Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Julie Bisland
26:51
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Javier Rua-Jovet
29:45
excuse tardiness
Julie Bisland
30:10
Welcome, Javier
Paul McGrady
31:41
Pink diamond on the right says "GNSO considers..." Did we mean GNSO Council? Otherwise, what a mess if its the entire GNSO.
Donna Austin, Neustar
32:30
A question for when it's appropriate to raise: What's the rationale for why the SPIRT is not involved in A&B?
Donna Austin, Neustar
33:47
yep
Justine Chew
34:49
Isn't the "key" == Notes?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:56
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
Kathy Kleiman
35:14
C, D and E are policyissues
Kathy Kleiman
35:36
They don't have to go through SPIRT
Kathy Kleiman
36:58
could we have link to doc on screen?
Steve Chan
37:10
Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit#
Kathy Kleiman
37:17
Tx Steve!
Kathy Kleiman
37:39
@Justine: key or legend - is a guide to codes used in a flowchart
Donna Austin, Neustar
38:01
if the SPIRT team is in place for several years that doesn't bode well for the next subsequent procedure
Justine Chew
38:37
@Steve, I agree. I should have said, @Kathy, isn't the Notes the same as the "key"?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:40
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.
Justine Chew
39:12
@Steve, sorry, I may have misunderstood Kathy. :)
Kathy Kleiman
00:40:30
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
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:14
Important to recognise that people do move on and even a requirement to have one person with the history may not be attainable.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:35
Well noted @Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:51
Two years is reasonable, I don't think five years is.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:45
@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.
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:04
Agree Anne
Paul McGrady
43:16
+1 Kathy. SPIRT should not be making policy
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:52
Anne's point is important in this discussion.
Kathy Kleiman
44:05
We decided that SPIRT should not be making that call.
Donna Austin, Neustar
44:13
There is no suggestion that the SPIRT would be making policy.
Justine Chew
44:29
+1 Anne, Donna. Also I see, with respect to composition, "The SPIRT should at a minimum ....", the operative word being "SHOULD".
Anne Aikman-Scalese
44:33
+1 Donna
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:51
noted @Justine
Justine Chew
45:36
... and not "must".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:55
exactly @Anne
Kathy Kleiman
48:31
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!
Jim Prendergast
48:43
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?
Justine Chew
49:12
Good idea @Jim
Paul McGrady
49:27
@Jeff - but I have been waiting patiently
Paul McGrady
49:37
with a practical solution
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:52
Makes sense @Paul (at least to me ;-)
Paul McGrady
51:36
We need a circuit breaker
Kathy Kleiman
52:02
new hand
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:17
I'm okay with composition, seem fair and reasonable.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:45
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?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:22
Indeed @Anne that covers the intent IMO
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:50
@Dnna is characterising the concerns very well right now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:04
Thanks @Donna
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:48
Stagering and overlap opportunity is important YES
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:28
what happens when someone wants to join from an SO or AC mid-way that is otherwise unrepresented?
Paul McGrady
01:04:07
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...
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:52
Perhaps the SPIRT should be able to draw on additional expertise as and when required.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:06:50
@Donna, that is the intent of #3
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:08:39
We should keep it simple it should operate as an IRT.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:09:48
SPIRT does not DECIDE anything. THey only recommend.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:53
KISS is the best way to go @Anne yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:53
Not that I see @Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:38
IRTs are also supposed to be representative. But I don't think that there is a restriction as to being appointed by a group.
Steve Chan
01:12:59
This language is NOT actually from the IRT composition
Jim Prendergast
01:14:35
out of curiosity - has anyone on this call actually participated in an IRT? Not to single you out but could you possibly share experience?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:14:41
Thanks Steve - the question is why we are not using the IRT formulation for a Standing IRT?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:33
not a GNSO one only CCWG/CWG ones @Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:44
well referring to me
Jeffrey Neuman
01:15:49
@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
Steve Chan
01:15:55
@Anne, Donna is speaking to the reason now
Steve Chan
01:16:28
Having a SPIRT of unbound size is likely going to be problematic
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:10
@ 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.
Jim Prendergast
01:17:26
Are the liasions the lifeguards looking out for policy vs implementation?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:58
They could/should be (along with the core group of course @JIm,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:32
the whole Membership should be hypersensitive to Policy vs Implementation of Operations issues IMO
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:55
Not necessarily.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:58
No opportunity to dominate in a SPIRIT should be allowed in the model, balance is the key here
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:13
as is appropriate Diversity
Elaine Pruis
01:22:00
how about a split, some appointed reps and a few independent folks that are able to speak individuality
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:22:09
Agree Cheryl. There is a way to do this.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:47
I certainly hope so @Donna
Jim Prendergast
01:25:32
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
Steve Chan
01:25:50
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.
Steve Chan
01:26:39
Guidelines here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:19
What Anne says makes sense
Jim Prendergast
01:28:04
Just for accuracy the text I posted from the CPIF it makes no mention of representative.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:28:07
It is representative, but its not balanced.
Annebeth Lange
01:29:24
So what we are saying here is that there should be members from all stakeholdergroups, but the number from each not balanced?
Heather Forrest
01:29:27
@Paul - I personally think that's exactly the right question to ask.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:42
KISS for me still means *small and nimble*
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:13
@CLO - KISS would make sense for A and B - operational issues only
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:43
If it's a mini-GNSO (policy), then everyone will want to be there!
Paul McGrady
01:30:43
@Jeff - I guess I just need to know what filter to use to look at all the other sections.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:31:10
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.
Paul McGrady
01:31:22
Its not my view, necessarily, I just thought that was what we were talking about.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:37
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:02
new hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:14
For me Transparency is Key here in COI
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:07
Detailed and Contiuous Disclosure is key as well IMO
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:35:20
Sounds like we need Paul's guardrails.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:22
Well said @Greg
Justine Chew
01:37:42
Or directly oppose someone else's company?
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:01
I agree with Greg and CLO.
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:10
Continuous disclosure - it's a new standard
Paul McGrady
01:38:13
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:55
from the IRT recruitment guidelines as to representativeness:
Greg Shatan
01:38:59
Justine, I think if someone is opposing a particular company on behalf of their employer or an organization, that should be disclosed as well.
Justine Chew
01:39:43
@Greg, right, it has to work both ways.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:47
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:56
+2 Paul
Steve Chan
01:41:02
That’s it
Greg Shatan
01:41:14
Continual is probably more accurate than continuous. Continual is repeated but with breaks. Continuous is an unbroken stream.
Paul McGrady
01:43:21
@Anne - from where can IRTs get the issues that they are to consider?
Paul McGrady
01:44:25
@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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:10
+1 Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:22
+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.
Steve Chan
01:47:05
…the latter
Paul McGrady
01:47:34
@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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:48:25
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.
Steve Chan
01:51:00
The rationale for having a category like A is to avoid paralyzing the program, where every minute, non-impactful, change requires community consultation.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:41
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.
Julie Bisland
01:53:38
90 minutes, I’ll post something
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:57
the TRIAGE
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:54
Can we review D and E quickly?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:07
Let's come to that in the next call @Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:16
Great CLO!
Steve Chan
01:55:28
As written, the SPIRT would NEVER develop policy.
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:07
@Jeff, CLO and Steve - let's clarify the flowchart on this. Right now, confusion and conflict on this issue.
Paul McGrady
01:56:09
Thanks Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:17
@Steve, I understand that, but what I am struggling a little with what the SPIRT would actually do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:30
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!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:32
I'm getting there, just a bit slow.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:57:20
Security and stability comes to mind.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:52
Bye for now then more early next week :-) please use the list to continue development for more then here...
Julie Bisland
01:57:54
NEXT CALL:Tuesday, 26 May 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:55
:-)
Greg Shatan
01:58:03
Jeff, I think Name Collision is a historical example
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:17
Were doing well actually people !!
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:39
tough stuff -- good night, All!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:58:43
To GReg's example, it's security and stability issue.
Annebeth Lange
01:58:46
Bye for now, have a great weekend
Paul McGrady
01:59:00
Thanks all!
Greg Shatan
01:59:08
It if’s Tuesday...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:59:11
Hthank you
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:14
Bye!!