Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
23:26
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday 9 January 2020 at 20:00 UTC.
Julie Hedlund
24:51
Yes, it was attached Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
29:02
Could someone repost the link please?
Greg Shatan
29:13
Sorry to join late. Are we discussing spiritual guidance?
Emily Barabas
29:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDaENKupUoHSfIQ20klw0NYZK1Qwm43l56EvISHJi7Q/edit
Kathy Kleiman
30:19
Tx Emily!
Greg Shatan
30:39
One is the minimum. There
Greg Shatan
31:03
s nothing that discourages other WG or IOT members from joining SPIRT.
Greg Shatan
32:10
We may want to sunset that provision after 2-3 years.
Susan Payne
32:30
+1 Greg to sunsetting
Greg Shatan
33:02
We don’t want to have to amend the charter when there are zero willing candidates with WG experience.
Greg Shatan
34:40
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.
Greg Shatan
34:59
The Bylaws need to be amended!
Rubens Kuhl
35:41
We have some ICANN communities where joining is very easy in very aspect, like ALAC or NCSG... so, this restriction is not much restrictive.
Paul McGrady
35:52
Of course, that didn't stop anyone from changing several rules, post-launch, in the last round...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:12
The Standing part of its title is essential here
Justine Chew
36:47
@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)
Emily Barabas
37:45
Predictability Framework Working Document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.7kd5yr7uelh2
Paul McGrady
38:38
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:03
Sorry to be late -
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:17
+1 Paul
Greg Shatan
42:43
“Spirit Team” sounds like the non-acrobatic part of a high school cheerleading squad
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:13
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.
Donna Austin, Neustar
43:53
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.
Justine Chew
44:00
@Jeff, is it mentioned whether participation in SPIRT allows observers?
Justine Chew
44:07
Or not?
Rubens Kuhl
45:03
My IRT experience suggests that being prescriptive is good.
Justine Chew
45:36
Okay
Greg Shatan
45:37
IMHO, the prescriptiveness comes from trying to solve for various problems, including the ones just raised on this call.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:37
@Greg but isn't indicative that we're just creating a new beaurocracy* and introducing new problems?
Justine Chew
47:51
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.
Heather Forrest
48:09
@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.
Elaine Pruis
48:10
This is our response to the demand for predictability. Have we considered other options?
Paul McGrady
48:29
+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?
Elaine Pruis
48:43
because the systems in place last time did not ensure predictability
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:07
@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.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:10
+1 Paul.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:11
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.
Kathy Kleiman
49:34
@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...
Kathy Kleiman
50:03
If we choose to go forward with an experiment - let's flag it!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
50:14
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.
Kathy Kleiman
50:51
@Jeff: It can be short :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:04
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.
Paul McGrady
51:14
It just seems like we are opening up a non-predictability mechanism.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
51:26
Yes, Paul. Exactly.
Jim Prendergast
51:36
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.
Rubens Kuhl
52:30
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:23
Thx @Steve
Greg Shatan
54:12
I nominate Paul and Kristine for the SPIRT.
Paul McGrady
54:34
@Greg - ha!
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:09
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:47
An important distinction @Alan
Paul McGrady
56:21
+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?
Heather Forrest
56:21
Is there a less process-bound way to refer policy vs implementation issues to a small team?
Greg Shatan
57:07
+1 to Alan. This is going overboard.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:20
@ Heather - that question goes to the portion of the framework that Steve referred to as
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:35
That Steve referred to as Step 1
Rubens Kuhl
58:38
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.
Paul McGrady
58:55
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.
Heather Forrest
59:01
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:16
Since we now say the SPIRT happens right after the AGB is finalized, why not just continue the IRT and make it truly "Standing"?
Justine Chew
59:34
Agree with Alan, @Jeff you had a question to this effect in the other document to this effect.
Rubens Kuhl
59:53
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:28
Agree @Rubens
Jeff Neuman
01:01:01
I agree @Donna. I would like to see people appointed from the different groups, but operate on an individual basis.
Justine Chew
01:02:27
+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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:42
noted @Donna that view is complementary to the issue @Alan raised IMV
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:06
That is up to the appointing organization.
Greg Shatan
01:03:26
I think if they are appointed by an organization, we can be fairly loose about the rules of their participation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:03:58
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.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:05
@Greg, we could be loose, but the appointing SG/C/SO/AC may have different rules
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:10
Yes Anne but the appointing body needs to send well equipped and knowledgeable people I think is the point being made
Heather Forrest
01:04:58
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:52
That works for me @Heather but I like the KISS approach to many things ;-)
Greg Shatan
01:06:02
@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?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:06:09
+1 Cheryl
Alan Greenberg
01:06:18
Any appointing body can FORCE representation because they can always withdraw their appointment.
Rubens Kuhl
01:06:20
Only CPH is incumbent. Every other C/SG/SO/AC are not.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:06:23
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.
Paul McGrady
01:06:35
Not sure what I was supposed to note.
Greg Shatan
01:06:35
Even registrars are not truly incumbent.
Greg Shatan
01:07:28
“Beware the Ides of March”? @Paul
Paul McGrady
01:07:47
et tu Gregor?
Heather Forrest
01:09:27
@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?)
Heather Forrest
01:09:48
Is there any obstacle to using this existing vehicle?
Heather Forrest
01:10:11
We can call it Standing Committee on IRIT, if we want (I'm not anti-the name SPIRIT)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:10:11
Excellent idea Heather, I believe this is consistent with the Council's Standing Selection Committee.
Susan Payne
01:10:23
@Heather - apols what is SCBO?
Steve Chan
01:10:35
@Heather, not that I’m aware of. Both of those groups have Councilors and non-Councilor SMEs
Heather Forrest
01:10:42
Sorry, Susan - Council's Standing Committee on Budget and Operations
Heather Forrest
01:10:51
And the SSC is Standing Selection Committee
Susan Payne
01:10:52
ah thx
Jeff Neuman
01:10:53
Only Councilors serve on those...
Jeff Neuman
01:10:59
like the PdP 3.0 group :)
Heather Forrest
01:11:21
No, Jeff - exactly my point - both SSC and SCBO are populated by non-Councillors
Susan Payne
01:11:25
SSC definitely includes non-councillors. the SG/C's appioint a candidate
Heather Forrest
01:12:05
@Jeff - I'm sorry, there's a big misunderstanding here.
Heather Forrest
01:12:08
I'd like to speak to this
Steve Chan
01:12:09
Correct, both the SCBO and SSC have non-Councilors.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:12:24
indeed they do
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:26
IDN Scoping Team also have non-councillors.
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:02
But SCBO and IDN Scoping Team members have a strong majority of Councillors, while SSC are mostly non-Councillors.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:13:19
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
Jeff Neuman
01:13:49
@Anne - yes that is mentioned above
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:13:56
PUblic comment was in favor of Standing IRT
Greg Shatan
01:14:34
The last call was not the best time for Europe, or most of North America, South America or Africa...
Justine Chew
01:15:07
Agree with Anne, that's what I mentioned earlier in chat also
Justine Chew
01:15:32
The present work is in response to that feedback from community
Christopher Wilkinson
01:16:49
@Predictability - Please recall that the primary predictability issues are likely to concern third parties, not applicants.
Heather Forrest
01:17:06
@Greg - you clearly missed my "Let's not geographically discriminate" message on the list. APAC needs a friendly time zone call, too
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:58
@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.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:03
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.
Greg Shatan
01:18:43
@Rubens, there are only so many calls I can attend during the 3 hours a day that I see my family.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:44
steve, I think you are correct the SSC and the SCBO were created because the Council identified a need.
Heather Forrest
01:18:53
Good point, Donna - I think the benefit lies in having both Councillors and non-Councillors.
Heather Forrest
01:19:25
+1 Steve - exactly my point. Let's not die in the trenches trying to build something, and lose sight of what we need
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:52
While we could leave to either a team or a Council committee, we should define it now, whatever the solution is.
Justine Chew
01:19:57
+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.
Heather Forrest
01:20:15
So let's word the recommendation that "The Council should form a standing committee to achieve the following: ..."
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:20:37
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:13
The group should function like a Standing IRT.
Jim Prendergast
01:22:58
At least you werent getting yelled at Greg.. ;)
Justine Chew
01:23:23
I'm not convinced that we will be better off without being prescriptive now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:26
back to KISS - works for me
Rubens Kuhl
01:23:56
Me neither, Justine. Whatever the solution is.
Greg Shatan
01:24:01
There is, of course, no right answer here.
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:12
We can settle with the answer that bothers less people.
Justine Chew
01:26:23
The public comment process would benefit from prescriptive draft recommendations or questions
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:22
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.
Justine Chew
01:28:03
+1 Jeff, again as I said, I see this work is in response to public comment feedback.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:28:14
+1 Justine
Greg Shatan
01:28:36
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.
Greg Shatan
01:29:08
The public comment process would benefit from us getting this thing done and out for public comment!
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:33
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.
Steve Chan
01:29:52
@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?
Greg Shatan
01:31:27
@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.
Jim Prendergast
01:32:34
doesnt look like she is still on
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:39
IF you really want to simplify things, just have the IRT continue as Standing and if new reps are needed, then they get appointed.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:32:56
Supporting Kathy #16. Text. CW
Jim Prendergast
01:33:22
what about the flow chart?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:33:37
@Anne, I think that's a very sensible suggestion.
Justine Chew
01:33:48
What the categories of changes?
Justine Chew
01:34:14
What about the categories of changes and public comments tables in the other document?
Christopher Wilkinson
01:34:38
@staff - NB text in the flow chart boxes illegible.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:35:09
@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.
Steve Chan
01:35:41
@Christopher, understandable. As Jeff noted, the document was circulated via email for you to review on our own device.
Steve Chan
01:35:55
Hopefully that will work better for you
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:59
@ Donna - makes sense
Justine Chew
01:36:05
hand up -- quick question on Predictability Framework
Heather Forrest
01:37:22
+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.
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:48
Heather, exactly. IRTs are staff-led, which is not what seems to be best for SPIRT.
Paul McGrady
01:40:26
What does "collusion" mean? Is one person's collusion another person's cooperation to resolve a problem?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:40:43
Staff can we get a quick link ?
Emily Barabas
01:40:55
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16qDoiK6vydQp6a0v9tMvU2l5fcypJY24hCzTIVTjKwk/edit?pli=1#heading=h.vhvbz3om92n9
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:41:07
thanks!
Rubens Kuhl
01:41:24
How would the SubPro drinking game be ?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:20
@Jeff, can you tell us how much they actually paid for any TLDS that they may be operating?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:27
Any reporting should be balanced.
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:59
Donna, the domain industry blogs sometime made some guesses, based on where a company was in only one private auction at a fiscal period.
Elaine Pruis
01:45:37
Some of the private auction details were disclosed when all parties agreed
Christopher Wilkinson
01:46:39
The auctions - if we have to have them - HAVE to be fully transparent.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:47:06
@Christoper, why?
Greg Shatan
01:47:17
@Paul: How about “No Quid Pro Quo”?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:47:19
+1 Paul
Christopher Wilkinson
01:49:33
Maintain the reference to “collusion”. That is a well known concept in competition policy.
Jim Prendergast
01:49:57
so 8 and 9 are sort of yin and yang
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:51:57
@Jeff, I think several of us have already answered "yes" to the question in #8. We do want to encourage private resolution.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:52:20
Agree Kristine
Susan Payne
01:52:56
@Kristine - yes!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:53:36
+ 1 Justine.
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:45
Could be a goal, since overpaying implies taking money out of other efforts, like end-user outreach.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:53:45
@Justine, agree it is for the applicants to decide what a string is worth.
Julie Bisland
01:53:54
NEXT CALL: Monday, 13 January 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Phil Buckingham
01:53:54
Agreed Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:54
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 :-)
Robin Gross
01:54:16
Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!
Susan Payne
01:54:18
thanks all
Alberto Soto
01:54:20
Thanks, bye bye!!!!
Avri Doria
01:54:24
bye, thanks
Heather Forrest
01:54:26
Bye Julie, thanks !