Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Terri Agnew
31:57
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
32:42
Good morning everyone
Paul McGrady
33:08
@Jeff - haha, I mean congratulations!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:42
continuing in the role yes
Jim Prendergast
36:09
the leadership column just Jeff and CLO? or did it involved others?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:59
@Jim we plan to run the proposed comments to the columns through the future Leadership Team Meetings held weekly and now extended to allow 90 mins of time to do so * Triage*
Paul McGrady
40:25
Nothing to do, but put on a smile and slog through it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:18
nope
Steve Chan
41:20
I think well covered
Steve Chan
41:49
Correct! Link here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=1688811020
Alan Greenberg
42:58
Sorry for being late.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:06
NP @Alan
Paul McGrady
50:19
That makes sense Jeff
Paul McGrady
50:54
+1 Alan. Exactly
Jim Prendergast
50:56
until its sold.
Alan Greenberg
51:31
@Jim, not if the answer form part of the contract.
Justine Chew
51:48
Obligations on intended use should remain with transfer / sale of TLD
Donna Austin
51:54
@Jim, is the assumption you can change the intent if the TLD is sold at some point?
Paul McGrady
51:57
@Jim - Apple could get a private agreement that follows to any assignee. That is one of the benefit of ICANN not being in the middle of all of the disputes.
Jim Prendergast
52:31
but does it? We've already had .brands selling and the TLDs being repurposed so I wonder if that does hold true
Paul McGrady
52:49
@Jim - what private agreements have been violated?
Donna Austin
53:40
Sorry, I can't help on this one.
Kurt Pritz
53:44
How are you going to prevent that?
Jim Prendergast
53:44
If you are relying on "intended use" and that use changes, doesn't change the initial determination?
Paul McGrady
53:53
@Jeff - doesn't #2 handle #3? Why would there be any need to file both?
Paul McGrady
55:45
@Jim - under the scenario, Apple Growers file for .apples and confirm computer/phone sales out of scope of intended use. Apple reaches out to Growers, gets a written undertaking that the scope won't change and that the obligations follows to any assignee. Problem solved by private resolution. No need for ICANN to enforce anything. Apple can if there is a breach.
Paul McGrady
57:30
@Jeff - that belt with our suspenders makes sense.
Donna Austin
57:32
@Paul/Jim: is it the case that the RA will include a clause that states the 'intent of use' for the TLD?
Kurt Pritz
57:47
I think we should be cautious in casting potentially in contention applications aside
Karen Lentz
58:50
Will not proceed status had a specific definition. They can be in Will Not Proceed from a program perspective and still be in CEP
Paul McGrady
59:27
@Donna - I'm not sure. Seems like a representation in the application would be sufficient to alert an interested party to reach out and do a private settlement deal which could be enforced privately without including ICANN.
Gregory Shatan
01:01:13
The applicant clearly does not have the ultimate say....
Donna Austin
01:01:13
@Paul, at what point in the process are you referring? Is it prior to contracting?
Paul McGrady
01:02:17
@Donna - yes. It would be an application question with a public answer made public on reveal day so that third parties can react (either by filing an objection or reaching a private resolution).
Kurt Pritz
01:02:24
I think there are such a small number of applications affected by this, that we should not spend a lot of time on this. I am not sure we can determine how the the process for settling the dispute can be settled by us
Donna Austin
01:03:19
@Paul--thanks for the clarification.
Karen Lentz
01:03:22
For reference, application status definitions used are here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/advisories/application-contention-set-14mar14-en
Donna Austin
01:15:24
Is there an expectation from ICANN that we will change our language so it is consistent with the ICANN use of the terms?
Donna Austin
01:17:36
I agree with Alan.
Donna Austin
01:17:56
And it may enhance our product.
Paul McGrady
01:17:58
I'm worried that we don't have time to rewrite all our work. This distinction would have been nice to have in hand 4 years ago...
Alan Greenberg
01:18:25
@Paul. Indeed!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:40
yup
Gregory Shatan
01:19:15
Generically, a procedure is a prescribed way of undertaking a part of a process. Process is "what," while procedure is "how."
Donna Austin
01:19:21
I'd prefer that we sort this out now rather than having it up for debate during the IRT.
Jim Prendergast
01:19:35
+1 Donna
Gregory Shatan
01:20:15
Policy vs. Implementation, Part Deux!!
Donna Austin
01:20:45
Can we ask Karen if this is a significant issue?
Alan Greenberg
01:21:00
From a def"n:
Alan Greenberg
01:21:02
• A process is about what we doand• A procedure is about how we do something.
Gregory Shatan
01:21:11
We can do a word search....
Alan Greenberg
01:21:17
It then goes on to say that it is not that simple...
Justine Chew
01:22:15
@Jeff, yes but this blanket statements worries me
Justine Chew
01:22:34
Fine with your opinion.
Gregory Shatan
01:22:44
The process has to be expressed with enough detail so that the procedures can be developed without ambiguity.
Gregory Shatan
01:23:11
But not so much detail that it describes the procedure....
Justine Chew
01:24:28
@Greg, no, I think whatever procedures that needs to go into the AGB should go into the AGB -- what Jeff said.
Gregory Shatan
01:27:17
Justine, I agree with you (and Jeff) -- even if the generic process vs. procedure definition might indicate otherwise.
Justine Chew
01:27:41
@Paul, isn't RPM PDP a review?
Donna Austin
01:27:42
But, what kind of review is the question? Is it the process, is it the decisions; what would be the purpose of the review, to review efficiency, to review decisions?
Steve Chan
01:27:58
Correct, it’s captured in the CPIF
Steve Chan
01:28:13
CPIF = Consensus Policy Implement Framework
Paul McGrady
01:28:27
@Jeff - all of that is very helpful
Justine Chew
01:29:04
We could say review is desirable and make it subject to the CPIF?
Steve Chan
01:29:49
The Transfer Policy Issue Report is as a result of Policy Status Review, conducted by ICANN org. Which was then followed by an GNSO Council scoping team to review that status report.
Paul McGrady
01:31:58
I almost agree with Alan - I think any review should be while rounds are going, not "before" a round in going. It shouldn't stop the ongoing process, or else we will have another 10 years between rounds.
Donna Austin
01:35:48
The CSC has had two reviews: one of the charter; and one related to its efficiency. These were lean reviews conducted by a small team for both efforts. If the Council does have 'control' of the SPIRT then a small group of councilors could undertake a focused review to be done in a reasonably short timeframe.
Gregory Shatan
01:36:16
Lean and focused review is a great point, @Donna.
Steve Chan
01:36:41
All, you may want to consider whether the framework should also be reviewed, not just the SPIRT?
Paul McGrady
01:36:55
Nope
Gregory Shatan
01:37:03
We need to distinguish from the "big" Reviews, that take years to complete....
Justine Chew
01:37:19
+1 Steve, SPIRT and Predictability Framework
Gregory Shatan
01:38:05
Should be separate reviews.
Justine Chew
01:38:18
They could be interconnected though
Paul McGrady
01:38:18
Ugh.
Gregory Shatan
01:38:30
Oy.
Justine Chew
01:39:50
Exactly @Paul
Justine Chew
01:40:11
x2
Kurt Pritz
01:40:12
A Goldilocks review
Gregory Shatan
01:40:15
They could be two phases of a review process, procedurally.
Paul McGrady
01:40:54
+1 Jeff.
Paul McGrady
01:41:18
Is this framework/SPIRT better at predictability than what we had before?
Gregory Shatan
01:41:31
An exhaustive review is not "lean," methinks.
Donna Austin
01:41:46
if you look at the NCSG comment: should be annually reviewed by the GNSO Council for compliance with the rules the WG has sought to create.
Gregory Shatan
01:41:57
@Paul, that's unpredictable.
Paul McGrady
01:43:53
Take precedent in the event of a conflict?
Paul McGrady
01:44:16
@Jeff - makes sens
Paul McGrady
01:44:20
sense
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:46
yep!
Paul McGrady
01:45:55
@Alan - right. This is just making all of that clear.
Donna Austin
01:46:46
Don't know about same mind: just as equally confused as Alan.
Steve Chan
01:49:14
topic 2
Steve Chan
01:49:21
Oops, sorry, wrong screen
Paul McGrady
01:49:45
Topic 2 right back at you Steve. :-)
Steve Chan
01:49:57
Awww, thanks Paul!
Justine Chew
01:51:14
@Jeff, if we kick this to the IRT then whatever the IRT comes up with will be still subject to comment, right?
Karen Lentz
01:51:46
Yes, usually IRT posts for public comment
Paul McGrady
01:52:07
I think it would be. We commented the heck out of all of the implementation work from the last round.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:07
Good practive = does
Karen Lentz
01:52:21
looking
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:35
Yhx @Kareen
Paul McGrady
01:52:43
@Jeff - should we brainstorm qualifications on the list?
Karen Lentz
01:53:02
CPIF: GDD staff, in consultation with the IRT (if applicable), will determine whether the proposed implementation should be posted for public comment (there is a strong presumption that items will be posted for public comment). If so, the proposed consensus policy language and/or details of the new service as well as the implementation plan will be posted for public comment.
Justine Chew
01:53:45
Hmmm.
Paul McGrady
01:53:58
Sounds like folks want to spell things out. I personally would be happy to punt to the IRT, but I think I am in the minority.
Paul McGrady
01:56:24
Agree Jeff. Lots of points of entry for the GAC without reopening this up.
Justine Chew
01:57:20
And delay too, @Donna, I suppose
Paul McGrady
01:58:05
@Donna, GAC will never agree to give up the second bite at the apple, which is why we shouldn't set them up as a funnel into the SPIRT and result in folks lobbying the GAC
Steve Chan
01:58:41
Time check
Jim Prendergast
01:58:46
would it have to be consensus in going to SPirit? or could sub groups of GAC members petition the SPIRT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:24
Treat all AC's the same IMO
Paul McGrady
01:59:29
It is going to get out of control and all predictability we hoped for will be gone
Donna Austin
01:59:53
Not necessarily Paul.
Donna Austin
02:01:02
I agree Alan, about GAC advice.
Donna Austin
02:02:10
Where we need to be clear is the parameters or scope of what falls within the purview of the SPIRT.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:21
Thanks everyone! more on the list please.... until next meeting Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Justine Chew
02:02:27
GAC Issue Statement?
Terri Agnew
02:02:30
The next New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 29 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Donna Austin
02:02:38
Yes we should allow it provided it falls within the purview/scope of the SPIRT.
Donna Austin
02:03:10
I think we do need to go over the Org comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:12
and treat *all* AC's the same ;-)
Paul McGrady
02:03:45
See you all on the slippery slope on the list. :-)
Justine Chew
02:03:59
Chat later all, thanks.