Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Michelle DeSmyter
18:37
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Elaine Pruis
20:55
Jeff or Cheryl please
Jim Prendergast
21:21
not much to report on
Maxim Alzoba
21:25
hello all, sorry for being late (due to GNSO SSC meeting)
Laxmi Yadav
23:16
hello everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:24
Welcome
Jim Prendergast
24:45
christa taylor
Justine Chew
25:01
Donna Austin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
25:10
Indeed
Maxim Alzoba
27:08
the Board is not the Community, it is ICANN :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:41
Thaks @Paul just for the record that *is* imiportant you DID have a review affort of the comment *AND * in fact a sorting of them was also done by a Member of the small team as ell in preparation for call 1
Elaine Pruis
27:41
I must have misspoken. We did not produce a response.
Paul McGrady
28:17
+1 CLO
Becky Burr
28:38
definitely not edicts
Paul McGrady
29:02
Thanks Becky.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
29:29
In all our spare time over what some part of the community consider holidays we will indeed continue such work
Paul McGrady
30:08
CLO - don't WG chairs have to swear off holidays to get the gig? :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:34
and many other things as well @Paul ;-)
Emily Barabas
32:16
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1091535370
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:28
Thx Emily
Annebeth Lange
32:41
No
Annebeth Lange
32:56
LOL
Emily Barabas
33:06
Apologies, he is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=976056819
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:14
Ergh @Steve sorry to hear that!!!
Justine Chew
33:14
We're looking at our own copy!
Maxim Alzoba
33:19
good we have a meeting now, not few hours prior to that (when the drive was not working)
Maxim Alzoba
33:41
it seems to be a good time to make offline copies :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:41
Seasonal gremlins as opposed to greeting abound??? 2020 is the 'gift that keeps on giving' it seems
Maxim Alzoba
34:55
we need to ask Santa to spare us
Katrin Ohlmer
35:18
I'll check back with our team
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:55
Thx @Katrin
Katrin Ohlmer
36:02
I think it was more about their criteria, which were not really clear - but as mentioned, I'll check
Justine Chew
36:53
+1 to citing IBA Guidelines as reference
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:03
Thx
Anne Aikman-Scalese
41:52
link to topic 10 doc?
Jeffrey Neuman
42:32
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=1091535370
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:12
Agree with adding a reference to Workstream 2 work on Human Rights Core Value Framework and implementation
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:26
Maybe we can link to the Human Rights Framework in the Final Report to help applicants?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:56
Cheryl i think those folks were on the Human Rights Committee. The Framework itself is final I believe though not implemented.
Paul McGrady
48:11
A footnote referring to WS2 work already out there seems sane. Tweaking the actual Recommendation(s) at this late date seems a bit Herculean given that we have only 1 hour left of WG call time.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:30
Agree (personal opinion) @Paul
Emily Barabas
49:04
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=53966201
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:06
Guys - all I am suggesting is adding a link to the language of the actual Framework that was adopted. Nothing controversial there.
avri doria
49:24
@anne The Framework is already active since the bylaws activated it once the Framework was approved.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:42
Yes Avri - that is why I am suggesting a link to it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:23
Yes @Anne we need to ensure there is no 'confusion' between the finalised FOI-HR work and the recommendation *for* Impact assessments being implemented and the continuing discussions from interested parties with specific expertise in Human Rights advocacy more generally...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:08
In fact, I think the IRT should link to the Human Rights Framework in the AGB - applicants need to know about this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
55:20
If an application is Objected to on Human Rights grounds (moral objection) and we haven't referenced the Human Rights Framework in the AGB, it's going to be an issue. So this probably needs more than just a footnote.
Justine Chew
57:14
You're welcome, Jeff. Happy to see it. :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:32
Thx @Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:27
less hard coded number and more threshold
Paul McGrady
58:51
Thanks Jeff.
Maxim Alzoba
59:34
old style - communities send the best fighters, and the one wins takes it all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:05
LOL
Marc Trachtenberg
01:00:08
I'm OK with a % threshold but it should not be easier than 14 out of 16
Marc Trachtenberg
01:00:31
Making it easier will just increase gaming
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:01:26
Not that many community applications made it last time. No need to make it more difficult
Katrin Ohlmer
01:01:37
+1 Anne
Marc Trachtenberg
01:01:39
And no need to make it easier
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:02:14
Yes actually there is a need to encourage communities.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:02:20
Do we have evidence that there were legitimate communities that didn't make it last time?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:38
Trying to make it more predictable and easier to understand @Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:03
Data was not collected or assessed @Maerc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:10
@Marc
Marc Trachtenberg
01:03:15
So what "need" is there to encourage communities? What is this need based on?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:17
sorry typos
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:32
Yes Cheryl n- not sure why you think i am disagreeing with you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:10
I don't @Anne my job is to try and seek maximal clarity and understanding
Paul McGrady
01:04:20
@Jeff, before we go, can you give us a 30,000 foot look at the new GAC correspondence you mentioned?
Phil Buckingham
01:05:37
lowering the percentage would be helpful but doesn’t address the main problem , IMO
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:06:18
Marc said he wanted to leave it at 88% I was disagreeing with that, - just to clarify.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:06:45
88% is the status quo though correct?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:07:07
At least adjusting hard numbers to percentages
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:32
87.7 or something like that :)
Marc Trachtenberg
01:08:13
Then I agree we do not need to make it harder and can stick at 87.7%!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:09:48
We have language changes recommended for the CPE evaluation that should make it easier to get points.
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:05
what prevents a registry from having that in PICs? PICs are part of the Registry contract
Marc Trachtenberg
01:10:15
Then no need to lower the # of points / %
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:22
PICs are a specification to the Registry contracts , so it is enforceable by ICANN
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:37
I like to think of it as a delicate construct over a "house of Cards'
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:13:46
+1 Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:58
spraying it with resin helps
Marc Trachtenberg
01:14:17
ICANN has a history of not enforcing things in contracts
Greg Shatan
01:14:42
I wish it wan’t necessary.
Paul McGrady
01:15:00
+1 Jeff. We are a WG and not JJ. Also, correct, we do not need to rewrite contract law.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:04
the third party should not have more power than ICANN over it’s contracts
avri doria
01:15:14
There may be a difference of opinion on what is enforceable in the current contracts.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:15:48
+1 to Avro which is a whole separate can of worms
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:51
That's one reason RVCs should go to private third party proceedings - keeps ICANN out of the fray and out of the cost of the dispute. RVC DRP should be like a UDRP proceeding.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:15:56
Sorry - Avri
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:57
it is up to 2 parties of the contract
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:06
(personal opinion again) there IS only so much we as a WG can do on this
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:24
and different views of ICANN and contracted parties is a common thing
Paul McGrady
01:17:26
I think this horse has been well and truly beaten in these past weeks and again on this call. Who wants to wrap this up?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:17:29
I have to drop off for a conflicting obligation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:45
Thanks for joining us @Marc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:59
Thank you @Maxim...
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:42
anti abuse provisions allow third party to have a role too
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:00
if it is a local LEA , for example
Jeffrey Neuman
01:20:50
Good point Greg
Justine Chew
01:21:29
PICs and RVCs, Greg
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:40
The revised ByLaws clearly state that PICs are enforceable.
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:45
the whole text of the Registry Agreement has to be followed by the Registry (and ICANN)
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:43
PICs do not exist outside of the RA text
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:55
Thanks @Greg
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:54
we should not conflate some items with all outcomes of the process
Paul McGrady
01:24:59
hand up
Alan Greenberg
01:25:23
I will do that.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:32
Agree with Alan that voluntary PICs and RVCs should require third party dispute resolution process. Mandatory PICs should stay internal.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:59
Text feezes after the next meeting @Alan
Alan Greenberg
01:26:55
I was not asking for a clause to say it was enforceable. I want provisions to ensure it is.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:58
+1 @Paul, there should not be two or more grades of enforceability
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:30
any violation of the contract could be a subject of the compliant and curing/enforcing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:46
more IRT territory if anythong at this stage
Greg Shatan
01:28:16
I think the point is that there should be no difference in enforceability between the PCS/VCRs and the rest of the contract.
Justine Chew
01:29:03
I believe our attention would be better trained towards Contractual Compliance --that they should enforce every RA's PICs and RVCs. In this respect, I'd like the opportunity to see if we need to insert (or repeat) something compelling Contractual Compliance to inform the community on why it chooses to or not to enforce a PIC or RVC.
Michelle DeSmyter
01:29:12
Next meeting: Thursday, 17 December at 20:00 UTC
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:25
ICANN can check if the due process was followed, not to challenge the outcomes
Alan Greenberg
01:29:30
What is URL of current redline?
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:58
I would recommend to make local copies of the doc (in light of today issues)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:16
Don't involve ICANN in determining whether a PIC is content-based. Any voluntary PIC or RVC should go to a third party Dispute Resolution Provider.
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:01
@Anne, the current PICs were obligatory, so this seems to be bit of an overkill
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:31:09
Important distinction Cheryl
Paul McGrady
01:31:10
@CLO - a good, and important, clarification
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:37
hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:30
and an email from Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:46
who is a Liaison form an AC
martinsutton
01:34:04
+1 Anne, where members of the WG have a minority view
Justine Chew
01:37:20
WG Members
Justine Chew
01:37:40
are the ones who file a Minority Statement
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:40
Then we would expect to see some Minority Viewpoints in the Consensus call based on Working Group deliberations.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:00
Level of consensus as discussed in 3.6
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:53
and not everyone will be delighted with the exact language in some issues but it should represent the Consensus or compromise resultant of your work...
Michelle DeSmyter
01:43:43
Next meeting: Thursday, 17 December at 20:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:52
Thanks everyone we are getting CLOSE!!!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:53
I don't think you should adopt a process that preempts the decision on whether or not a Minority View exists. If a small number of individuals agree, the WG guidelines say that is a Minority Viewpoint. That's why we need time to coordinate such a vieiw.
Flip’s iPhone
01:44:00
thx
Annebeth Lange
01:44:05
Bye all1
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:07
thanks all