051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Who can see your viewing activity?
Same here @Jeff ;-) but I don't have an apple
Oh! Good point! The updated version has relocated the Raise Hand option to the Reactions Icon
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
it is possible to use hand emoji ✋
Supporting statements are welcome as well (so it seems ;-)
Section 3.6 here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf
Please zoom the main screen
All the sub points
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
non consensus does not go to consensus policy
Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO. I appreciate the clarity.
we can relay our concerns via our consistuencies to the gnso council
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...
@Alan, it is important that the rationale is considered during the decision making process.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
It's a fine line between strong support and significant opposition
So true, Donna!
To Alan's point this dilutes the meaning of "Consensus Policy" if it doesn't actually have consensus
@ Jeff - this will affect every existing operator and the entire community
What we are discussing the way I have understood it - is which DEGREE of Consensus we have managed to achieve
@Anne - the degree of consensus or not-consensus.
@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.
@Paul, yes, of course ;-)
"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."
Perhaps mving on to the more detailed analysis
no consesus = status quo
that was me
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
@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
council is not prohibited from itemizing things without consensus
Welcome back Jeff 🤩
will leave video off
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.
Deemed as Non Objection
Can we scroll to topic 9 on screen?
@Martin, it’s not just by topic
Switch back to the other doc please
your comment was the only one that came in that specifically stated they did not support 9.9
what numbers say?
in terms of objections
there were deadlines
Can public comments be amended after the fact? Yikes.
which re passed
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
Elaine, you must submit this in writing. We cannot update.
we do not use reverse time actions.
See my email 30 minutes ago
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
What in the world is happening here?
If Elain wants to put that in a minority Report then tghat is the best way to do so
@Jeff - it cannot work and this is a very bad road to go down.
a deadline is a deadline
What about sending a minority report?
Yes Maxime I in fact do agree
@Annebeth - exactly.
and YES that is a perfect thing for a Minority Report
minority reports should be sent on time too
@ 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?
We had a deadline that everybody should act accordingly. It will be very difficult if mails coming in afterwards should count as well
what is happening - extension of a deadline from the formal perspective, and it is not good
Agree with Annebeth. We need to meet our deadline.
all the oppositions we received was counted/ discussed
so that is 9.10 then @Elaine
Minority Report is the redress at this stage
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
That is not on offer @Paul not happening
@Paul, +1, I think there is some misunderstanding here
I suggest we do extend the timeline, it is not in line with the procedure
agree with Annebeth
Thanks CLO. Thanks Jeff. Whew!
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.
My statements were in on time and precise. I’m disagreeing with leadership’s interpretatoin
if it was on email and the interpretation seems to be wrong - there is a procedure for objections
That doesn't sound like substantial opposition - 3 or 4 people, at least two of whom work for the same company?
Is there a specific format for the challenge?
We here you Kathy but we do request that the contesting of the designation comes u=in by the deadline
+1 Jeff. If I recall some were from the same organisation and George’s comment was not submitted in time for the consensus designation.
No @Jim there isn't but it needs to be lodged and to the list so ev eryone knows
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.
Elaine - the comments are not being dismissed at all
not necessarily, same consistency does not mean affiliated... this may go too far
No-one said the comments were dismissed Elaine
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)
No Comments were dismissed I can assure you all
See also guidance in Section 3.6 on challenging designations
+ Maxim: same consistency does not mean affiliated. I am the perfect example of this
I feel the leadership notes are helpful
Otherwise there should only be on WG participant allowed per Constituency
and could be maintained
“Not count toward the tally for significant opposition” is what I mean by “dismissed”
item 3.6 indeed for disagreement process, page 55 of gnso procedures
Four disagreed with 12.9
12.9 and 12.10 could be stronger, but definitely I prefer them to not having any rec
four is enough to say several WG members (two is enough)
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)
not necessarily we need full consesus, just consesus is ok
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
This has been sent
THank you Julie appreciate all you do
It looks like that cell needs text wrapping applied
We are not at 30. I have a hand up on 29
@Christopher staff believe that was a copy paste error of the designation and Geo Names will read as 'Consensus'
Apoloigies but that is why we do this review
There was actually 2 comments against Community Priority. Brian Winterfeldt's comment expressed the same objection
Yes - no lowering of CPE thresshold
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
Just to clarify, but does not change designation
@Griffin - yes, aligned with my objection
11 disagreed + 2 said more discussion was needed. Out of 21
sounds like many
What is threshold for divergence?
I’d like to know what is the threshold.. what’s the actual number? more than 6?
It's not quantitative.
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
I don't think the threshold is a specific number.
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.
Quantity is taken into account, but dispersion of objections was also taken into account.
SO the standard is somewhat arbitrary
CW, topic 35 is not listed as full consensus, and the idea was to not include the notes.
Seems like a vocal majority.
here's the participation stats for those who are curious https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Attendance+Log+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Working+Group
Agree with Kurt. Very few people supported this in the WG and lots didn't in the consensus call.
@Jeff - please name them
Seems like there is no level of non-support that can lower someting below consensus
@Paul, anyone that did not object.
Sounds as though Kurt and others wish to object to the designation and file a Minority Statement
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.
An objection of the designation is different from a minority statement. One can file both if wish to.
Seems like this call is really just a summary and not a discussion
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
I don't understand the relevance of calling out comments that mentioned brands.
We are presenting our designations @Marc and offering some background information regarding how we made of designations etc.,
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.
Transmogrify? That is GOOD
@Paul, an objection to a consensus level finding is different from a minority statement.
@Rubens - yep. Understood.
@Kurt - Old School
Working Group Members respond to Consensus Calls
“Significant opposition” has not been formulated consistently as far as I can tell from this call.
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.
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.
I don't understand why we can rewrite these.
Peter, there is Strong Support with Significant Opposition, or Divergence.
Remember te designation is still at the Strong opposition level
SIgnificant as opposed to Strong
we can only use the data we have received to the Consensus Call
That’s an important distinction.
+1 Jeff. Thanks!
@Cheryl, so you didn’t consider public comments or engagement of WG member? I’m so confused
Elaine - public comments were considered by the WG to create the final report. The consensus designation was based on WG members objections
I certainly did NIT @Elaine
I discussed designations based on data in from the Consensus Call
do we wish to formally extend by 5-10 mins?
This meeting is scheduled for 120 minutes’
Ahhh perfect My error thank you @Julie
So to the top of the next hour :-)
@Jeff, 35.2 says "(including private auctions")
Not an error really, because we said that we’d try for 90 minutes but schedule for 120 in case it was needed.
Two hous at this time is too much. Already 22.30 here
And so it is
it is already + few minutes
Boy oh boy Jeff - have you and Cheryl been here for the LONG HAUL or what?
It’s consensus enough for ICANN work.
well noted @Robyn
Hand by Anne
@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.
@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.
@Staff, CLO, Jeff - I am happy to help with that drafting team
@Paul: we should never have been subject to all the guff in 2012 AGB on a ‘Default’ basis.
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 :-)
@Paul - As to Closed Generics, the Final Report does not say that the fallback is the 2012 AGB.
@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.
@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.
@Justine, thanks for the clarification!
I remember this being discussed, so I would say we have considered it.
@Rubens: and not answered
@Rubens, Jeff asked us to pause and address the concerns later. That’s what this response is about
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.
questionable concerns ;)
Please include me in the drafting for Responses to the Board's questions. Thank you.
Why additional policy work would come to a conclusion on closed generics ? By all indications, people will sit on the same corners.
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
it is up to the GNSO council, what is to approve
Thank you Christopher
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.
I'm kinda sad that we are wrapping up our work without one last in-person meeting...
maybe next next round
Can we have a reunion at the next in-person meeting?
It was all planned out from the start! Congratulations to Cheryl and Jeff!
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
Is it your shout CLO?
we had the last f2f already in Montreal ;)
indeed, thanks for your commitment all
Gg Levine (NABP)
Hi Steve. I'd like to volunteer. Thx.
clearly stronger than what we had 2007 😉🙏🏼👍🏼
The best staff ever!!
Noted, thanks GG
Thanks to Jeff and CLO and Avri for steering us through.
A big thank you to Jeff, Avri and Cheryl!
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.
It’s been a long run.
Someone has to mention Jeff Neuman!
Well done Jeff. Thank you for your tireless effort
as a big present to Jeff he‘s now the GNSO liaison to the GAC 😉🍀
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
yeah thanks Jeff for sticking with it when I abandoned you.
Hopefully we can celebrate at the next in-person (after vaccinations) meeting!
Congrats to all who participated !
I hope so, Anne!
thanks all, take care and stay safe 👍🏼
Congratulations Everyone a Job Well Done Indeed!!!