051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
@Paul — are you hearing Terri?
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
Thanks Jeff. Will do.
SPIRT only gets constituted once the Program is launched!
Sorry after the AGB is published
Last time: Prioritization for example
Plus SPIRT makes recommendations.
Hi all, sorry, I had problems with the connection.
@Jeff - really worried about specific applications being targeted because SPIRIT is lobbied
@Alan/Jeff - all fine and good, but as we know processes are not always bias free, especially if third parties can speak into the process
@Jeff, can we go back up? We skipped an entire paragraph
And its an important one
Because if its not "only" then we need to identify who else.
+1 Paul, clarity is good
Yes. If we don't say that, then the SPIRIT team will be the first stop for lobbying.
@Anne - I think the need for the funnel is important, so anyone inside or outside of SPIRT can raise an issue
but they need to pass them through the entities outlined
It says earlier, " ...formation of a SPIRT to serve as the body responsible for reviewing potential issues related to the Program, to conduct analysis utilizing the framework, and to recommend the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the issue..." GNSO Council shall be responsible for oversight over the SPIRT ...."
Any member of the SPIRIT team can lobby Council, Board and Staff if they want. This is why we need "Only" at the top of this funnel.
"receive submission of"?
Regretfully I must drop off. I will rejoin if possible.
“Take action” infers that the SPIRIT team will do something aside from discuss if it needs to be acted upon
trigger an event / action .....
Makes sense to me
agree on "initiate action"
consider and address?
I agree with Paul.
and thanks to Alan
I think that helps us establish the top of the funnel. Thanks Alan and Anne.
@Jeff - for 1.a. should we spell out that these would not trigger the SPIRIT?
Same for 1.b.
Or at the very least, 1a and 1b should be reported publicly.
“Not referred to the Framework” could be used for 1a -b
Perhaps we need to start with what we DO want SPIRIT to do, not what we don’t want.
@Jeff - OK, let's see how it works when the drafting is done. The more important part of my comment is about the guardrails around "non-minor"? Can the Staff suspend a Round indefinitely? more than 60 days? I'm not for the Staff being able to suspend a round or introduce big delays.
Some flexibility does not equal shutting down a round. The way this is written would allow the shutdown of a round. Need guardrails.
What is the recourse of impacted applicant or community members to appeal against a 1b issue?
Blank checks don't make good guardrails
The SPIRT forms the guardrails = they are involved in making recommendations to counsel
Isn't it really an issue of whether the change will have substantive impact on applicants?
@ALan - but non-minor changes will have substantive impact on applicants.
This language says that they will have a material effect
*council - But one man's substantive impact is another woman's "implementation. that's why we need the SPIRT
+1 Anne -- one person's implementation is another person's policy. Our theme since the beginning of this discussion.
"a material effect" is what the current language says.
1. Cannot suspend round 2. Cannot delay more than 30 days 3. cannot target specific application types
Why not put these guardrails into this section? Why not give the WG time to thing what other guardrails are needed?
4. Cannot delay future rounds
So the recourse for an impacted applicant or community members against a 1b issue is to appeal to GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org on classififcation of the issue as a 1b issue?
If that is the intent, then there has to be a statement to that effect.
@Justine or an accountability complaint - all at great expense and delay -
@Paul - those are major policy issues - not the hard case
@Paul, I'm not saying I agree. I asked the question and the consequence thereof.
@Paul, couldn't some of those clearly fall under "policy changes" category. Versus if the change affects only 1 applicant.
I have to leave now. Bye all.
Could you clarify?
Repeat a, b and c with titles?
Operation minor and non-minor => new processes?
REMEMBER the plan was to read through all this overarching and category text then look at specificity re SPIRIT and come back to make and changes or modifications to the earlier text... But that ship has well and truly sailed in todays discussion...
@Cheryl, that is why I asked if Jeff wanted to read through the whole thing first before questions...
And he said read through Section by Section then find our rabbit holes ;-)
the rabbit holes is my term NOT anything @Jeff stated of course :-)
Thanks Anne that is my (personal) take on it well articulated
Agree Jeff. Looking for a funneled, non-lobbied process with guardrails
Can we add "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation" to the "Process" for 1a and 1b?
Can my guardrails go in the text somewhere so that the WG can well and truly discuss them on the List in between calls?
Let's note that as [ ] text then @Jistine
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
Sorry to join late. I had another call.
@Justine: a special more detailed report than currently envisioned?
Need to update language re "identify an issue" to synchronize with 1st para of section.
Paul - no reason not to insert your examples in the right categories. The guardrails are the checks and balances we are building into the system. SPIRT cannot make determinations. They can only make recommendations.
The guardrails should be put in for Staff
Agree staff should be consulting with SPIRT every step of the way.
We can worry about guardrails for SPIRIT too when the time comes
@Kathy, what report is currently envisioned?
@Jeff, can the policy development process be used to suggest a halt to a round, target types of applications, or shut down future rounds? If so, I don't think those are appropriate delegations from the Council to the SPIRIT.
I think that is what is written... SPIRT is not one of the options listed.
the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. => Spirt should not be assessing beyond finding of "policy"
I think new contract Specifications being included as Policy is a misplacement.
I disagree with Paul
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
The development of Spec 13 was a workaround of the policy, but there was special dispensation by Council that allowed that. I'm not confident that this should be replicated in the future.
Creation of new categories of applications is a huge new issue.
And Specification 13 actually went through very quickly.
Perhaps removing all examples might please everybody ?
@Rubens - not helping.
"Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)."
I think Anne's hand is up for a long time.
This was the policy
@Kathy - I suppose how quick or slow it went through might be a perception based on if you were pushing against it or pushing for it.
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
@Paul, what about the fact that Spec 13 created a new category of TLD?
@Paul - or just trying to follow it!
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
A category that we are confirming through this policy.
@Donna - the AGB created that category and it was well discussed as an outcome leading up to application day. Spec. 13 just protected the category from encroachment by the then-ICANN Staff's "one size fits all" approach to contracting.
New hand too
IT's not for items already identified by the Board or Council as policy. it's for grey areas
@Donna - Spec 13 defined a brand TLD but it’s ultimate purpose was to save ICANN having to individually negotiate 600 contracts for similar (but potentially with differences) - in effect, streamlining a process
Then let's go out to all SGs.
@Jeff - really, the Council wouldn't shortcut the PDP and send this down to the SPIRIT?
A new category of applications is policy. There seems to be agreement above.
Spirt is getting too much input.
Remember our metaphor: everything is a hammer.
If you are on the SPIRT team, everything is an implementation of policy
@Paul: “… under principles of international law and applicable local law.”
THe purpose is for SPIRT to raise possible policy issues that need GNSO Council to address them.
I agree with Paul!
I also agree with Donna's chat statement above: "The development of Spec 13 was a workaround of the policy, but there was special dispensation by Council that allowed that. I'm not confident that this should be replicated in the future.
Time Check @Jeff
Question about AOB.
+1 Kathy, +1 Donna
Drafting issues here, but I think we can keep at it until everyone gets comfortable.
Too bad. We were developing a pretty good train of thought on this.
Is the draft out?
Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
Thanks for the input from everyone today. please keep up some discussion on this subject on the list until we come back to it next week... Bye for now...
@Paul: Re guardrails - you nº 3 goes too far: “3. cannot target specific application types”
Thanks and bye!