hello 2 all

Checking on the phone number and that person as well :)

that's an Los Angeles number

"We can't see or hear" was me. I had problems on a call on Sunday. Sorry about that!

Thank you, Paul!

can we get calendar items for the June meetings? thanks

We are working on that Jim

yes

They should be out soon

Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing

what section?

As Jeff noted, we are on Page 8

Governance Structure of the SPIRT

Governance Structure

for those on audio only, it might be good to read titles.

Sounds like a Charter

or elements of a Charter

Remit of the SPiRT?

SPIRT Remit

Input/Output of Policy issues to SPIRT

+1 Jeff - departments get renamed all the time

yep

Problems with login. No sound. which PW?

Punt to Council to decide

Hi Christopher, I see you logged in twice and I can hear the audio. Are you joining by telephone as well?

those are steps

I think the same threshold for raising an issue is appropriate

WG can not say GNSO Council what to do - only to recommend

Which is 1/4 of each house or majority of one house

That's a good question.

GNSO Council itself manages the process

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.

Have we run this past Keith and his co-chairs? I would be interested in their reaction.

vice-chairs

@Paul - no....Chairs/Vice Chairs change and views can change

Good point Jeff

The Board, Council and Org can also be lobbied.

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

That might result in quite a lot of work for the SPIRT and I'm (sadly) a little worried about cross-retaliatory SPIRT assignments.

+1 Jeff - that would be a mess

If the Charter or Remit of SPIRT is clear that should restrict some of the cross-retaliatory assignments.

+1 Jeff - this really should be a Council decision

I'm in the queue now because I think my question may help clarify

@Paul - it does seem that punting this to the Council to deal with would be easiest to get agreement in this group

+1 Jeff

Plus it has the added benefit of letting the Council weigh its options and manage its own work load

because it is GNSO policy in development

Agree Jeff.

SSAC may not have understanding of all processes

The ACs have liaisons to the GNSO Council, so they have voice there.

there is no requirement to give veto like rights to all parties who want to have it

I have some input on this...

+1 Kathy - we have to be sure that we don't end up with the Council delegating policy development to the SPIRT

what are the reasons to believe Council does so?

They'll get separated

Operational minor + operational Major = categories of issues that go from these groups to SPIRT.

bnew hand

the idea of Council not understanding what policy is quite fresh

if something is being considered by council then surely the reps on council are already taking the views of their constituency/stakeholder gp

otherwise they aren't doing their job

There becomes a path for the Staff and SPIRT to create policy be Council inaction

by Council inaction

Let's create a default that if the Council doesn't do anything in 60 days, it is deemed rejected

+1

It can always come back

@Paul, as we know it can often take Council a long time to consider an issue.

still better than Council dismissed

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.

Dismissed without prejudice?

60 days would be too long for Council to object to it going to SPIRT. SPIRT is supposed to work fast.

Good point Anne

@Anne - the 60 days is when it comes from SPIRT rather than going to it.

So if its agreed its an operational issue, why does it need GNSO Council agreement?

@Jeff - but for every non-policy example we can all think of policy-disguised as operations examples.

It seems that if Council immediately believes it's policy, not operational, it would be dumb for SPIRT to do a bunch of work.

Agreed Anne

Agreed Anne

I think Staff has to be able to raise issues. This is about implementation and staff is executing that.

or new fresh RPMs 3.0 or PICs 2.0

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.

@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?

Stopping the program is an extreme example that is clearly policy

@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

+1 Jeff - let's spell those out. It would bring comfort

Folks - we said SPIRT should operate under IRT rules

but if an issue arose that only applied to one typ of applicant, it would have to target them, no?

@Anne -- what limitations (or powers) would that mean?

(IRT rules)

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.

@Jim--agreed

@Jim - but a change to community rules would be policy, right? And the SPIRT is supposed to stay out of that.

@Paul - in that case wouldn't the SPIRT pass it on to Council for consideration

@Donna - one hopes

Or the Council may never have passed it to the SPIRT in the first place, if it’s ambiguously policy development?

I thought that was the first test--policy or operational--if clearly policy goes through to Council.

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.

Or maybe they make a decision and the Council doesn't act and 60 days later - new policy targeting a type of applicant.

@Jeff - thanks!

@Jim .. that is correct. they were actions taken by ICANN staff

For this one, if I recall, it’s a mixture of the PDP Manual, which is leveraged by the IRT guidelines.

Will the non-GNSO members have a vote?

Do we want to expressly discuss IRT Guidelines? As part of our guardrails?

They should if IRT members have a vote.

It should operate as a Standing IRT

That was my understanding too -- isn't that even part of the SPIRT acronym?

Agree Anne--if you've been appointed to the SPIRT is should be on equal footing.

Personally I agree @Anne

So do I @ Anne

Hand up

Ha!

Shouldn't we include this background as a reference in this document?

That IRT is, generally, the governing doc.

with some modifications...

Tx!

+1 Kathy

+1 Kathy, excellent idea to include a description of how the Annex came about.

Agreed Kathy, Anne and Justine

Jeff, can I make a suggestion?

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.

that makes sense @Steve

In an IRT, would staff raise the issue with the IRT or with the Council?

I think a diagram makes sense -- a flow chart! (if I understand Steve's suggestion)

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?

Right, flow chart

But it's that very ambiguity we've been discussing all day -- and we're the "experts"

I take nothing personal :)

Disagree all day

Agree, Anne

LOL!!!

:-)

Next meeting is Thursday, 21 May at 0300 UTC

Cliffhanger ;-)

Bye for now then....

Maybe staff should (again) circulate links to the standard IRT remit/framework and that of the CSC?

Bye, bye!