Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Michelle DeSmyter
17:49
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Emily Barabas
20:00
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=1091535370
Karen Lentz
23:18
Limited Public Interest
Kathryn Kleiman
24:45
what arguments in favor?
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
24:50
hello everyone
Kathryn Kleiman
25:46
tx
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
26:14
Did ALAC use this in 2012?
Christopher Wilkinson
26:42
zoom computer audio not accessible on Firefox !! Please call me +3284345332
Michelle DeSmyter
27:17
Hello Christopher - thank you, dialing out to you now
Anne Aikman-Scalese
28:12
Jeff - is it still true that ALAC can go to IO to ask for community objection?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
31:00
Thanks Jeff.
Jamie Baxter
31:48
@Anne .. so it sounds like from what Jeff is saying is that ALAC would encourage their constituents to post comments during the Application Comment Period.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:06
it is more not being charged for than funding for of course
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:56
ALAC is mode up of 15 people
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:28
and ALAC has the ability to activate this process Not At-Large
Maxim Alzoba
34:01
at large represent their members, not necessary some particular community members (Alaska fishermen, for example)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:56
and it has to take into account ALL of the opinions of its community @Maxim
Kathryn Kleiman
35:04
OK
Kathryn Kleiman
35:07
tx
Anne Aikman-Scalese
35:18
Community may not be able to afford it so the IO remedy is important.
Kathryn Kleiman
35:21
basically, At Large can't file Community Objections
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:24
in the case of things like this at least of the Regions would need to agree to even get it considered
Kathryn Kleiman
35:35
Are we OK with that?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
35:37
If we follow ALAC's logic, all SO/AC/SG/Cs should have standing to file objections. I'm not sue I agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:16
At-Large per se would not even be classified as a Community of any homogeneity at all beyong Internet Users
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:19
That's OK Donna as ALAC will exercise its advice actionability on this matter later on the process I am confident
Paul McGrady
37:54
Because we like unresolved conflicts of interest and poor outcome results and lots of wasted money?
Kathryn Kleiman
38:28
agreed
Paul McGrady
38:28
RE: IO
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:51
I am relieved you clarified that @Paul
Kathryn Kleiman
39:11
Also community
Paul McGrady
39:30
@CLO - for sure. I understand ALAC's role. I really don't get continued employment of an IO. It was a failed experiment and the Board is right to question us.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:10
You would not be surprised at my personal views on that I suspect @Paul but not my role to pontificate on those here
Jamie Baxter
40:36
+1 Jeff & Anne on ensuring the IO can interject on community applications if necessary
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:09
Yes resourcing is a significant issue raised by ALAC in its comments @Anne (as I know many of you have read)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:07
Are we responding to each individual Board comment in writing?
avri doria
43:50
if the issues are covered in the final req, no need to send a letter unless you want to.
Maxim Alzoba
44:58
last time one was enough
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:10
Operational Design Phase on the IO - but it's important to avoid conflict of interest. It would be good for the role to rotate - e.g. assign 1/3 of applications to one IO for analysis, 1/3 to another IO and 1/3 to another IO.
Emily Barabas
51:59
Article 12
Emily Barabas
52:05
Section 12.2 (x)
Becky Burr
52:31
“public policy matters”
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
56:35
I don't see how we can change the bylaws.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:46
Example: There is no law against Closed Generics. The existing advice is based on public policy.
Kathryn Kleiman
58:13
Governments consider themselves repositories of the public interest
Marc Trachtenberg
58:22
+1 to Paul
Marc Trachtenberg
59:12
@Anne - God point. that’s why they should have had a legal basis for that objection
Kathryn Kleiman
01:00:04
+1 Donna on Early Warnings
Paul McGrady
01:00:15
@Kathy - but governments don't even agree on what the public interest is. China's interests for its public diverge greatly from Canada's. That is why rooting objections in law is better.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:03:52
But Paul, that's what makes GAC Advice so hard. They have to agree!
Becky Burr
01:04:22
keep in mind that IRP decisions are binding going forward. IRP decisions don’t modify bylaws.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:04:50
@Kathy - that’s their problem - not everyone else’s
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:04:52
Agree with Kathy: GAC consensus advice is not always an easy conversation for the GAC to have and agree language.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:13
12.3; Each Advisory Committee shall determine its own rules of procedure and quorum requirements; provided that each Advisory Committee shall ensure that the advice provided to the Board by such Advisory Committee is communicated in a clear and unambiguous written statement, including the rationale for such advice. The Board will respond in a timely manner to formal advice from all Advisory Committees explaining what action it took and the rationale for doing so.
Jamie Baxter
01:05:33
my sound has been great
Jim Prendergast
01:05:34
for some speakers, yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:37
All good here on sound
Emily Barabas
01:05:51
As a reminder, this is the document we are displaying: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=1163822586
Emily Barabas
01:05:57
See the first tab
Michelle DeSmyter
01:06:28
If you you would like a dial out, I am more than happy to dial out to you.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:07:09
12.3
Susan.Payne
01:07:50
12.2 (a) iThe Governmental Advisory Committee should consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:08:45
So what Susan has provided seems consistent with the WG recommendations, no?
Paul McGrady
01:09:16
What is non-Consensus advice?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:09:27
Does the GAC actually have the ability to provide non-consensus advice?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:10:10
non-consensus advice = individual comment like from anyone else
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:11:42
I think the GAC may have provided advice that said 'some governments' had issues with some strings, but I might be misremembering, eg .ram
Martin Sutton
01:11:53
non-consensus advise = opinion
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:12:31
but it's not advice either.
Becky Burr
01:12:35
yes, but that does not trigger bylaws process
Jim Prendergast
01:12:53
And the GAC hasn't issued formal advice during a remote meeting so far
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:14
But influence is still important to consider, although it is only GAC Consensus Advice that triggers bylaw
Paul McGrady
01:13:17
Can we go back to the Org comments?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:14
GAC has just referred to prior Consensus Advice in communiques from remote meetings. But Early Warnings may be a form of advice..
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:20
have to drop, thanks all
Marc Trachtenberg
01:20:38
me as well
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:26
is there a different link to the Google doc that covers this particular topic? The link I have seems to start at Topic 30.
Emily Barabas
01:22:38
Here you go, Anne: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=316274359
Jamie Baxter
01:22:43
and to be clear there were never two application comment periods. ICANN just never closed the application comment period for community applicants
Jamie Baxter
01:23:06
I would fully support a single period for all support and opposition
Katrin Ohlmer
01:25:09
+1 Jamie
Kathryn Kleiman
01:26:23
But there may be opportunities... can we preserve that?
Annebeth Lange
01:26:34
+1 Jamie
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:27:11
I agree with Jamie.
Emily Barabas
01:27:59
Recommendation 34.7: Evaluators must be able to issue Clarifying Questions, or utilize similar methods to address potential issues, to those who submit letters of opposition to community-based applications.
Emily Barabas
01:28:09
Recommendation 34.6: Evaluators must continue to be able to send Clarifying Questions to CPE applicants but further, must be able to engage in written dialogue with them as well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:54
Apologies I fropped for a short while
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:01
Dropped
Emily Barabas
01:29:05
Recommendation 34.9: If the Community Priority Evaluation Panel conducts independent research while evaluating an application, limitations on this research and additional requirements must apply. The Working Group recommends including the following text in the Applicant Guidebook: “The Community Priority Evaluation Panel may perform independent research deemed necessary to evaluate the application (the “Limited Research”), provided, however, that the evaluator shall disclose the results of such Limited Research to the applicant and the applicant shall have an opportunity to respond. The applicant shall be provided 30 days to respond before the evaluation decision is rendered. When conducting any such Limited Research, panelists are cautioned not to assume an advocacy role either for or against the applicant or application.”
Emily Barabas
01:29:11
Implementation Guideline 34.10: To support transparency, if the Community Priority Evaluation Panel relied on research for the decision it should be cited and a link to the information provided.
Paul McGrady
01:31:01
Applicant share with others and gather support which it could submit.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:32:05
­­Agree with Anne
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:36:12
I agree with Jamie--there should be a dedicated timebound comment period for community applicants.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:36:57
Provided, of course, that changes go out for public comment again
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:09
I would agree EXCEPT with respect to a situation where the Evaluator issues an intent to rely on independent research.
Jamie Baxter
01:37:47
@Kathy .. it’s important to note that Applicant Comment Period is not the same as Public Comment Period, despite some interchanging the two on this and prior calls
Jamie Baxter
01:38:30
Applicant Comment Period is that dedicated time at the reveal of all applications at the very beginning of the process.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:38:37
Sorry @Jamie, but now I am confused!
Kathryn Kleiman
01:38:53
For regular applications, we are having a public comment period on the new application.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:39:07
You are saying the same application period should exist for CPE applications. Good!
Jamie Baxter
01:39:23
@Kathy .. Public Comment periods are used to describe periods when applicants make a change that needs to go our for “public comment”
Kathryn Kleiman
01:39:33
But if there are changes to the regular application - rising to a certain level - they go out to public comment again.
Jamie Baxter
01:39:59
@Kathy .. yes
Kathryn Kleiman
01:40:04
It should be ditto for CPE applications - if significant questions are being raised and if significant changes are being offered. Right?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:40:52
@Jamie: you are right that I think of application comment periods and later public comment periods in the same breath - all opportunities in a fixed window for the public to comment.
Jamie Baxter
01:42:42
@Kathy .. I don’t believe they are one in the same
Kathryn Kleiman
01:45:03
To Marilyn
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:52
Vale Marilyn Cade
Michelle DeSmyter
01:45:58
Next meeting: Thursday, 12 November at 20:00 UTC
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:46:08
To Marilyn
Annebeth Lange
01:46:09
Marilyn will be sorely missed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:34
Keep up the online work in things out of todays call
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:41
THank you Marilyn - rest in perfect peace....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:52
Bye
Annebeth Lange
01:46:54
Bye for now