Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Maxim Alzoba
37:00
hello all
Terri Agnew
37:13
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Susan.Payne
37:46
apologies, I have to drop after an hour
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:00
@Jeff there is a crackly in your audio (is this just me??
Griffin Barnett
38:03
Just me or is Jeff’s audio a bit crackly?
Jim Prendergast
38:05
same CLO
Martin Sutton
38:07
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf
Julie Hedlund
38:07
I hear it
Susan.Payne
38:11
+1 cheryl
Annebeth Lange
38:18
+1 Cheryl
Maxim Alzoba
38:36
it sounds like jitter
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
38:41
+1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:49
Your Loud and Clear @Paul!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:03
Noted Paul Thanks!
Paul McGrady
40:25
Thanks Jeff!
Jim Prendergast
40:33
Thanks for asking that Paul - I too was wondering
Martin Sutton
40:35
audio has gone again Jeff
Susan.Payne
40:36
you moved Jeff
Terri Agnew
40:36
@Jeff, audio is going scratchy again
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
40:37
yikes - more CRACKLING!
Annebeth Lange
40:40
Crackling again
Paul McGrady
40:40
@CLO - thank you!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:43
You moved @Jeff!
Alexander Schubert
41:25
wireless mike?
Martin Sutton
41:49
good thx
Paul McGrady
48:33
That is what I was going to ask: is this a "new information" standard of review?
Jim Prendergast
50:15
Could we get calendar items for these meetings ? the earlier the better. Thanks
Emily Barabas
50:44
@Jim, yes, we will make sure to get these out soon
Martin Sutton
52:54
Thx Jeff - so the timetable is flexible.
christopher wilkinson
53:13
@Martin I could not agree or disagree before reviewing the comments received.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:24
should be viewed as a living document at this point IMO
Jim Prendergast
56:23
I think we need to be very careful about kicking too much into implementation. That will lead to longer term problems.
Emily Barabas
57:42
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-langdon-orr-neuman-30sep20-en.pdf
Paul McGrady
58:16
@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.
Susan.Payne
58:47
+1 tp Paul above. That would be incredibly helpful
Emily Barabas
59:10
@Paul, yes, we will work on getting invites out to the group
Justine Chew
01:01:02
@Steve, @Julie, @Emily, when can we expect to get access to the Public Comment Review Tool please?
Emily Barabas
01:01:49
@Justine, we are aiming to get the review tool covering the topics that will be covered at ICANN69 by the end of the week.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:53
Good point @Anne
Emily Barabas
01:02:02
The other topics will follow
Justine Chew
01:02:08
@Emily, thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:05:57
We definitely dug in. @Paul - this was mostly early on when you were still on GNSO Council
christopher wilkinson
01:06:31
@Paul I would definitely accord greater weight to Board or GAC comments .
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:37
Spent a *good deal* of time and effort IMO
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:07:32
Oh wow - will we be issuing SPIRT Advisory Opinions?
Paul McGrady
01:07:54
@Jeff - @Christopher - thank you for your view.
Paul McGrady
01:12:36
+1 Anne. The question seems to misunderstands what the SPIRT is meant to do. Which misunderstanding is a problem all of its own.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:12:58
Works for me @Anne
Justine Chew
01:13:07
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.
Paul McGrady
01:13:46
@Jeff - are we going to be writing back to the Board? Do we have time for that? Are we writing back to all commenters?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:00
Our responses / reactions etc., to any commenter (Board included) needs to be recordedin the PC Analysos tool for the record
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:18
Sorry about the typos
Paul McGrady
01:16:13
@CLO - that makes sense. I just don't want us to get bogged down trying to agree over a letter to the Board
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:57
No time for bogging down on anythong ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:03
anything
Paul McGrady
01:17:43
@Jeff - that all makes sense
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:17:49
+1
Justine Chew
01:18:25
Or strengthen our rationale to remove misunderstanding by commenters.
Julie Hedlund
01:18:26
@Jeff: That is correct.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:17
Indeed @Justine
Giacomo Mazzone
01:21:42
sorry i was stacked in another meeting,,,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:03
NP @Giacomo
Paul McGrady
01:22:12
We need more information from the Board on what the concern is.
Justine Chew
01:22:58
@Paul, I think their concern is enforceability of PICs and RVCs
Paul McGrady
01:24:09
@Justine - I understand that. I just don't understand where the concern is coming from.
Jim Prendergast
01:25:38
Agree with Paul - might be good to have the Board Liaisons discuss with us any of the Board feedback that is unclear.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:12
@Jim - Yes, we should hear more from the liaisons.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:35
So let's ensure that happens post haste...
Paul McGrady
01:27:32
+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.
Justine Chew
01:27:42
At the extreme, if our recommendations are not implementable for whatever reason ..... (not that I agree)
Paul McGrady
01:27:42
I meants without PICS...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:49
Well said @Susan
Susan.Payne
01:28:41
@Jeff, good point that legal advice would only look at what the bylaws currently say
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:30:24
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.
Justine Chew
01:30:34
+1 Jeff. I suspect in some respects, ICANN Legal, being bound by the existing Bylaws, will provide highly risk averse advice.
Susan.Payne
01:31:55
@Anne, yes that definitely warrants consideration too
Justine Chew
01:32:37
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?"
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:32:51
hand up
Susan.Payne
01:33:12
So sorry to have to drop off during this discussion. I'll catch up on the recording
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:59
And that is part of their job, but it is not our role to manage or mitigate such risks either
Greg Shatan
01:34:02
I need to drop as well. Apologies.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:03
'Rabbit hole'indeed!
Annebeth Lange
01:36:09
I agree, Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:36:40
Thanks Jeff. Glad to hear it doesn't have to be today - need time to absorb it all.
Justine Chew
01:38:05
Passive is the wrong word.
christopher wilkinson
01:39:20
Have to drop out now for another appointment. Will review all this before the nmecxt meeting.
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:42:22
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.
Christa Taylor
01:43:10
+1 Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:43:15
+1 Cheryl.
Justine Chew
01:44:45
Also "pro bono" likely involves no monies passing from offeror to recipient.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:21
Yup
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:46:50
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:06
Yes indeed @DOnna
Julie Hedlund
01:48:33
@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)"
Justine Chew
01:48:35
Yes, not this but Predictabiliity
Paul McGrady
01:49:21
Thanks Jeff. We should all start putting on our thinking caps on that.
Emily Barabas
01:49:52
Topic 25: IDNs
Emily Barabas
01:49:59
Is next in the agenda
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:45
Time Check 10 mins before we butt up against the Pre- #ICANN69 Policy Webinar
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:55:40
Sounds like it Paul, what you said first.
Giacomo Mazzone
01:55:50
no. i dind't.
Justine Chew
01:56:00
No I didn't either
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:01
Madw me wonder why we had worked on CPE so much
Giacomo Mazzone
01:56:50
can we get a authentic interpretation of what this means ?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:57:26
@giacomo - yes, we will add this to the list
Jim Prendergast
01:57:42
@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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:00
Indeed!
Jim Prendergast
01:58:07
several areas need clarification
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:12
bye all, have to drop for the policy webinar
Paul McGrady
01:58:47
+1 Jim- I think that would be great. We may be overreacting to some of this.
Giacomo Mazzone
01:58:51
@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.
Julie Hedlund
01:58:53
There were no more topics on the agenda
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:04
Thanks everyone we will reach out to our Board Liaisons ASAP
Terri Agnew
01:59:17
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].
Flip Petillion
01:59:17
Thx
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:34
Bye for now!
Justine Chew
01:59:38
@Giacomo, yes, but the WG recommendations don't reflect that detail. We have been discussing the CPE Guidelines post the PC period.
Annebeth Lange
01:59:38
Bye