suggest that the’ process’ is a Red Herring. Process has been Rigged.
14:50:11 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Processes are followed when convenient and discarded when inconvenient, and a complication in the ICANN process is that often process is cited, the need to comply the process is cited when one stakeholder group or another wishes to steer policy in a certain direction or block the progress oof policy taking a different direction
14:50:20 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@Greg
14:50:24 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
Which undermines MSM principles to its detriment.
14:50:46 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
agree Christopher
14:51:04 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@CW gamed; rigged.
14:51:12 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
@Holly correct if the process allows for the majority of groups to be ignored it needs to be changed - but this is a totally different issue
14:51:14 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
or "captured"
14:51:25 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
correct
14:51:46 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
or the turf is aggressively defended as originally captured
14:52:14 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Hadia - totally agree with you. I support telling the Board of our concerns, whether in this document, or in a separate statement.
14:52:26 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
until we prove that this is not a working process - the process needs to be followed
14:52:36 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
@Alan: I have stated that I support the document ex-exterior, albeit Abstaining
14:52:46 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
anyway I raise my green, but ok I am in favor
14:53:08 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Green ticks/red x
14:53:42 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
They don't last long enough to count
14:53:50 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
Keep the paragraph
14:53:50 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
I support the document.
14:54:02 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
We could go even further...
14:55:47 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
Leaving the call for local family reasons, Thankyou Alan & Hadia.
14:56:07 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
Good night CW
15:01:00 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
The losing FOA is the only Chance to stop a tranfer initiated by bad actors. Unless Transfers can be reverted ...
15:01:42 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Agree!
15:02:01 From Lianna Galstyan to Everyone:
I also support that idea, Alan
15:02:01 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Alan - agree.
15:02:12 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
and a follow up survey
15:02:42 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
+1 Alan
15:03:15 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Agree totally @Alan
15:03:21 From alberto soto to Everyone:
+1 Alan
15:05:51 From Michael Palage to Everyone:
Can I get in the queue - unable to raise hand
15:06:04 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
noted @Michael
15:07:19 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
although I suspect most domain name registrants check their email a LITTLE more frequently but the point remains the same
15:09:20 From avri doria to Everyone:
Is there data on accounts being spoofed in Registrar transfer dealings. If it happens all the time, there seems like there should be.
15:09:43 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
I agree w/ Alan - we should make it safer for the registrant and more difficult for the hijacker - a couple of more messages don’t do as much damage as one single missed message
15:11:22 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
+1 Roberto
15:11:32 From alberto soto to Everyone:
Good point Roberto
15:12:01 From Yrjo Lansipuro to Everyone:
+1 Alan and Roberto
15:12:58 From Vanda Scartezini - Brazil to Everyone:
agree with Alan , safety is relevant nowadays.
15:16:31 From Michael Palage to Everyone:
Thx Steinar
15:20:56 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
+1 Alan
15:22:09 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
@steinar the main idea is to reduce the role of registrant to the initiation of the process the others step should be executed by registrar without the registrant intervention
15:22:42 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
Except some ACk notifications
15:23:05 From Lutz Donnerhacke to Everyone:
An unauthorised Transfer is unwanted and it is Commercial, too
15:24:04 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
It is common for people to label a message as spam, even if they explicitly requested it....
15:26:38 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
@Lutz - but the communication from the registrar that you are about to lose the domain because of this “unauthorised unwanted and Commercial transfer request” is probably appreciated 
15:29:40 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
Thank you Yrjo
15:31:30 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
Thanks Yrjö
15:32:01 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Note - the OFB WG will be discussing the draft PTI and IANA budgets
15:32:28 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@chokri If the registrant's role is minimized to initiation of transfer, then it is important to make it fool proof to ensure that it is indeed the Registrant who initiated it
15:33:32 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
are we still doing the poll on the minority statement inclusion of the "process" section?
15:34:15 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Tomorrow’s OFB-WG call agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/2021-09-09+Operations%2C+Finance+and+Budget+Working+Group+%28OFB-WG%29+Call
15:34:35 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
Thanks Heidi
15:35:25 From Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Blog: https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/icann-launches-improved-public-comment-feature-31-8-2021-en
15:35:56 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
@Siva the initiation phase it's sufficient to ensure that the right registrant have initiated the transfer because he will inform both losing and gained registrars
15:35:58 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
@JZ shall we have a Doodle on the minority statement?
15:36:39 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@Chokri.. that is what I meant ... "the right registrant" as you have said.
15:37:37 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Modified along the lines of the discussion in the chat
15:38:12 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
It's like popcorn...
15:39:00 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
how many responded?
15:39:27 From hadia Elminiawi to Everyone:
80% think we need to talk about process
15:39:31 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
at least 20
15:39:34 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
So really 75% are in favor of the issue being raised in our response
15:39:41 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone: