Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
31:51
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:19
Great to know the dog is doing well!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:48
Congrats Jeff - on your entrepreneurial spirit!
Julie Hedlund
35:45
See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing,
Julie Hedlund
35:58
For Package 6 Can’t Live With comments
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:22
Thanks Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
38:07
Not at this moment
Rubens Kuhl
38:51
The priority for IDNs is still there.
Rubens Kuhl
39:10
Group the priorities only.
Rubens Kuhl
39:18
Not the actual evaluation.
Rubens Kuhl
39:38
The difference is not dividing the evaluation work.
Maxim Alzoba
40:07
types not sets of applications
Rubens Kuhl
40:28
Yeap
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:29
QUESTION: How would ICANN determine order of evaluation if not by order of priority?
Rubens Kuhl
40:56
Anne, in the report it says the evaluation should be done to minimize evaluation work.
Paul McGrady
42:19
Are we talking about auctions now? I thought that was later...
Paul McGrady
42:58
Thanks Jeff!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:01
Just clarifying that this change for Rubens does not change the priority groupings in any way.
Rubens Kuhl
43:13
It doesn't.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:17
ok thank you.
Rubens Kuhl
44:20
There are a number of text changes required anyways to adapt the text, so this indeed requires caution at writing.
Rubens Kuhl
45:17
This is the same issue.
Rubens Kuhl
45:37
6.3 is a different one.
Jim Prendergast
46:31
fee was $100 last time, right?
Rubens Kuhl
46:33
It's a substantive change.
Rubens Kuhl
46:42
Jim. yes, $100 + money sending costs.
Justine Chew
46:55
Should this be subject to Legal advice?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:06
How does this affect ICANN budget to operate the drawing?
Rubens Kuhl
47:13
The text prescribes a legal basis, so IRT will required legal advice.
Jim Prendergast
47:17
ICANN has the legal opinion on how they did the draw last time so we'd have to ask them
Paul McGrady
47:37
@Jeff - didn't we explore this in the last round and people were afraid it was a lottery?
Rubens Kuhl
48:08
Last time it decided to do the drawing after application, so they didn't explore the possibility of not charging or including that in the application fee.
Steve Chan
48:15
Raffle I believe
Maxim Alzoba
48:20
I wonder if it going to be legal to held a formal lottery fully online
Paul McGrady
48:39
@Jeff - thanks.
Jim Prendergast
48:43
Rubens - is it a question of the $$ or is there another reason for this? You've already spent $185l on the application
Maxim Alzoba
48:47
due to possible restrictions for the physical presence
Christa Taylor
49:01
The entire methodology was based on a legal review to ensure it was fine. Otherwise, some other method will be needed. If an applicant wants priority evaluation than they could show their intent buy entering the draw
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:04
CA lottery law was the reason they charged the fee. Otherwise - it was illegal. But what pays for the cost of the draw? Would we say the application fee pays for that?
Rubens Kuhl
49:10
Money sending costs and issues. Sending money in some jurisdictions is problematic.
Christa Taylor
49:25
We never really dug into the $100 - it was some minimal amount
Rubens Kuhl
50:09
Will do.
Rubens Kuhl
50:38
6.4 is the same batch/group issue.
Paul McGrady
52:56
I don't see that Susan is on the call.
Rubens Kuhl
53:48
I think that the exchange of priority numbers affects other in contention sets, but not applications not in contention.
Rubens Kuhl
54:14
So I support the idea only if it doesn't apply to in contention strings.
Katrin Ohlmer
54:28
+1 Rubens
Paul McGrady
56:07
@Rubens - does the $100 lottery ticket carve out applications in contention sets? The $100 lottery ticket also affects other applications in contention, no?
Paul McGrady
56:32
@Jeff - any actual evidence that happened? Or is it a hypo-fear?
Jim Prendergast
56:36
one of the benefits of my compromise auction proposal is nearly all contention sets are settled in a matter of months. Eliminates this problem
Jim Prendergast
56:59
if Jeff is thinking about it - others are
Paul McGrady
57:01
@Jim - again, are we talking about auctions now?
Jim Prendergast
57:37
Jeff answered that - but just pointing out how this problem goes away with my proposal
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:43
Could we limit this to brands?
Martin Sutton
57:58
so can we simply exclude those in contention
Paul McGrady
58:21
+1 Martin - exclude those in contention.
Christa Taylor
58:30
+1
Justine Chew
58:33
Agree with Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:34
+1 Jef
Katrin Ohlmer
58:37
makes sense - let comment be filed during comment period
Donna Austin, Neustar
58:52
Apologies all, I've had technical difficulties this morning and have only just been able to join.
Rubens Kuhl
59:29
Paul, if the priority number is not used in contention set resolution, then it doesn't matter, but we might consider that during the decision on contention set resolution, perhaps ?
Justine Chew
01:00:00
Me
Justine Chew
01:00:36
Correct, I was confused.
Justine Chew
01:00:43
With your comment
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:00:46
IS this default to one panelist if parties don't agree? I support that
Justine Chew
01:01:05
It was a question and Emily has provided an answer.
Paul McGrady
01:02:28
@Rubens - I'm not sure that is necessary. My point was that there are lots of things that could affect cnotention sets, so there can't be a brightline rule. That said, I think Jeff's suggestion that the place for last minute substantive changes to the status quo is public comment is right.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:02:42
Yes - iti should be a recommendation
Justine Chew
01:04:01
This appear somewhere else I believe, so whatever it is we should treat them equally.
Justine Chew
01:04:08
* appears
Emily Barabas
01:04:22
yes, will do. thanks Justine.
Justine Chew
01:04:40
Language issue?
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:47
Can we specify that agreement to have a 3-expert panel could mean someone agreeing to pay 2.5 experts or is this too descriptive ?
Justine Chew
01:06:15
My problem was with the words "filing of"
Justine Chew
01:07:27
ok, it's a sentence structure
Justine Chew
01:07:46
it's okay
Justine Chew
01:08:57
performance?
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:59
Execution of the IO sounds like we are killing him ? ;-)
Justine Chew
01:09:10
+1 Rubens
Justine Chew
01:09:23
performance by
Justine Chew
01:09:49
sure, understood
Justine Chew
01:10:44
At-Large
Justine Chew
01:10:56
yes
Robin Gross
01:12:16
To be fair to other groups, this should be submitted as a comment rather than in the text of this document.
Paul McGrady
01:14:41
Isn't "we are seeking public comment" inherent in seeking public comment?
Justine Chew
01:16:05
The At-Large are proposing such changes
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:57
I don't believe we should say in the report to seek public comment. We can welcome it if believe it's warranted. Agree with Paul.
Justine Chew
01:17:21
I thought the WG did a piecemeal check on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. Which is why At-Large decided to review it and submit a revision.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:30
Right - but we should get public comment on the CPE Guidelines.
Justine Chew
01:19:23
+1 Jamie. How do we effect change to CPE Guidelines, criteria, scoring?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:20:47
I thought the scoring system was laid out in the CPE Guidelines
Jim Prendergast
01:20:55
gaggle of guidance?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:27
:-) @ Jim
Justine Chew
01:21:31
@Anne, the scoring is in the AGB and replicated in the CPE Guidelines
Jamie Baxter
01:22:57
i’m definitely not talking about changing the scoring, but more specifically about the language of the CPE guidelines, such as the suggestions that ALAC are providing
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:05
@Justine - yes - the CPE Guidelines make the existing scoring system very visible and easy to understand - that is why iit is good to get public comment on that.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:59
We need to point it out. It's important
Justine Chew
01:28:06
Do we really need to quote the same language in both this No Agreement section AND the rationale. Seems like overkill.
Paul McGrady
01:29:56
hand up
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:31:14
Agree with Paul
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:27
"Also not able to agree whether what status quo would be in this case"
Robin Gross
01:31:36
Good point, Rubens
Katrin Ohlmer
01:32:19
+1 Rubens
Justine Chew
01:32:51
I have no issue with putting down the history, I'm just saying we don't have to repeat it 2 sections.
Paul McGrady
01:33:19
@Rubens - maybe. But the AGB can't be changed without conensus. If the Board thinks the "default" is AGB + something else, that is up to them. But we can't declare a change to the status quo without consensus.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:29
correct
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:00
There is no agreement on what the default is
Robin Gross
01:34:10
Can we say there was no consensus for change, as opposed to trying to say what the default is?
Justine Chew
01:34:26
Change to what?
Paul McGrady
01:34:33
hand up again
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:00
Paul, our general default was 2012 implementation, not 2012 AGB. And the 2012 implementation is in the eye of the beholder because it stopped short of being implemented.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:13
@ Robin - no consensus for change is the same thing as saying the 2012 AGB is the default.
Robin Gross
01:35:46
but we don’t agree on default, so we leave that alone.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:00
The 2012 AGB is not an agreed default.
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:27
status quo is, and AGB is a part of that
Jim Prendergast
01:36:36
if we say its the AGB - then we completely ignore how the program was implemented. We can't do that. That's a reality that doesn't exist. I don't agree with how the Board went about that but it is what it is.
Justine Chew
01:37:32
But what is status quo?
Rubens Kuhl
01:37:42
Priority Raffle...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:50
We could also argue the Board resolution is the status quo
Marc Trachtenberg
01:38:05
So we are saying that going forward that we endorse the Board's ability to deviate from the AGB without consensus?
Paul McGrady
01:38:07
@Jeff - that is fine: "The WG could not reach consensus on any changes to the status quo"
Justine Chew
01:38:08
But you said "no change to status quo" so what does that mean?
Jim Prendergast
01:38:29
Have we asked Board liasions?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:52
"Some members believe the status quo is the AGB which is silent on the topic. Other members believe the status quo is the Board resolution"
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:39:09
I think Jim means Becky and Avri
Robin Gross
01:39:10
That is a difference for the board to solve, it seems to me.
George Sadowsky
01:39:22
I am listening.
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:28
@Marc, if there is no recommendation, than yes, IRT, Council and Board may go in a different direction with no repercussion.
Justine Chew
01:39:35
Are we indicating that it's up to the Board to decide what status quo?
Justine Chew
01:39:52
*what status quo is?
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:54
Justine, Board is not bound to follow status quo.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:40:05
@Justine - that seems a bit awkward...
Jim Prendergast
01:40:20
one way to solve this is "The Working Group could not agree." FULL STOP.
Justine Chew
01:40:22
But that's what Jeff said
Paul McGrady
01:40:39
@Staff - can we see the change to the language in the document? "The WG could not reach consensus on any changes to the status quo"
Steve Chan
01:41:49
@Paul, we are trying to see where things land before we start integrating language.
Steve Chan
01:42:07
There’s still on-going discussion
Elaine Pruis
01:43:01
Have redone a consensus call?
Elaine Pruis
01:43:13
have WE done a consensus call?
Justine Chew
01:43:54
Hmm, I think we have used "WG did not agree" or "WG was not able to agree" in many other places.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:44:16
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
01:44:24
@Justine - point taken. OK
Jim Prendergast
01:44:44
@Justine - to Elains point - right now there is no agreement but could be no consensus post consencus calls?
avri doria
01:45:27
The Board has not had a conversation on it. One is planned for beginning of Aug. I only can offer my thought that the decision made in the last round was that the decision made in the last round did not have status quo status.
Justine Chew
01:45:33
@Jim, you've lost me.
Paul McGrady
01:46:04
@Anne - I'm not ignoring the Board's decision. In fact I asked for the Board resolution to be typed into this document.
Paul McGrady
01:46:30
@Jeff - can I defend my honor? :-)
Jim Prendergast
01:47:08
@Justine - sorry - for now - all references are "do not agree." But once consensus calls are taken, those could change to "do not have consensus."
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:35
Paul - very simply we disagree on what "status quo" means - everywhere else implementation is the status quo.
Justine Chew
01:48:08
@Jim, I agree. Hence the "did not agree" should prevail at this point. As conceded by Paul.
Paul McGrady
01:48:53
@Anne - perhaps, but I'm not hiding the Board's decision. I think the Board's decision is really clear that it only applied to the last round. If it applies to future rounds, why would he Board have asked us to develop policy.
Paul McGrady
01:49:45
"Ban" was spin - not historically factual.
Paul McGrady
01:50:37
I don't think that the spin should govern and the Board's actual resolution be relegated to a footnote.
Robin Gross
01:50:49
Agree with Paul, “ban” is spin and rather emotional.
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:48
I don't see this group agreeing on putting "ban" or "banned" in the report.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:52:21
"ban" is clearly not accurate based on the fact that applicants could choose c and maintain their generic application for the next round
Robin Gross
01:52:30
It is better to quote the board’s actual words rather than trying to put words in the board’s mouth on this controversial topic. We should be cautious.
Paul McGrady
01:52:45
Not accurate. Spin
Marc Trachtenberg
01:53:00
"ban" is fake news
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:54:42
COMMENT: I just think we have to point out that the Working Group does NOT agree on what the status quo means. In all other issues, it's 2012 implementation.
Paul McGrady
01:55:04
It is accurate now, as written. What could be more accurate than the Board's actual resolution?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:56:06
+1 tp Paul
Robin Gross
01:56:12
The board didn’t say “ban”, we should use the words the board used.
Paul McGrady
01:56:18
There was never any agreement on the word "ban." That was one side's spin and it is appropriate for it to come out and be replaced by the Board's actual resolution.
Susan Payne
01:56:35
I strongly disagree with the loaded term "ban". Factual reference to the text of the actual resolution cannot reasonably be objected to
George Sadowsky
01:56:43
I can speak to what I believe what was the intent of the Board. I believe that the intent was to institute a ban which the GSO could, if it wished, propose an alternative in the future. But that hasn't happened.
Paul McGrady
01:56:58
+1 Susan.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:57:27
There is other guidance that it only applied to 2012 - in the Board's direction for the GNSO to decide what to do for the next round
Paul McGrady
01:57:53
+1 Marc. The Board's resolution is the Board's resolution. It isn't vague.
Justine Chew
01:58:15
... the Working Group was not able to agree on any changes to the status quo or what the status quo is.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:58:32
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
01:58:34
George is not the Board.
Paul McGrady
01:59:04
He is a beloved and respected, but the Resolution says what it says.
Robin Gross
01:59:10
The board’s resolution didn’t say “ban”. They could have, but they did not. We shouldn’t lose sight of that fact.
George Sadowsky
01:59:37
Jeff, that's right, and these memories are 6+ years old.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:59:43
Exactly right Jeff.
Jim Prendergast
02:00:07
Apologize but have to move to another call
Paul McGrady
02:00:18
+1 Robin. If it was a ban, why in the world would they ask us to develop Policy (which we have failed to do)? The resolution says what it says. Spin isn't helpful.
Marc Trachtenberg
02:00:29
How you saw it is not relevant Kathy
Justine Chew
02:00:29
@jeff, can we please add "....... the Working Group was not able to agree on any changes to the status quo OR WHAT THE STATUS QUO IS."
Rubens Kuhl
02:00:54
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
02:01:01
Kathy's individual impressions shouldn't trump the Board resolution.
Terri Agnew
02:01:04
Next: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 09 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:01:11
+1 to Justine's suggestion