Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Maxim Alzoba
20:14
hello all
Annebeth Lange
20:57
Hello everyone!
Susan Payne
21:25
Hurrah :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
21:33
Same here @Jeff ;-) but I don't have an apple
Julie Bisland
21:34
Oh! Good point! The updated version has relocated the Raise Hand option to the Reactions Icon
Julie Bisland
21:44
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Maxim Alzoba
22:02
it is possible to use hand emoji ✋
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:27
Supporting statements are welcome as well (so it seems ;-)
Steve Chan
25:36
Section 3.6 here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf
Elaine Pruis
25:54
Please zoom the main screen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
26:29
All the sub points
Steve Chan
29:52
You can find both of the consensus call docs on the Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Maxim Alzoba
30:41
non consensus does not go to consensus policy
Paul McGrady
32:21
Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO. I appreciate the clarity.
Maxim Alzoba
34:10
we can relay our concerns via our consistuencies to the gnso council
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:13
We spent more that 3 hrs in the discussion on these points BTW so there was a LOT of detailed discussion and we were joined by others in the Leadership Team as well as Flip as the GNSO Council Liaison...
Martin Sutton
35:01
@Alan, it is important that the rationale is considered during the decision making process.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
36:05
It's a fine line between strong support and significant opposition
Katrin Ohlmer
36:31
So true, Donna!
Marc Trachtenberg
36:36
To Alan's point this dilutes the meaning of "Consensus Policy" if it doesn't actually have consensus
Marc Trachtenberg
37:34
@ Jeff - this will affect every existing operator and the entire community
Annebeth Lange
37:37
What we are discussing the way I have understood it - is which DEGREE of Consensus we have managed to achieve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:49
Indeed Anne
Paul McGrady
38:23
@Anne - the degree of consensus or not-consensus.
Kurt Pritz
38:26
@Martin - I am not sure that consideration of rationale is within the GNSO Council remit as described in the guidelines or bylaws. That contributes to the concern Alan is raising I think.
Annebeth Lange
38:52
@Paul, yes, of course ;-)
Paul McGrady
39:06
"That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:20
Perhaps mving on to the more detailed analysis
Maxim Alzoba
40:01
no consesus = status quo
Jorge Cancio
40:59
that was me
Anne Aikman-Scalese
41:01
Not sure about that Maxim - because the Board has the power to override GNSO Council recommendations by a 2/3 majority vote of the Board
Jorge Cancio
41:03
😉
Marc Trachtenberg
43:21
@Maxim - no consensus = status quo is the assumption that we have been operating under but this may not end up being the actual reality of what happens
Maxim Alzoba
44:08
council is not prohibited from itemizing things without consensus
Julie Bisland
44:49
Welcome back Jeff 🤩
Jeff Neuman
44:58
thanks
Jeff Neuman
45:04
will leave video off
Julie Bisland
45:10
👍
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:20
And if GNSO Council does not support sealed bids, but the GAC Advises Sealed Bids independently as a matter of public policy,, the Board would have to reject the GAC Advice by a 60% vote.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:39
Deemed as Non Objection
Martin Sutton
48:03
Can we scroll to topic 9 on screen?
Steve Chan
48:24
@Martin, it’s not just by topic
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:26
Switch back to the other doc please
Jeff Neuman
49:13
your comment was the only one that came in that specifically stated they did not support 9.9
Maxim Alzoba
50:20
what numbers say?
Maxim Alzoba
50:51
in terms of objections
Maxim Alzoba
51:50
there were deadlines
Paul McGrady
51:58
Can public comments be amended after the fact? Yikes.
Maxim Alzoba
52:04
which re passed
Steve Chan
52:09
As a reminder, the two consensus call documents are available on the Wiki, if you’re having trouble seeing the text on-screen: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2021-01-12+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Jeff Neuman
52:14
Elaine, you must submit this in writing. We cannot update.
Maxim Alzoba
52:31
we do not use reverse time actions.
Elaine Pruis
52:32
See my email 30 minutes ago
Elaine Pruis
54:13
Previously you said length of participation in working group was a factor in considering the statements. So are you considering public comments and historical concerns and recent concerns or JUST numbers
Paul McGrady
54:22
What in the world is happening here?
Maxim Alzoba
54:39
changing past?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
54:55
If Elain wants to put that in a minority Report then tghat is the best way to do so
Paul McGrady
55:05
@Jeff - it cannot work and this is a very bad road to go down.
Maxim Alzoba
55:06
a deadline is a deadline
Annebeth Lange
55:08
What about sending a minority report?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:18
Yes Maxime I in fact do agree
Paul McGrady
55:26
@Annebeth - exactly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:33
and YES that is a perfect thing for a Minority Report
Maxim Alzoba
55:36
minority reports should be sent on time too
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:03
@ Cheryl - So the folks who don't support Rec 9 consensus level have 2 days to say why they don't agree with the consensus designation, right?
Annebeth Lange
56:07
We had a deadline that everybody should act accordingly. It will be very difficult if mails coming in afterwards should count as well
Maxim Alzoba
56:33
what is happening - extension of a deadline from the formal perspective, and it is not good
Robin Gross
57:11
Agree with Annebeth. We need to meet our deadline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:15
all the oppositions we received was counted/ discussed
Paul McGrady
57:21
+1 Robin
Susan Payne
57:46
so that is 9.10 then @Elaine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:11
Minority Report is the redress at this stage
Jeff Neuman
58:33
I was not clear. I was trying to say that we are not allowing revisions to comments because then we would have to do it for everyone and that is NOT something we are doing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:37
That is not on offer @Paul not happening
Annebeth Lange
58:53
@Paul, +1, I think there is some misunderstanding here
Maxim Alzoba
59:07
I suggest we do extend the timeline, it is not in line with the procedure
Jorge Cancio
59:24
agree with Annebeth
Paul McGrady
59:27
Thanks CLO. Thanks Jeff. Whew!
Elaine Pruis
59:37
My comment is, if my statements of non-support are going to be rejected because I was very specific about the language, and tossed because my 9.10 non-support doesn’t map to leadership position that I should have objected to 9.9 (so that the numbers are there for Kathy etc) THEN I would want to make a change.
Elaine Pruis
01:00:00
My statements were in on time and precise. I’m disagreeing with leadership’s interpretatoin
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:19
if it was on email and the interpretation seems to be wrong - there is a procedure for objections
Susan Payne
01:02:10
That doesn't sound like substantial opposition - 3 or 4 people, at least two of whom work for the same company?
Jim Prendergast
01:02:23
Is there a specific format for the challenge?
Annebeth Lange
01:02:55
@Susan, +1
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:06
We here you Kathy but we do request that the contesting of the designation comes u=in by the deadline
Martin Sutton
01:03:35
+1 Jeff. If I recall some were from the same organisation and George’s comment was not submitted in time for the consensus designation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:36
No @Jim there isn't but it needs to be lodged and to the list so ev eryone knows
Elaine Pruis
01:04:07
We are contributing as individual WG members. If you want to dismiss comments because people are at the same company, you need to dismiss comments from people that are in the same constituency.
Jeff Neuman
01:04:23
Elaine - the comments are not being dismissed at all
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:48
not necessarily, same consistency does not mean affiliated... this may go too far
Martin Sutton
01:04:50
No-one said the comments were dismissed Elaine
Julie Hedlund
01:05:04
From the Work Plan: 13 January 2021 — Challenges/Minority Reports — Challenges to Designation of Levels of Support by Working Group Leadership Team are due (if any)
Julie Hedlund
01:05:21
See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5KnPfMttbkE/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:23
No Comments were dismissed I can assure you all
Julie Hedlund
01:05:40
See also guidance in Section 3.6 on challenging designations
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:07
Thanks Julie
Marc Trachtenberg
01:06:17
+ Maxim: same consistency does not mean affiliated. I am the perfect example of this
Jorge Cancio
01:06:41
I feel the leadership notes are helpful
Marc Trachtenberg
01:06:51
Otherwise there should only be on WG participant allowed per Constituency
Jorge Cancio
01:06:54
and could be maintained
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:09
Thanks Jorge
Elaine Pruis
01:07:17
“Not count toward the tally for significant opposition” is what I mean by “dismissed”
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:26
item 3.6 indeed for disagreement process, page 55 of gnso procedures
Kurt Pritz
01:07:56
Four people
Kurt Pritz
01:08:46
Four disagreed with 12.9
Jorge Cancio
01:09:17
12.9 and 12.10 could be stronger, but definitely I prefer them to not having any rec
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:28
four is enough to say several WG members (two is enough)
Jorge Cancio
01:11:42
in fact many of my inputs are critical of the gaps or the ommissions etc. - meaning that we could have gone further - it’s a sort of opposition, but not one that wishes to break consensus (but certainly intends to impede „full“ consensus)
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:21
not necessarily we need full consesus, just consesus is ok
Jorge Cancio
01:13:11
indeed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:15
FYI Staff will be sending a copy of the part of Sec 3.6 of the guidelines regarding objections processes to the list for everyones reference
Julie Hedlund
01:17:21
This has been sent
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:35
THank you Julie appreciate all you do
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:27
It looks like that cell needs text wrapping applied
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:57
Noted CW
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:32
We are not at 30. I have a hand up on 29
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:26
@Christopher staff believe that was a copy paste error of the designation and Geo Names will read as 'Consensus'
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:46
Apoloigies but that is why we do this review
Marc Trachtenberg
01:23:50
There was actually 2 comments against Community Priority. Brian Winterfeldt's comment expressed the same objection
Marc Trachtenberg
01:24:35
Yes - no lowering of CPE thresshold
Kurt Pritz
01:24:58
Two comments
Griffin Barnett
01:25:51
Our comments were against the notion of community TLDs but did not take any view as to the specific criteria assuming there was consensus on continuing community apps as a category subject to special rules
Griffin Barnett
01:26:04
Just to clarify, but does not change designation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:16
Thanks @Griffen
Marc Trachtenberg
01:28:12
@Griffin - yes, aligned with my objection
Kurt Pritz
01:29:19
11 disagreed + 2 said more discussion was needed. Out of 21
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:33
sounds like many
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:35
Significant opposition
Marc Trachtenberg
01:30:41
What is threshold for divergence?
Elaine Pruis
01:30:44
I’d like to know what is the threshold.. what’s the actual number? more than 6?
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:18
It's not quantitative.
Annebeth Lange
01:31:21
Also take into account that it was made clear that ino reaction to the consensus call would be interpreted as support. If you disagreed on any of the topics, that should be flagged before the 8th
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:41
I don't think the threshold is a specific number.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:31:41
Fo what it is worth at this stage, please recall that I am opposed to all auctions. The cost of the ‘winning bids’ will inevitably be passed on to the final users. No.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:49
Quantity is taken into account, but dispersion of objections was also taken into account.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:32:12
SO the standard is somewhat arbitrary
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:15
significant still
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:40
CW, topic 35 is not listed as full consensus, and the idea was to not include the notes.
Paul McGrady
01:32:41
Seems like a vocal majority.
Jim Prendergast
01:33:27
here's the participation stats for those who are curious https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Attendance+Log+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Working+Group
Paul McGrady
01:33:28
Agree with Kurt. Very few people supported this in the WG and lots didn't in the consensus call.
Paul McGrady
01:34:29
@Jeff - please name them
Marc Trachtenberg
01:34:31
Seems like there is no level of non-support that can lower someting below consensus
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:44
@Paul, anyone that did not object.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:59
Sounds as though Kurt and others wish to object to the designation and file a Minority Statement
Kurt Pritz
01:35:16
I think that when there is division like this, the leadership should go back to the discussion and see when, if ever, this was a majority recommendation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:50
An objection of the designation is different from a minority statement. One can file both if wish to.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:36:32
Seems like this call is really just a summary and not a discussion
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:37:23
I don't understand the relevance of calling out comments that mentioned brands.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:41
We are presenting our designations @Marc and offering some background information regarding how we made of designations etc.,
Paul McGrady
01:37:53
Filing a "minority statement" could be misread as agreeing that the majority position was adopted. Clearly not. Best to just let Council know that this has no consensus and should not proceed further. Pushing gently for an even more accurate designation doesn't transmogrify the outcome into some sort of consensus designation that then needs to be minority statement-ed against.
Kurt Pritz
01:38:36
Transmogrify? That is GOOD
Rubens Kuhl
01:38:37
@Paul, an objection to a consensus level finding is different from a minority statement.
Paul McGrady
01:38:55
@Rubens - yep. Understood.
Paul McGrady
01:39:13
@Kurt - Old School
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:22
Working Group Members respond to Consensus Calls
Elaine Pruis
01:41:27
“Significant opposition” has not been formulated consistently as far as I can tell from this call.
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:20
I don't think we went to public comments to assess the aggregate level of support. We might to understand whether an specific comment meant support or not.
Peter LaMantia
01:44:42
You cannot rewrite? Can the sealed bid proposed be removed if there is consensus to remove from the recommendation. Alternatively flag this item as strong opposition clearing other topic items for GNSO.
Paul McGrady
01:45:03
me
Jim Prendergast
01:45:13
I don't understand why we can rewrite these.
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:26
Peter, there is Strong Support with Significant Opposition, or Divergence.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:37
Remember te designation is still at the Strong opposition level
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:01
SIgnificant as opposed to Strong
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:56
we can only use the data we have received to the Consensus Call
Robin Gross
01:47:48
That’s an important distinction.
Paul McGrady
01:48:03
+1 Jeff. Thanks!
Elaine Pruis
01:48:20
@Cheryl, so you didn’t consider public comments or engagement of WG member? I’m so confused
Martin Sutton
01:49:16
Elaine - public comments were considered by the WG to create the final report. The consensus designation was based on WG members objections
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:23
I certainly did NIT @Elaine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:26
NOT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:08
I discussed designations based on data in from the Consensus Call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:44
Time Check
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:01
do we wish to formally extend by 5-10 mins?
Julie Hedlund
01:51:21
This meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes’
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:37
Ahhh perfect My error thank you @Julie
Julie Hedlund
01:51:41
So to the top of the next hour :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:50
Perfect :-)
Justine Chew
01:52:01
@Jeff, 35.2 says "(including private auctions")
Julie Hedlund
01:52:06
Not an error really, because we said that we’d try for 90 minutes but schedule for 120 in case it was needed.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:52:15
Two hous at this time is too much. Already 22.30 here
Julie Hedlund
01:52:18
And so it is
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:34
it is already + few minutes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:39
Boy oh boy Jeff - have you and Cheryl been here for the LONG HAUL or what?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:55
:-)
Robin Gross
01:54:07
It’s consensus enough for ICANN work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:25
well noted @Robyn
Flip Petillion
01:54:54
Hand by Anne
Paul McGrady
01:55:03
@Justine, the (including private auctions) is a recognition of the 2012 status and just makes it clear that nothing we did changed that. What a minority of folks were trying to do was ban private auctions, but that recommendation didn't make it into the report because it didn't have sufficient support.
Paul McGrady
01:56:19
@Anne - that is how I understood it. We have full consensus that we didn't come up with anything that altered the 2012 AGB. What the Board does with that is, of course, up to them.
Paul McGrady
01:56:49
@Staff, CLO, Jeff - I am happy to help with that drafting team
Christopher Wilkinson
01:57:15
@Paul: we should never have been subject to all the guff in 2012 AGB on a ‘Default’ basis.
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:16
LOL Paul, we don't have full consensus to change what the Board did in its handling and recommendations of the Closed Generics and its recommendation and response to the GAC Advice :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:08
@Paul - As to Closed Generics, the Final Report does not say that the fallback is the 2012 AGB.
Justine Chew
01:58:18
@Paul, respectfully, I was making my comment to @Jeff, who I believe said 'that there was nothing in 35.2 that suggests that we are supporting private auctions' and I'm simply disagreeing to that part of his statement.
Paul McGrady
01:59:06
@Kathy - and even if we did, the Board remains the Board. Hopefully, they show more restrain in the next round(s) and not interfere with applications that comply with the four corners of the AGB.
Paul McGrady
01:59:34
@Justine, thanks for the clarification!
Rubens Kuhl
02:00:12
I remember this being discussed, so I would say we have considered it.
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:37
@Rubens: and not answered
Elaine Pruis
02:01:07
@Rubens, Jeff asked us to pause and address the concerns later. That’s what this response is about
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:01:14
RE Closed Generics, as I understand it, the WG has Full Consensus on the exact text of the Final Report. It's not a "failure of consensus" meaning we fall back to 2012. There are two "fallback" positions outlined in the Final Report. And it's clear additional policy work is needed to avoid litigation.
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:05
questionable concerns ;)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:03:27
Please include me in the drafting for Responses to the Board's questions. Thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:41
Noted Anne
Rubens Kuhl
02:03:42
Why additional policy work would come to a conclusion on closed generics ? By all indications, people will sit on the same corners.
Christopher Wilkinson
02:03:48
Leaving the call. I’ll read the transcript for the rest of the meeting. Please read my response to the Consensus Call. Good night. CW
Maxim Alzoba
02:04:04
it is up to the GNSO council, what is to approve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:12
Thank you Christopher
Rubens Kuhl
02:04:50
It would be a waste of community bandwidth to try this closed generics discussion again and again. I hope GNSO Council doesn't go that path.
Paul McGrady
02:05:10
I'm kinda sad that we are wrapping up our work without one last in-person meeting...
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:19
maybe next next round
Paul McGrady
02:05:26
Can we have a reunion at the next in-person meeting?
Kathy Kleiman
02:05:26
It was all planned out from the start! Congratulations to Cheryl and Jeff!
Steve Chan
02:05:26
The running list for the drafting team seems to be Paul, Kathy, Anne, and Jim. Is that accurate? Any others that would like to volunteer?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
02:05:42
Is it your shout CLO?
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:48
we had the last f2f already in Montreal ;)
Becky Burr
02:06:24
indeed, thanks for your commitment all
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:38
thanks all
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:06:39
Hi Steve. I'd like to volunteer. Thx.
Jorge Cancio
02:06:47
clearly stronger than what we had 2007 😉🙏🏼👍🏼
Annebeth Lange
02:06:49
The best staff ever!!
Steve Chan
02:06:50
Noted, thanks GG
Steve Chan
02:07:05
Sorry, Gg
Robin Gross
02:07:10
Thanks to Jeff and CLO and Avri for steering us through.
Annebeth Lange
02:07:21
@Robin +1
Flip Petillion
02:07:34
+1
Katrin Ohlmer
02:07:36
A big thank you to Jeff, Avri and Cheryl!
Jorge Cancio
02:07:37
+1 Robin
Paul McGrady
02:07:39
Congratulations to Jeff, CLO, and the amazing Staff on all their hard work. Strong thank you to all my rank & file colleagues for all the good faith participation and great ideas. We can be proud of our efforts here.
Robin Gross
02:07:40
It’s been a long run.
Alexander Schubert
02:09:15
Someone has to mention Jeff Neuman!
Annebeth Lange
02:09:47
Absolutely, Alexander!
Peter LaMantia
02:10:06
Well done Jeff. Thank you for your tireless effort
Jorge Cancio
02:10:19
as a big present to Jeff he‘s now the GNSO liaison to the GAC 😉🍀
Jamie Baxter
02:10:28
Thank you so much Jeff, Cheryl and the entire ICANN staff, as well as everyone for taking the time to contribute to this huge PDP
Jeff Neuman
02:10:30
Thanks all
avri doria
02:10:47
yeah thanks Jeff for sticking with it when I abandoned you.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:10:48
Hopefully we can celebrate at the next in-person (after vaccinations) meeting!
Flip Petillion
02:11:10
Congrats to all who participated !
Maxim Alzoba
02:11:23
congrats
Robin Gross
02:11:23
I hope so, Anne!
Jorge Cancio
02:12:07
thanks all, take care and stay safe 👍🏼
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:12:10
Congratulations Everyone a Job Well Done Indeed!!!