Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Javier Rua-Jovet
28:38
hello 2 all
Andrea Glandon
28:42
Checking on the phone number and that person as well :)
Jim Prendergast
28:58
that's an Los Angeles number
Paul McGrady
29:32
"We can't see or hear" was me. I had problems on a call on Sunday. Sorry about that!
Andrea Glandon
29:45
Thank you, Paul!
Jim Prendergast
32:52
can we get calendar items for the June meetings? thanks
Julie Hedlund
33:18
We are working on that Jim
Jim Prendergast
33:21
yes
Julie Hedlund
33:21
They should be out soon
Steve Chan
35:22
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
Kathy Kleiman
36:27
what section?
Steve Chan
36:46
As Jeff noted, we are on Page 8
Emily Barabas
36:50
Governance Structure of the SPIRT
Steve Chan
36:52
Governance Structure
Kathy Kleiman
36:58
for those on audio only, it might be good to read titles.
Donna Austin, Neustar
40:31
Sounds like a Charter
Donna Austin, Neustar
40:42
or elements of a Charter
Justine Chew
40:53
Remit of the SPiRT?
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:21
SPIRT Remit
Kathy Kleiman
42:12
Input/Output of Policy issues to SPIRT
Paul McGrady
43:00
+1 Jeff - departments get renamed all the time
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:09
yep
Christopher Wilkinson
44:16
Problems with login. No sound. which PW?
Paul McGrady
45:08
Punt to Council to decide
Andrea Glandon
45:08
Hi Christopher, I see you logged in twice and I can hear the audio. Are you joining by telephone as well?
Maxim Alzoba
46:14
those are steps
Rubens Kuhl
46:14
I think the same threshold for raising an issue is appropriate
Maxim Alzoba
46:36
WG can not say GNSO Council what to do - only to recommend
Rubens Kuhl
46:44
Which is 1/4 of each house or majority of one house
Kathy Kleiman
48:37
That's a good question.
Maxim Alzoba
49:38
GNSO Council itself manages the process
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:51
Rather than Council, could you just have an issue raised directly with SPIRT by a GNSO entity? For example, if the RySG wanted to raise an issue why couldn't they do that directly to avoid the situation Anne has raised.
Paul McGrady
53:58
Have we run this past Keith and his co-chairs? I would be interested in their reaction.
Paul McGrady
54:31
vice-chairs
Jeffrey Neuman
54:41
@Paul - no....Chairs/Vice Chairs change and views can change
Paul McGrady
54:55
Good point Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
57:17
The Board, Council and Org can also be lobbied.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:42
IT seems like Donna is saying that it would be simpler to allow a Constituency or Stakeholder Group to raise an issue. Then you don't have so many channels to go through
Paul McGrady
59:12
That might result in quite a lot of work for the SPIRT and I'm (sadly) a little worried about cross-retaliatory SPIRT assignments.
Paul McGrady
01:00:58
+1 Jeff - that would be a mess
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:01:35
If the Charter or Remit of SPIRT is clear that should restrict some of the cross-retaliatory assignments.
Paul McGrady
01:01:40
+1 Jeff - this really should be a Council decision
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:13
I'm in the queue now because I think my question may help clarify
Jeffrey Neuman
01:02:34
@Paul - it does seem that punting this to the Council to deal with would be easiest to get agreement in this group
Paul McGrady
01:02:44
+1 Jeff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:11
Plus it has the added benefit of letting the Council weigh its options and manage its own work load
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:22
because it is GNSO policy in development
Paul McGrady
01:03:37
Agree Jeff.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:04
SSAC may not have understanding of all processes
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:07
The ACs have liaisons to the GNSO Council, so they have voice there.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:08
there is no requirement to give veto like rights to all parties who want to have it
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:31
I have some input on this...
Paul McGrady
01:08:06
+1 Kathy - we have to be sure that we don't end up with the Council delegating policy development to the SPIRT
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:42
what are the reasons to believe Council does so?
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:46
They'll get separated
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:11
Operational minor + operational Major = categories of issues that go from these groups to SPIRT.
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:59
bnew hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:11
the idea of Council not understanding what policy is quite fresh
Susan Payne
01:11:35
if something is being considered by council then surely the reps on council are already taking the views of their constituency/stakeholder gp
Susan Payne
01:11:49
otherwise they aren't doing their job
Paul McGrady
01:17:20
There becomes a path for the Staff and SPIRT to create policy be Council inaction
Paul McGrady
01:17:29
by Council inaction
Paul McGrady
01:17:55
Let's create a default that if the Council doesn't do anything in 60 days, it is deemed rejected
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:36
+1
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:46
It can always come back
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:12
@Paul, as we know it can often take Council a long time to consider an issue.
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:13
still better than Council dismissed
christopher wilkinson
01:19:19
Just to note that I do not share Paul’s scepticism as to the knowledge, objectivity and understanding of the Board’s views. It would be very difficult to dissociate the staff from the Board.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:29
Dismissed without prejudice?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:20:20
60 days would be too long for Council to object to it going to SPIRT. SPIRT is supposed to work fast.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:54
Good point Anne
Paul McGrady
01:21:21
@Anne - the 60 days is when it comes from SPIRT rather than going to it.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:22:36
So if its agreed its an operational issue, why does it need GNSO Council agreement?
Paul McGrady
01:23:08
@Jeff - but for every non-policy example we can all think of policy-disguised as operations examples.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:11
It seems that if Council immediately believes it's policy, not operational, it would be dumb for SPIRT to do a bunch of work.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:23:23
Agreed Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:34
Agreed Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:39
I think Staff has to be able to raise issues. This is about implementation and staff is executing that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:20
or new fresh RPMs 3.0 or PICs 2.0
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:27:00
So the intent of the SPIRT, as I understood it, was primarily to address concerns from 2012 when ICANN staff made unilateral changes that had consequences on applicants after applications were submitted.
Paul McGrady
01:27:21
@Jeff - I appreciate your comments. But, how do we make sure that Staff + SPIRT + Council Inaction = a change that really should only come from the Community?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:49
Stopping the program is an extreme example that is clearly policy
Paul McGrady
01:28:30
@Jeff = Can SPIRIT target classes of applications? Can it target specific applications? Can we carve these out along with pausing rounds and not starting the next rounds? these would at least be some guardrails around all of this
Paul McGrady
01:29:32
+1 Jeff - let's spell those out. It would bring comfort
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:41
Folks - we said SPIRT should operate under IRT rules
Jim Prendergast
01:29:42
but if an issue arose that only applied to one typ of applicant, it would have to target them, no?
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:46
@Anne -- what limitations (or powers) would that mean?
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:51
(IRT rules)
Jim Prendergast
01:31:40
I guess my example would be if there were a change to community rules, that would only apply to community applicants - s o they would be targeted.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:27
@Jim--agreed
Paul McGrady
01:32:33
@Jim - but a change to community rules would be policy, right? And the SPIRT is supposed to stay out of that.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:33:22
@Paul - in that case wouldn't the SPIRT pass it on to Council for consideration
Paul McGrady
01:33:35
@Donna - one hopes
Steve Chan
01:34:03
Or the Council may never have passed it to the SPIRT in the first place, if it’s ambiguously policy development?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:34:05
I thought that was the first test--policy or operational--if clearly policy goes through to Council.
Jim Prendergast
01:34:30
Jamie knows it better than most but I was under impression that there was a change to community application process, post application submission. And they were not policy matters.
Paul McGrady
01:34:32
Or maybe they make a decision and the Council doesn't act and 60 days later - new policy targeting a type of applicant.
Paul McGrady
01:34:41
@Jeff - thanks!
Jamie Baxter
01:36:45
@Jim .. that is correct. they were actions taken by ICANN staff
Steve Chan
01:36:55
For this one, if I recall, it’s a mixture of the PDP Manual, which is leveraged by the IRT guidelines.
Paul McGrady
01:37:10
Will the non-GNSO members have a vote?
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:22
Do we want to expressly discuss IRT Guidelines? As part of our guardrails?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:53
They should if IRT members have a vote.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:40
It should operate as a Standing IRT
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:59
That was my understanding too -- isn't that even part of the SPIRT acronym?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:25
Agree Anne--if you've been appointed to the SPIRT is should be on equal footing.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:27
Personally I agree @Anne
Annebeth Lange
01:43:05
So do I @ Anne
Steve Chan
01:43:26
Hand up
Steve Chan
01:45:08
Ha!
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:53
Shouldn't we include this background as a reference in this document?
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:01
That IRT is, generally, the governing doc.
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:16
with some modifications...
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:06
Tx!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:13
+1 Kathy
Justine Chew
01:48:57
+1 Kathy, excellent idea to include a description of how the Annex came about.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:49:28
Agreed Kathy, Anne and Justine
Steve Chan
01:50:23
Jeff, can I make a suggestion?
Paul McGrady
01:51:15
Can we keep going with this in the very next call? It would be really great to get all the way through this issue and move on to the other persistent problems we have remaining.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:35
that makes sense @Steve
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:20
In an IRT, would staff raise the issue with the IRT or with the Council?
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:52
I think a diagram makes sense -- a flow chart! (if I understand Steve's suggestion)
Paul McGrady
01:53:24
Would the "rule" be that if it has any possibility of being policy, Staff should send it to Council or Board to send it to the SPIRT if they choose?
Steve Chan
01:53:28
Right, flow chart
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:36
But it's that very ambiguity we've been discussing all day -- and we're the "experts"
Steve Chan
01:54:11
I take nothing personal :)
Steve Chan
01:54:17
Disagree all day
Annebeth Lange
01:55:30
Agree, Anne
Jim Prendergast
01:56:08
LOL!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:24
:-)
Julie Hedlund
01:56:52
Next meeting is Thursday, 21 May at 0300 UTC
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:55
Cliffhanger ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:59
Bye for now then....
Justine Chew
01:57:05
Maybe staff should (again) circulate links to the standard IRT remit/framework and that of the CSC?
Annebeth Lange
01:57:10
Bye, bye!