Re: [Ssr2-review] [Ext] Re: SSR2 Call Summary: 2 August
Dear all, The meeting summary has been updated to remove the word ‘significant’ from the ICANN63 agenda item. The update has been posted to the meeting page of the wiki here, see ‘Plenary Call Report’: https://community.icann.org/x/oQZpBQ Best, Jennifer From: Phil Khoury <phil@crkhoury.com> Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 12:46 AM To: Eric Osterweil <eric@osterweil.net>, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> Cc: "ssr2-review@icann.org" <ssr2-review@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 Call Summary: 2 August Hi all, Oh boy. Can I just say that was a pretty terrible meeting – I feel like we took about 5 backward steps in 40 short minutes. Thanks Eric for comments and background. Pretty sure we don't want to be editing records of meetings to this extent, in particular individual historical perspectives that weren’t part of the meeting. That said – it is useful to understand how everyone is thinking. Happy to edit ICANN 63 item to reflect your observation about ‘significant’. Jennifer could you please remove ‘significant’ from the text. My only concern is to make sure no one thinks that there is some magical solution that solves for all the problems with F2F meetings. As for the whole NDA issue. Sigh. To be crystal clear: No one raised the NDA as a problem with me. A few people on the team mentioned the issue when I asked if there were unfinished things that would need to be dealt with. My conversations re: the NDA totalled about 4 minutes in all the calls I had. Staff did not raise it with me or ask for it to be put on the agenda. I, in my ignorance, simply added it to the agenda to make sure that we were starting to pick up on some of the practical things that need doing. Clearly this is an issue that some team members have strong views about – it was my intention to have a 90 second conversation about this – not trigger another half-hour debate. I have asked Steve Conte to do a brief summary of the position reached previously – it is not immediately critical, can we just leave it there for now. As our meeting was cut short by technology grief and distractions, we did not get time to talk about process leading up to the F2F in Washington. Please note that I am going to be contacting team members, hopefully I will get to all of you, between now and then to have a further one-to-one discussion about outcomes and your individual contribution. Finally, I appreciate that this is not easy, but can I ask for some patience please. Regards Phil Phil Khoury Facilitator – ICANN SSR2 phil@crkhoury.com tel +61 3 9421 3111 mob +61 431 500 999 (also WhatsApp) skype phil.khoury cameron. ralph. khoury Cameron Ralph Pty Ltd | PO Box 307 East Melbourne VIC 8002 | Australia This email may contain confidential information. If received in error, please let us know us by reply email or phone and delete this email. Phil Khoury Managing Director cameron. ralph. khoury (sent from phone) ________________________________ From: 30402347200n behalf of Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:02 am To: Jennifer Bryce Cc: ssr2-review@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 Call Summary: 2 August Hi Jennifer, Thanks for sending this out. I’ve just taken a very quick look and I think there are some issues in this summary that need to be rectified. In regards to the possibility of meeting during the ICANN 63 meeting (bullet #3), I would suggest that a more faithful summary might be: The team has long requested to have face-to-face meets during the ICANN meetings (not adjacent to them). Several team members who are planning to attend ICANN 63 have stated on the list that they will not be able to meet outside of the ICANN 63 meeting week. Some have stated that they feel this puts an undue strain on their capacity to volunteer for this review (especially after the pause). The team has suggested some alternatives to help Staff accommodate the team’s needs, and the team has asked Staff to send out a Doodle poll to ascertain how much of the team is able to meet during various options. Separately, I’m not sure the statement that “all possibilities … have significant problems” is accurate, or even knowable without more investigation. I think this statement should be removed. In regards to the discussion on the NDA (bullet #5), I think the summary needs to be corrected to be more accurate. Perhaps something like: Phil noted that some people brought the NDA up to him, but no team member spoke to this themselves (on the call or on the list). The team noted that this issue was previously discussed at length (roughly a year ago). At that time, consensus was reached that the choice to sign the NDA would be made by each individual team member, and that the team would not agree that signing the NDA was necessary for participation on the team. It was also mentioned that one of the former team members was heavily involved in the drafting of the bylaws and cautioned against mistaking the spirit behind the words. Multiple team members mentioned receiving legal advice that counseled caution in signing the NDA as it is currently written. No one from the team annunciated any concern with the previous team decision that the NDA need not be signed. As of this time, no one on the team has supported the idea of mandating the signing the NDA (either on the call or on the mail list). Staff provided an example from the review team’s LA meeting as to how productive discussions have taken place without the NDA. I’ll try to take a more detailed look soon to see if there are any other questions, concerns, or suggestions. Thanks! Eric On Aug 6, 2018, at 6:20 AM, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org<mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org>> wrote: Dear SSR2 Review Team members, Please find attached the summary report from the Thursday 2 August, 20:00 UTC meeting (additional detail from Phil is indicated by the red text). These high-level notes are designed to help SSR2 Review Team members navigate through the content of the call. They are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/oQZpBQ [community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o...> Best, Jennifer -- Jennifer Bryce Senior Reviews Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org<mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org> Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMF-g&...> <Plenary Call Report #38 PK.pdf>_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org<mailto:Ssr2-review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review
Hi Jennifer, Thanks for this. I’d just like to note for the record that I think the summary is still an inaccurate representation of our call. Thanks again, Eric
On Aug 7, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
The meeting summary has been updated to remove the word ‘significant’ from the ICANN63 agenda item. The update has been posted to the meeting page of the wiki here, see ‘Plenary Call Report’: https://community.icann.org/x/oQZpBQ <https://community.icann.org/x/oQZpBQ>
Best, Jennifer
From: Phil Khoury <phil@crkhoury.com <mailto:phil@crkhoury.com>> Date: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 at 12:46 AM To: Eric Osterweil <eric@osterweil.net <mailto:eric@osterweil.net>>, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org <mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org>> Cc: "ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>" <ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 Call Summary: 2 August
Hi all,
Oh boy. Can I just say that was a pretty terrible meeting – I feel like we took about 5 backward steps in 40 short minutes.
Thanks Eric for comments and background.
Pretty sure we don't want to be editing records of meetings to this extent, in particular individual historical perspectives that weren’t part of the meeting. That said – it is useful to understand how everyone is thinking.
Happy to edit ICANN 63 item to reflect your observation about ‘significant’. Jennifer could you please remove ‘significant’ from the text. My only concern is to make sure no one thinks that there is some magical solution that solves for all the problems with F2F meetings.
As for the whole NDA issue. Sigh. To be crystal clear:
No one raised the NDA as a problem with me. A few people on the team mentioned the issue when I asked if there were unfinished things that would need to be dealt with. My conversations re: the NDA totalled about 4 minutes in all the calls I had. Staff did not raise it with me or ask for it to be put on the agenda. I, in my ignorance, simply added it to the agenda to make sure that we were starting to pick up on some of the practical things that need doing. Clearly this is an issue that some team members have strong views about – it was my intention to have a 90 second conversation about this – not trigger another half-hour debate. I have asked Steve Conte to do a brief summary of the position reached previously – it is not immediately critical, can we just leave it there for now.
As our meeting was cut short by technology grief and distractions, we did not get time to talk about process leading up to the F2F in Washington. Please note that I am going to be contacting team members, hopefully I will get to all of you, between now and then to have a further one-to-one discussion about outcomes and your individual contribution.
Finally, I appreciate that this is not easy, but can I ask for some patience please.
Regards
Phil
Phil Khoury Facilitator – ICANN SSR2
phil@crkhoury.com <mailto:phil@crkhoury.com> tel +61 3 9421 3111 mob +61 431 500 999 (also WhatsApp) skype phil.khoury cameron. ralph. khoury
Cameron Ralph Pty Ltd | PO Box 307 East Melbourne VIC 8002 | Australia This email may contain confidential information. If received in error, please let us know us by reply email or phone and delete this email.
Phil Khoury Managing Director cameron. ralph. khoury (sent from phone) From: 30402347200n behalf of Sent: Tuesday, August 7, 2018 3:02 am To: Jennifer Bryce Cc: ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:ssr2-review@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ssr2-review] SSR2 Call Summary: 2 August
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for sending this out. I’ve just taken a very quick look and I think there are some issues in this summary that need to be rectified.
In regards to the possibility of meeting during the ICANN 63 meeting (bullet #3), I would suggest that a more faithful summary might be:
The team has long requested to have face-to-face meets during the ICANN meetings (not adjacent to them). Several team members who are planning to attend ICANN 63 have stated on the list that they will not be able to meet outside of the ICANN 63 meeting week. Some have stated that they feel this puts an undue strain on their capacity to volunteer for this review (especially after the pause). The team has suggested some alternatives to help Staff accommodate the team’s needs, and the team has asked Staff to send out a Doodle poll to ascertain how much of the team is able to meet during various options. Separately, I’m not sure the statement that “all possibilities … have significant problems” is accurate, or even knowable without more investigation. I think this statement should be removed.
In regards to the discussion on the NDA (bullet #5), I think the summary needs to be corrected to be more accurate. Perhaps something like:
Phil noted that some people brought the NDA up to him, but no team member spoke to this themselves (on the call or on the list). The team noted that this issue was previously discussed at length (roughly a year ago). At that time, consensus was reached that the choice to sign the NDA would be made by each individual team member, and that the team would not agree that signing the NDA was necessary for participation on the team. It was also mentioned that one of the former team members was heavily involved in the drafting of the bylaws and cautioned against mistaking the spirit behind the words. Multiple team members mentioned receiving legal advice that counseled caution in signing the NDA as it is currently written. No one from the team annunciated any concern with the previous team decision that the NDA need not be signed. As of this time, no one on the team has supported the idea of mandating the signing the NDA (either on the call or on the mail list). Staff provided an example from the review team’s LA meeting as to how productive discussions have taken place without the NDA.
I’ll try to take a more detailed look soon to see if there are any other questions, concerns, or suggestions.
Thanks!
Eric
On Aug 6, 2018, at 6:20 AM, Jennifer Bryce <jennifer.bryce@icann.org <mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear SSR2 Review Team members,
Please find attached the summary report from the Thursday 2 August, 20:00 UTC meeting (additional detail from Phil is indicated by the red text).
These high-level notes are designed to help SSR2 Review Team members navigate through the content of the call. They are not meant to be a substitute for the recording or transcript, which are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/oQZpBQ [community.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_o...>
Best, Jennifer
-- Jennifer Bryce Senior Reviews Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: jennifer.bryce@icann.org <mailto:jennifer.bryce@icann.org> Skype: jennifer.bryce.icann www.icann.org [icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_&d=DwMF-g&...> <Plenary Call Report #38 PK.pdf>_______________________________________________ Ssr2-review mailing list Ssr2-review@icann.org <mailto:Ssr2-review@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssr2-review>
participants (2)
-
Eric Osterweil -
Jennifer Bryce