Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday 9 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC.

Yes, it was attached Jeff

Could someone repost the link please?

Sorry to join late. Are we discussing spiritual guidance?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit

Tx Emily!

One is the minimum. There

s nothing that discourages other WG or IOT members from joining SPIRT.

We may want to sunset that provision after 2-3 years.

+1 Greg to sunsetting

We don’t want to have to amend the charter when there are zero willing candidates with WG experience.

Look at what happened with ccTLD membership on Empowered Community. One seat was set aside for a non-ccNSO ccTLD. With growing ccNSO membership, the seat couldn’t be filled.

The Bylaws need to be amended!

We have some ICANN communities where joining is very easy in very aspect, like ALAC or NCSG... so, this restriction is not much restrictive.

Of course, that didn't stop anyone from changing several rules, post-launch, in the last round...

The Standing part of its title is essential here

@CW, in brief IRT deals with implementation of approved policy recommendations while the SPIRT deals with issues that may arise after AGB is approved (which happens after IRT folds)

Predictability Framework Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.7kd5yr7uelh2

I agree with Christopher about setting this SPIRIT up, not because of the reasons that he puts forth, but because if people can still take their issues to the Board, GAC, etc., I don't see what the point of the SPITIT is. It looks like just another place for people to lobby for post-AGB changes.

Sorry to be late -

+1 Paul

“Spirit Team” sounds like the non-acrobatic part of a high school cheerleading squad

I think the SPIRT is meant to address issues more quickly and in some cases, add special expertise quickly. however, i am very concerned that it not be used to block other existing mechanisms. As heather pointed out, existing mechanisms should be used where possible. These include Input and Guidance. So we don't want a conflict where, for example, CPH votes send it to SPIRT and NCPH votes use GNSO Guidance process.

I'm luke warm about the notion of the SPIRIT, but I really don't understand why we are being so prescriptive about things like composition, length of service etc.

@Jeff, is it mentioned whether participation in SPIRT allows observers?

Or not?

My IRT experience suggests that being prescriptive is good.

Okay

IMHO, the prescriptiveness comes from trying to solve for various problems, including the ones just raised on this call.

@Greg but isn't indicative that we're just creating a new beaurocracy* and introducing new problems?

Also in the Initial Report the WG asked if Predictability Framework is a good idea? So these are some specifics of what's in the Framework for input.

@Kristine - I tried to make a strong case in the last call for using existing mechanisms available through the GNSO Ops Procedures and/or informal reference back to Council, rather than create something new.

This is our response to the demand for predictability. Have we considered other options?

+1 Kristine. Seems to me that the SPRIRT simply caves on the issue of whether or not there should be predictability for applicants. Wouldn't it be better to simply say, no changes and take up your complaints in the next review?

because the systems in place last time did not ensure predictability

@Jeff, I apologize that I have been less active the past several calls due to conflicts, so I'm just now refocusing on this specific issue and I am finding that I don't like what I'm hearing.

+1 Paul.

The original Concept on which we sought public comment was Standing IRT - I think the SPIRT is supposed to be a Standing IRT. public comment went in support of that.

@All -- I think we should reflect the concerns (including from previous discussions) so that future ICANN participants know how new and revolutionary this SPIRT process is...

If we choose to go forward with an experiment - let's flag it!

I guess I just think we're trying to solve for y, having already amended the guidebook to solve for all the random issues that already happened. I don't think we'll ever have 100% predictability and i'm ok with that.

@Jeff: It can be short :-)

It seems we'll get lots of public comment but let's say the idea of Standing IRT was pretty strongly support in the original public comment.

It just seems like we are opening up a non-predictability mechanism.

Yes, Paul. Exactly.

our goal is to have it as tight as possible when finalzied but even after 2012 round and sub pro there may be 1 or 2 issues.

Those escalations paths for issues existed in 2012, they were just a bit limited for people with knowledge of ICANN Org and were handled by NGPC.

Thx @Steve

I nominate Paul and Kristine for the SPIRT.

@Greg - ha!

To some extent the standing group of experts in 2012 was the New gTLD Applicant Group established under the RySG. This was the group that actively engaged with ICANN staff when procedures or policy was changed without prior consultation with applicants or the community. I believe that's why the idea of a predictability framework was initialy discussed and supported at the time. However, the SPIRIT seems to be taking on a life of its own that is creating concern about adding unnecessary layers of bureacracy.

An important distinction @Alan

+1 - how long would it take to get the GNSO's (not GNSO Council) view on a topic. How is that faster than the Council addressing post-AGB change requests?

Is there a less process-bound way to refer policy vs implementation issues to a small team?

+1 to Alan. This is going overboard.

@ Heather - that question goes to the portion of the framework that Steve referred to as

That Steve referred to as Step 1

For background, when I read the EPDP Phase 1 Final Report, I thought there would be no differences of understanding whatsoever. But in fact in the RegDataPolicy IRT, we've hit some... so, I became fond of prescriptiveness.

But without a formal position from the AC or SO, the formal position of the SPIRIT member wil be indecision. To get the formal position of the AC SO, there would have to be a process, which could take a very long time.

It's just that (going back to my comments on Tuesday) I don't understand why Council can't take questions up on an ad hoc basis. Council is a body whose lifespan isn't tied to any particular stage in a PDP - it keeps going.

Since we now say the SPIRT happens right after the AGB is finalized, why not just continue the IRT and make it truly "Standing"?

Agree with Alan, @Jeff you had a question to this effect in the other document to this effect.

Anne, if those members want to transition from the IRT to the SPIRT, it would be fine... but an IRT needs to be time- and mission- limited.

Agree @Rubens

I agree @Donna. I would like to see people appointed from the different groups, but operate on an individual basis.

+1 Rubens. I also think it's better for the community for what was undertaken by NGPC for the last round to be assumed by a CC entity like SPIRT.

noted @Donna that view is complementary to the issue @Alan raised IMV

That is up to the appointing organization.

I think if they are appointed by an organization, we can be fairly loose about the rules of their participation.

I'm neutral to being only appointed or appointed and representative. I don't think we can foresee at this point what will work best.

@Greg, we could be loose, but the appointing SG/C/SO/AC may have different rules

Yes Anne but the appointing body needs to send well equipped and knowledgeable people I think is the point being made

This conversation is death by process - but I'd rather see us tighten a concept up now in the development phase than get all the way to the point of implementation and realise that we went too far into the weeds.

That works for me @Heather but I like the KISS approach to many things ;-)

@Donna, is your proposal that we overrule the appointing group’s rules and mandate independence and expertise-based decisionmaking regardless of their internal group rules?

+1 Cheryl

Any appointing body can FORCE representation because they can always withdraw their appointment.

Only CPH is incumbent. Every other C/SG/SO/AC are not.

Agree Heather, I don't think we have a collective agreement and understanding of the concept and that is creating confusion for the implementation discussion.

Not sure what I was supposed to note.

Even registrars are not truly incumbent.

“Beware the Ides of March”? @Paul

et tu Gregor?

@Steve - Am I correct in thinking that a Council Standing Committee could do this, and that such a committee could be populated by non-Councillors? (We have non-Councillors on the SCBO and the SSC, correct?)

Is there any obstacle to using this existing vehicle?

We can call it Standing Committee on IRIT, if we want (I'm not anti-the name SPIRIT)

Excellent idea Heather, I believe this is consistent with the Council's Standing Selection Committee.

@Heather - apols what is SCBO?

@Heather, not that I’m aware of. Both of those groups have Councilors and non-Councilor SMEs

Sorry, Susan - Council's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations

And the SSC is Standing Selection Committee

ah thx

Only Councilors serve on those...

like the PdP 3.0 group :)

No, Jeff - exactly my point - both SSC and SCBO are populated by non-Councillors

SSC definitely includes non-councillors. the SG/C's appioint a candidate

@Jeff - I'm sorry, there's a big misunderstanding here.

I'd like to speak to this

Correct, both the SCBO and SSC have non-Councilors.

indeed they do

IDN Scoping Team also have non-councillors.

But SCBO and IDN Scoping Team members have a strong majority of Councillors, while SSC are mostly non-Councillors.

Re conflict of interest, there should be additional questions to be disclosed. By way of example, please see the additional questions associated with Auction Proceeds. a more detailed SOI is needed for the SPIRT

@Anne - yes that is mentioned above

PUblic comment was in favor of Standing IRT

The last call was not the best time for Europe, or most of North America, South America or Africa...

Agree with Anne, that's what I mentioned earlier in chat also

The present work is in response to that feedback from community

@Predictability - Please recall that the primary predictability issues are likely to concern third parties, not applicants.

@Greg - you clearly missed my "Let's not geographically discriminate" message on the list. APAC needs a friendly time zone call, too

@Greg, if a topic is dear to someone, then some effort like attending a call at a late hour is the way to handle it.

If the Council has final authority over decisions made by the SPIRIT, which is what I had understood to be the case, then it seems that there would be value in having the SPIRIT with representation from Councilors to bridge any future consideration by Council.

@Rubens, there are only so many calls I can attend during the 3 hours a day that I see my family.

steve, I think you are correct the SSC and the SCBO were created because the Council identified a need.

Good point, Donna - I think the benefit lies in having both Councillors and non-Councillors.

+1 Steve - exactly my point. Let's not die in the trenches trying to build something, and lose sight of what we need

While we could leave to either a team or a Council committee, we should define it now, whatever the solution is.

+1 Cheryl, again I see this work as responding to public comments feedback and which should explicitly allow for explicit participation from outside of GNSO.

So let's word the recommendation that "The Council should form a standing committee to achieve the following: ..."

If the group is representative, SOs and ACs can choose to put a Councilor on it or not. It's up the SO/AC. and Cherly and Donaa are correct that there must be a way for non-GNSO types to participate and for those unaffiliated with ICANN SOs and ACs.

The group should function like a Standing IRT.

At least you werent getting yelled at Greg.. ;)

I'm not convinced that we will be better off without being prescriptive now.

back to KISS - works for me

Me neither, Justine. Whatever the solution is.

There is, of course, no right answer here.

We can settle with the answer that bothers less people.

The public comment process would benefit from prescriptive draft recommendations or questions

and this thing can/does do that... but we need to decide now how far we can functionally get in Scope/intentions and implementable details.

+1 Jeff, again as I said, I see this work is in response to public comment feedback.

+1 Justine

I’m not opposed to being more specific. Just wanted to float the idea of a higher level approach. I can see the merits of both approaches. Maybe we need to be surgically less specific.

The public comment process would benefit from us getting this thing done and out for public comment!

When we are looking into things that might change rapidly over time, being less prescriptive is better. But ICANN community dynamics seems pretty stable to me.

@Greg, you can do both as well. Starting with the high-level approach and then perhaps also going a layer of detail further, where warranted?

@Steve, certainly. Practically, it depends on what we’re working from. And here we are working from a fairly prescriptive text. So rolling back is the direction more readily available to us.

doesnt look like she is still on

IF you really want to simplify things, just have the IRT continue as Standing and if new reps are needed, then they get appointed.

Supporting Kathy #16. Text. CW

what about the flow chart?

@Anne, I think that's a very sensible suggestion.

What the categories of changes?

What about the categories of changes and public comments tables in the other document?

@staff - NB text in the flow chart boxes illegible.

@Anne, with one caveat, IRT's are managed by staff and that may need to be address in the Standing Committee because of the expectation that staff will be coming to the committee suggesting changes to process.

@Christopher, understandable. As Jeff noted, the document was circulated via email for you to review on our own device.

Hopefully that will work better for you

@ Donna - makes sense

hand up -- quick question on Predictability Framework

+1 Donna re the involvement of staff in IRT. Therein lies the principal difference (apart from timing, ie IRT during implementation, this SPIRIT or committee on an ongoing basis afterwards) between IRT and SPIRIT/Standing Committee.

Heather, exactly. IRTs are staff-led, which is not what seems to be best for SPIRT.

What does "collusion" mean? Is one person's collusion another person's cooperation to resolve a problem?

Staff can we get a quick link ?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit?pli=1#heading=h.vhvbz3om92n9

thanks!

How would the SubPro drinking game be ?

@Jeff, can you tell us how much they actually paid for any TLDS that they may be operating?

Any reporting should be balanced.

Donna, the domain industry blogs sometime made some guesses, based on where a company was in only one private auction at a fiscal period.

Some of the private auction details were disclosed when all parties agreed

The auctions - if we have to have them - HAVE to be fully transparent.

@Christoper, why?

@Paul: How about “No Quid Pro Quo”?

+1 Paul

Maintain the reference to “collusion”. That is a well known concept in competition policy.

so 8 and 9 are sort of yin and yang

@Jeff, I think several of us have already answered "yes" to the question in #8. We do want to encourage private resolution.

Agree Kristine

@Kristine - yes!

+ 1 Justine.

Could be a goal, since overpaying implies taking money out of other efforts, like end-user outreach.

@Justine, agree it is for the applicants to decide what a string is worth.

NEXT CALL: Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Agreed Justine

Lots actually covered today people... good call...Thanks everyone … Homework to review docs and previous messages on Auctions topic, of course more next week... and Bye for now :-)

Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!

thanks all

Thanks, bye bye!!!!

bye, thanks

Bye Julie, thanks !