Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

excuse tardiness

Welcome, Javier

Pink diamond on the right says "GNSO considers..." Did we mean GNSO Council? Otherwise, what a mess if its the entire GNSO.

A question for when it's appropriate to raise: What's the rationale for why the SPIRT is not involved in A&B?

yep

Isn't the "key" == Notes?

Per Donna's question, I thought the SPIRT would be involved in helping recommend which category an issue would fall in - A, B, C, D. etc

C, D and E are policyissues

They don't have to go through SPIRT

could we have link to doc on screen?

Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit#

Tx Steve!

@Justine: key or legend - is a guide to codes used in a flowchart

if the SPIRT team is in place for several years that doesn't bode well for the next subsequent procedure

@Steve, I agree. I should have said, @Kathy, isn't the Notes the same as the "key"?

The whole issue is which bucket the issues fall in. In truth only GNSO Council can make a final determination on that. So the idea that someone is going to decide whether it is policy or implementation before the SPIRT considers an issue in a grey area e.g. if raised by Staff) might mean there is no reason for a SPIRT. In other words, Staff should not be making that determination if an issue arises.

@Steve, sorry, I may have misunderstood Kathy. :)

A - Operational - minorB - Operational - non-minorC - Operational - new process [or significant change to internal process]D - Possible policy level changesE - Possible policy level new proposals

Important to recognise that people do move on and even a requirement to have one person with the history may not be attainable.

Well noted @Donna

Two years is reasonable, I don't think five years is.

@Kathy - as we know, one person's policy is another person's implementation and that was the whole problem in 2012 round. That is why we have the Annexes. These designations of A, B, C, D, and E are guideline categories but you can't have ICANN Staff making the final call on that. My understanding is that the SPIRT team exists in part to help make recommendations to the GNSO Council where there is an issue.

Agree Anne

+1 Kathy. SPIRT should not be making policy

Anne's point is important in this discussion.

We decided that SPIRT should not be making that call.

There is no suggestion that the SPIRT would be making policy.

+1 Anne, Donna. Also I see, with respect to composition, "The SPIRT should at a minimum ....", the operative word being "SHOULD".

+1 Donna

noted @Justine

... and not "must".

exactly @Anne

GNSO Council "lane" -- "Issues identified as C, D, and E would generally speaking, be expected to be referred to SPIRT. " I know this is a new chart, but this is not what we agreed last week -- and it influences everything!

can we run an example or 2 from last round through this to see how the scenarios run? Its difficult to see how this works in the abstract. Unilateral right to amend contract or changes to community evaluation process? How would that be handled?

Good idea @Jim

@Jeff - but I have been waiting patiently

with a practical solution

Makes sense @Paul (at least to me ;-)

We need a circuit breaker

new hand

I'm okay with composition, seem fair and reasonable.

Agree Jeff that ONE member of SPIRT should not be the one determining whether or not an issue is policy. SPIRT should make a recommendation to GNSO Council as to whether the issue is policy or implementation - this does NOT mean that the SPIRT makes policy - they make a recommendation to GNSO Council as to which bucket the issue or issues that arise fall in - fall in A, B, C, D or E?

Indeed @Anne that covers the intent IMO

@Dnna is characterising the concerns very well right now

Thanks @Donna

Stagering and overlap opportunity is important YES

what happens when someone wants to join from an SO or AC mid-way that is otherwise unrepresented?

How are these two bullets different from each other? I thought the SPIRT was meant to be experts that we all trust, not a mini-GNSO? This whole idea is really scary...

Perhaps the SPIRT should be able to draw on additional expertise as and when required.

@Donna, that is the intent of #3

We should keep it simple it should operate as an IRT.

SPIRT does not DECIDE anything. THey only recommend.

KISS is the best way to go @Anne yes

Not that I see @Jeff

IRTs are also supposed to be representative. But I don't think that there is a restriction as to being appointed by a group.

This language is NOT actually from the IRT composition

out of curiosity - has anyone on this call actually participated in an IRT? Not to single you out but could you possibly share experience?

Thanks Steve - the question is why we are not using the IRT formulation for a Standing IRT?

not a GNSO one only CCWG/CWG ones @Jim

well referring to me

@ANne - IRTs are not required to be representative. If we make this similar to an IRT, then we would just take that out. BUT, many members of the WG and the comments wanted to ensure that it is representative

@Anne, Donna is speaking to the reason now

Having a SPIRT of unbound size is likely going to be problematic

@ Jeff - there is definitely language in GNSO documents talking about the need for IRTs to be representative. I am pretty sure I recall this from the Consensus Policy Framework.

Are the liasions the lifeguards looking out for policy vs implementation?

They could/should be (along with the core group of course @JIm,

the whole Membership should be hypersensitive to Policy vs Implementation of Operations issues IMO

Not necessarily.

No opportunity to dominate in a SPIRIT should be allowed in the model, balance is the key here

as is appropriate Diversity

how about a split, some appointed reps and a few independent folks that are able to speak individuality

Agree Cheryl. There is a way to do this.

I certainly hope so @Donna

According to the CPIF - Implementation Review Team (IRT): The Implementation Review Team, if convened by the GNSO Council, will serve as a resource to implementation staff on policy and technical questions that arise. An IRT will typically consist of, but will not be limited to, volunteers who were also involved in the development of the policy recommendations. As such, the IRT is expected to serve as a resource to staff on the background and rationale of the policy recommendations and return to the GNSO Council for additional guidance as required. Where relevant, the IRT should also include technical or subject-matter experts and contracted parties who can assist staff in the planning for the technical implementation of a policy change. https://www.icann.org/uploads/ckeditor/CPIF_v2.0_2019CLEAN.pdf

Here is the language from the IRT Principles and Guidelines: C. IRTs are should be open to all interested parties, but may not necessarily be representative of the ICANN community, as actual participation may depend on interest and relevance of the topic under discussion.

Guidelines here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf

What Anne says makes sense

Just for accuracy the text I posted from the CPIF it makes no mention of representative.

It is representative, but its not balanced.

So what we are saying here is that there should be members from all stakeholdergroups, but the number from each not balanced?

@Paul - I personally think that's exactly the right question to ask.

KISS for me still means *small and nimble*

@CLO - KISS would make sense for A and B - operational issues only

If it's a mini-GNSO (policy), then everyone will want to be there!

@Jeff - I guess I just need to know what filter to use to look at all the other sections.

The SPIRT team should be representative and balanced, balanced meaning that it should not be dominated by one or two groups. Once the scope of the SPIRT is better understood we may be better placed to understand what would be an optimal number.

Its not my view, necessarily, I just thought that was what we were talking about.

NOt Policy @Kathy IF it recognises and the diversity should assist it that is can and does see Policy then is goes int a Policy Process

new hand

For me Transparency is Key here in COI

Detailed and Contiuous Disclosure is key as well IMO

Sounds like we need Paul's guardrails.

Well said @Greg

Or directly oppose someone else's company?

I agree with Greg and CLO.

Continuous disclosure - it's a new standard

Agree Donna. If we could carve out that the SPIRT won't be able to make policy, target specific applications, target specific types of applications, pause a round for more than a few days and choose not to start the next round, that would take the pressure off all of this and we would be able to more easily come to agreement on all of these other points.

from the IRT recruitment guidelines as to representativeness:

Justine, I think if someone is opposing a particular company on behalf of their employer or an organization, that should be disclosed as well.

@Greg, right, it has to work both ways.

IRT Guidelines: C. The call for IRT volunteers should at a minimum be sent to all members of thePDP working group that was responsible for developing the policyrecommendations. The call for volunteers may need to reach beyond the workinggroup members to ensure broad participation by parties directly impacted by theimplementation and parties with specialized expertise needed forimplementation. In some cases, additional outreach at the start or at a later stageof the IRT may be necessary to ensure that appropriate expertise is availableand that directly affected parties are involved in the IRT.

+2 Paul

That’s it

Continual is probably more accurate than continuous. Continual is repeated but with breaks. Continuous is an unbroken stream.

@Anne - from where can IRTs get the issues that they are to consider?

@Jeff, I really think we need to take a step back and decide whether this SPIRT is going to be the small group of experts or a garden variety IRT that just happens to stand? All of the other issues we are talking about, including needed guardrails, hing on that decision.

+1 Anne

+1 Greg - that is exactly the point. We should not be reinventing the wheel. We should be adopting IRT guidelines except where they don't make sense.

…the latter

@Jeff, then we really need the IRT documents up too so that we can see what we are proposing to change. Not all of us can hold it in our heads like Anne.

At Paul - I don't know if it really works this way but IRT is SUPPOSED to work with Staff to analyze issues and to act as a liaison with GNSO Council when policy issues need to be raised.

The rationale for having a category like A is to avoid paralyzing the program, where every minute, non-impactful, change requires community consultation.

I agree with Donna that staff cannot be the final arbiter of whether or not an issue falls into A or B or any other category.

90 minutes, I’ll post something

the TRIAGE

Can we review D and E quickly?

Let's come to that in the next call @Kathy

Great CLO!

As written, the SPIRT would NEVER develop policy.

@Jeff, CLO and Steve - let's clarify the flowchart on this. Right now, confusion and conflict on this issue.

Thanks Jeff

@Steve, I understand that, but what I am struggling a little with what the SPIRT would actually do.

and Can I Thank not only all of you for this important discussion today but also @Steve staff for the drafting of this Flow Chart which as a DRAFT for Discussion I fine ^Very Helpful Indeed!

I'm getting there, just a bit slow.

Security and stability comes to mind.

Bye for now then more early next week :-) please use the list to continue development for more then here...

NEXT CALL:Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes

:-)

Jeff, I think Name Collision is a historical example

Were doing well actually people !!

tough stuff -- good night, All!

To GReg's example, it's security and stability issue.

Bye for now, have a great weekend

Thanks all!

It if’s Tuesday...

Hthank you

Bye!!