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

Congrats Donna!

Congratulations Donna!

Congrats Donna!

Congrats Donna

Thanks

Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit

Can we have an omnibus email of everything Jeff wants us prepared to discuss on the next call? I'm concerned I won't see an email or an attachment.

Good idea Paul, sure thing

Beat me to it Steve

Thanks Steve and Jeff.

my audio is choppy for @Jeff

is it just me?

same her CLO

нуы

yes

it's not too bad

choppy for me. I thought it was my connection. I'm in I-80 somewhere...

better

Jeff are you moving again?

still choppy

Julie your sound is great!

hmm...I will redial in while julie is going

If we are asking any questions of the public, when will we see a draft of those? Were those already in one of the emails that Jeff mentioned?

@Paul - we will get to that

Thanks Jeff.

but they are based one of the docs that was sent out

nice colours on the top

Thanks. Hopefully they will appear in the Omnibus email

I have a few questions but will wait till Julie is done

Again, the description of difference(s) is what maps to the document we previously displayed and which you have

1. What happens is a member of the public "can't live with" something? What affect does that have no our consensus call?

thank you Julie, I know staff have worked hard on this to make it effective and incorporate learnings from recent public comments.

2. How does a member of the public know whether or not their idea was not considered?

They should read the report before filling out the survey

Or, they can simultaneously go to the Final Report to read it

Section b of every section we have been working on is for deliberations and that section lists what we have considered

can you submit comments on the first three options or does the text box not come up? some groups may wih to comment regardless

This was just an example

This is just a demo

yep

much longer

Ohh Yeah

+1 Susan. Otherwise, we will end up with confusing donuts and only negative comments. It will seem like the response to the report if more negative than it is,

we can record a webinar

Can we amend answers any time before closing date even if we have clicked "Submit"?

deadline question..

i think its best you have a plan to address because its likely to come. And communicate it so everyone is on same page

ANd that is also covered on the usual PC Page

Can more than one person work on the doc at one time?

@Justine: You can’t change your responses when you’ve finally submitted it, although we’ve found that people have sent revised responses.

Not crucial but I noticed that the Topics are listed in normal sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 .... and not according to the topic numbers that we've gotten used to? Meaning 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures, 2.2.2 Predictability etc etc

That’s right Justine. That is deliberate.

Yes, multiple people can work on the doc.

Group work is best done in Woed from

@Justine, we’ve streamlined the numbering in the report

word

so the form will mirror the report

@Jeff, then you'll have to appreciate that the only feedback you will get will be negative, which does not necessarily mean it should carry the day when you haven't allowed other viewpoints to expand on their position

What does can't live with mean? Does that mean that they are going to start an ICANN competitor or does that mean that they are unhappy? Why not just say "Do not support" instead of can't live with?

@Jeff

What Paul suggested makes sense. Can't live with is terminolog y we have used as the WG to try to get to consensus.

@Paul, there is a connotation that "CAN'T LIVE WITH" implies you will object to the final outcome and but do not support simply means you don't like that item.

If we support only part of the text in one topic, how do we answer?

What about support that is tied to conditions - e.g. that another rule remains.

Then let's stick with "do not support"

+1

The EPDP is a non-good example. Let's not adopt their language.

That correct Allan

We wouldn’t be able to integrate that with the data coming in from the form

hand up

Why not filling out the original form online and save the progress each time?

@Alexander, that is fine if you are submitting YOUR answer. Not so much if there is a large group debating on the answers.

I get you Alan!

Question again: what about "conditional support"?

With apologies for joining the call late, this evening CW

+1 Susan

Not allowing happy people to express their joy will make the public comment appear overly negative.

+1 Susan, or even if answer sought to present an understanding of something

when we get to viewing answers, please don't emphasize doughnut charts on radio button answers.

We run the risk of having 4 years of work be accidently shot down. Let's add the comment field for the happy folks too.

@Justine: We aren’t expecting to use the donut charts.

@Julie, thank goodness!

I don't think it's ambiguous to know someone hates something but is willing to live with

What about rating support from "weak support" over "support" to "strong support"?

This way if support is predominately weak plus lots of objections gives a better signal!

too complicated I think @Alexander

Hmmmm

@Alexander, I like that idea. Easier to compile level of acceptance/opposition.

Especially if support is weak - but clear opposition exists we know we have to work on the aspect

Greg said what I was going to say. This is public comment not public poll with grievance-only section.

"Conditional support" .

@Greg: We won’t use donut charts

Agreement could be based on a explicit understanding, so an answer could sought to present that understanding

We could use a term conditional Support SUre

definitely no donut charts!

no donut charting

Positive AND negative narrative. Silencing people who like the report is a very odd approach.

but we also need to make it user friendly

it’s a huge document

With "conditional support" people would have to have the possibility to explain what the condition is!

thanks Jeff - that was actually the question I asked

Adding a Conditional Support is an easy graduation to add IMO

and let of it has been discussed multiple times

Thanks for the clarity Jeff

be realistic!

I would have like to play with the demo .... oh well

@Jeff - my hand went down because Greg channeled me.

We will only eat donuts, not look at donuts :)

Some of us look at donuts and wish we could eat them

How in the world can we back that stuff out of someone's comment?

Do you have to disclose you like someone who proposed something?

that document is still out for feedback, correct?

yes

Donuts have a hole in the middle. Yes?

Also the preamble, yes?

yes

Model 6 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit

Model 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit?usp=sharing

Contact footnote makes sense

if you want a multiplier then go to ICANN last resort auction

No entity has to participate in a private auction.

+1 Paul no entity is forced into private auction, they can force it through to ICANN auction

strong disagreement elaine

No agreement to put this in the model. This is very invasive and could result in the disclosure of sensitive information.

I feel like I expressed my views extensively

Also don't agree with the inclusion of this requirement.

+1’Paul

+1 to Paul

I believe they paid ICANN so its already been disclosed.

What useful information might we be excluding by removing this requirement?

How much to pay someone in a private settlement is sensitive proprietary information.

what scenarios are we trying to resolve? . web? or others?

important for the public to see what possible solutions were considered if there wasn't agreement in the group.

@Martin several examples from 2012

Application only requir6es 15%

I believe

This is more restrictive than the AGB for everyone else.

@Jim, I don't follow. If there is no agreement in the group isn't the probable outcome an ICANN auction of last resort?

so how does what is proposed on screen address transparency requirement for this scenario which actually happened? https://www.thedomains.com/2013/05/16/straat-withdraws-application-for-book-in-favor-of-deal-with-another-applicant/?fb_source=pubv1

@Donna - was referring to the deliberations of the WG. Not contention set.

oh, thanks Jim

It literally says evaluate

yes

That was going to be explicit in the terms and conditions.

i think it does- just fine tuning may be needed

I don't know what non-good faith intent means. It also sounds in tort rather than contract. I hope Jeff reads my suggested changes.

losing Paul audio

Yes

I will have to grab them from a separate document

Ahh, never mind

Not having the requisite bona fide good faith intent is a breach of the terms and conditions

And look at action

make the factors examples rather than exclusive factors and tie them to the T&C rather than "non-good faith" (whatever that is).

How about "noncompliance with the bona fide intention" requirement instead of "non-good faith intent"?

Shall we ban private resolutions altogether then?

Seems reasonable

@Justine - nope. Let's make it work.

can we put this out for comment—what would be the indicators of non-good faith?

There is no consensus to change the status quo which allows private auctions. Let's not backslide into oblivion. Let's keep trying to get to a compromise that gives those who are wary of them something instead of nothing.

I don't hear a solution from Marc. Please can we have some suggestions to move forward?

re Point 1. this is far too complex , too subjective . why not for all applicants involved in over 5 contention set , provide a Funds Flow Statement on completion of each contention set .

We’re trying to ban people from participating to profit, without the intent to run a TLD. So if everyone had to disclose material information about deals that are made, we’re one step closer

There are TLDs that have only nic.tld registered - and even that's not resolving - 8 years after application - how is there "intend to run a registry" detectable? They obviously have not the slightest intend to run their TLD. We will have those Zombi TLDs by the thousands in the next round.

I also believe we need to run whatever proposal we come up with against some scenarios. We can use contention sets from 2012 since they were documented. .book is a good one. lots of deals on that one Im sure there are others. https://icannwiki.org/.book

We can't ban them because there is no consensus to ban them. The status quo is that they exist.

The point is to prevent "speculative applications" in my mind. That's why we ask for "good faith intend".

So why not just say that if there is reasonable evidence that the applicant does not have the good faith intent to operate the TLD the ___consequences occur

Marc's comment is important

I think we also need to see the other language around model 6. The language that refers to deliberations

Lots of homework though between now and next Thur call

It has closed generics

Does not have predictability

bye all

@CLO - looking forward ot the omnibus/syllabus email

yes

Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO.

Bye all!

Thanks Steve

Yes @Jim it will be so... Thanks everyone.... Until Thur Bye for now!

Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC