hello all

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

apologies, I have to drop after an hour

@Jeff there is a crackly in your audio (is this just me??

Just me or is Jeff’s audio a bit crackly?

same CLO

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf

I hear it

+1 cheryl

+1 Cheryl

it sounds like jitter

+1

Your Loud and Clear @Paul!

Noted Paul Thanks!

Thanks Jeff!

Thanks for asking that Paul - I too was wondering

audio has gone again Jeff

you moved Jeff

@Jeff, audio is going scratchy again

yikes - more CRACKLING!

Crackling again

@CLO - thank you!

You moved @Jeff!

wireless mike?

good thx

That is what I was going to ask: is this a "new information" standard of review?

Could we get calendar items for these meetings ? the earlier the better. Thanks

@Jim, yes, we will make sure to get these out soon

Thx Jeff - so the timetable is flexible.

@Martin I could not agree or disagree before reviewing the comments received.

should be viewed as a living document at this point IMO

I think we need to be very careful about kicking too much into implementation. That will lead to longer term problems.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf

@Staff - when you send the new work plan, could we also have calendar invite for the remaining calls? That will help scheduling the Fall - especially as we approach the Nov & December holidays.

+1 tp Paul above. That would be incredibly helpful

@Paul, yes, we will work on getting invites out to the group

@Steve, @Julie, @Emily, when can we expect to get access to the Public Comment Review Tool please?

@Justine, we are aiming to get the review tool covering the topics that will be covered at ICANN69 by the end of the week.

Good point @Anne

The other topics will follow

@Emily, thanks!

We definitely dug in. @Paul - this was mostly early on when you were still on GNSO Council

@Paul I would definitely accord greater weight to Board or GAC comments .

Spent a *good deal* of time and effort IMO

Oh wow - will we be issuing SPIRT Advisory Opinions?

@Jeff - @Christopher - thank you for your view.

+1 Anne. The question seems to misunderstands what the SPIRT is meant to do. Which misunderstanding is a problem all of its own.

Works for me @Anne

I don't think it says the body of decision "comes" from SPIRT - I think body of decisions comes from GNSO Council, per the way SPIRT is structured.

@Jeff - are we going to be writing back to the Board? Do we have time for that? Are we writing back to all commenters?

Our responses / reactions etc., to any commenter (Board included) needs to be recordedin the PC Analysos tool for the record

Sorry about the typos

@CLO - that makes sense. I just don't want us to get bogged down trying to agree over a letter to the Board

No time for bogging down on anythong ;-)

anything

@Jeff - that all makes sense

+1

Or strengthen our rationale to remove misunderstanding by commenters.

@Jeff: That is correct.

Indeed @Justine

sorry i was stacked in another meeting,,,

NP @Giacomo

We need more information from the Board on what the concern is.

@Paul, I think their concern is enforceability of PICs and RVCs

@Justine - I understand that. I just don't understand where the concern is coming from.

Agree with Paul - might be good to have the Board Liaisons discuss with us any of the Board feedback that is unclear.

@Jim - Yes, we should hear more from the liaisons.

So let's ensure that happens post haste...

+1 Susan. With PICs and RVCs in future rounds, many of our "solutions" unravel and there is NO WAY we are getting this in by the end of the year.

At the extreme, if our recommendations are not implementable for whatever reason ..... (not that I agree)

I meants without PICS...

Well said @Susan

@Jeff, good point that legal advice would only look at what the bylaws currently say

We have recommended PICs and RVCs for resolution of issues with the GAC after Early Warning as well as resolution of Objections after public comment on the proposed resolution. Our whole system is depending on PICs and RVCs. I don't think this amounts to content regulation, but maybe the resolution is to put the PICDRP OUTSIDE of ICANN and into an independent panel.

+1 Jeff. I suspect in some respects, ICANN Legal, being bound by the existing Bylaws, will provide highly risk averse advice.

@Anne, yes that definitely warrants consideration too

The last question in point A is important - "Can the PDP WG provide guidance on how to utilize PICs and RVCs without the need for ICANN to assess and pass judgment on content?"

hand up

So sorry to have to drop off during this discussion. I'll catch up on the recording

And that is part of their job, but it is not our role to manage or mitigate such risks either

I need to drop as well. Apologies.

'Rabbit hole'indeed!

I agree, Jeff

Thanks Jeff. Glad to hear it doesn't have to be today - need time to absorb it all.

Passive is the wrong word.

Have to drop out now for another appointment. Will review all this before the nmecxt meeting.

I don't know why Applicant Support shouldn't go through the Auction Proceeds mechanism when adopted. That analysis covered ICANN ByLaws and powers. There seems to be a natural fit between Applicant Support needs and Auction Proceeds purposes.

+1 Cheryl

+1 Cheryl.

Also "pro bono" likely involves no monies passing from offeror to recipient.

Yup

ICANN would also need to ensure that they are not favouring one provider over another for pro bono services, so that may also be a concern. This has come up previously with the communications strategy whereby ICANN would not pursue on the basis that they could not favour or promote one gTLD over another.

Yes indeed @DOnna

@Jeff: Maybe this: “The Board asks the PDP WG to include recommendations and implementation guidance for objective evaluation criteria to determine “different intended uses” because we believe this will be invaluable to ensure consistent and transparent processes regarding this element in string similarity evaluations. (Pg. 103)"

Yes, not this but Predictabiliity

Thanks Jeff. We should all start putting on our thinking caps on that.

Topic 25: IDNs

Is next in the agenda

Time Check 10 mins before we butt up against the Pre- #ICANN69 Policy Webinar

Sounds like it Paul, what you said first.

no. i dind't.

No I didn't either

Madw me wonder why we had worked on CPE so much

can we get a authentic interpretation of what this means ?

@giacomo - yes, we will add this to the list

@Giacomo - I think we would all benefit from Avri and or Becky walking us through this on a future call. Not emails or letters but a call.

Indeed!

several areas need clarification

bye all, have to drop for the policy webinar

+1 Jim- I think that would be great. We may be overreacting to some of this.

@Justine, but this is exactly why we are working on. we work on CPE but principles we are defining go beyond the CPE as a tool.

There were no more topics on the agenda

Thanks everyone we will reach out to our Board Liaisons ASAP

The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled during ICANN69 on Wednesday, 14 October 2020 (two sessions) at 12:00 UTC (14:00 CEST) and 14:00 UTC (16:00 CEST).All remote participation sessions will use Zoom rooms (must register first). You can find the Zoom room links for public meetings on the ICANN69 Meeting Schedule [69.schedule.icann.org].

Thx

Bye for now!

@Giacomo, yes, but the WG recommendations don't reflect that detail. We have been discussing the CPE Guidelines post the PC period.

Bye