Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
16:09
I would think so @Jeff
Annebeth Lange
17:05
Agree. Most probably we have to prepare for no F2F meetings for a long time. It really makes some problems for NomCom.
Julie Hedlund
17:46
Here is the PDF
Jim Prendergast
18:32
so PDF is not the same as google doc?
Jeffrey Neuman
18:48
I am back
Emily Barabas
19:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Javier Rúa-Jovet
19:48
hello 2 all
Javier Rúa-Jovet
20:19
Hope everyone is ok & safe in these days of Covid19.
Jamie Baxter
23:16
+1 Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:35
It allows me to have a quite cough (still not breathing properly yet)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
23:51
Yes - Jeff - but we will need to see the amendments to the Guidelines at some point
Anne Aikman-Scalese
26:03
I recall thinking that the Guidelines did not provide nearly enough guidance to panelists in relation to the possibility of appeals.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
27:21
Thank you!
Emily Barabas
28:12
This is the working document with comments on the guidelines provided by WG members: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit
Jamie Baxter
30:28
We did not Jim
Jamie Baxter
31:15
In some cases the research was not replica table at later dates either
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:14
But shouldn't the burden be on the complaining party to make their case?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:36
It's one thing to ask questions. It's another do independent research.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:45
I still have strong reservations.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:55
maybe if panelists go out and do research, they should specify that and request input from the parties before ruling?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
35:53
Support both of those.
Emily Barabas
36:30
Perhaps it would be helpful to add to the recommendation “as described in the IG below.”
Emily Barabas
36:39
Yes one moment
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:46
I think Kristine is correct that rulings should not be made based on independent sources used by the panelist that are not disclosed to the parties.
Paul McGrady
38:06
Why wouldn't we move the rationales into the Recommendation? They seem sensible and reasonably limited.
Jamie Baxter
38:10
+1 Kristine
Annebeth Lange
38:19
+1 Kristine
Paul McGrady
38:25
+1 Kristine. We need to keep this limited and fact based.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
39:47
It's okay for evaluators to find independent info - but they should disclose sources when ruling on the CPE
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:02
The application should be robust and supported.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:24
And the public gets a chance to comment, right?
Annebeth Lange
41:20
Perhaps more or less like checking references?
Katrin Ohlmer
41:31
+1 Jamie
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:35
+1 Jamie
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
42:09
Wouldn't the public commenters bring that up?
christopher wilkinson
43:34
CPE evaluators should (a) have expertise in the domain of the applicant and (b) undertake independent research with staff support.
christopher wilkinson
43:35
CW
Jeffrey Neuman
43:50
@Kristine - possibly, if those that oppose know about the application.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:33
@Christopher - (a) it's impractical for the evaluator to be expert in every area. And (b) if staff assists, they are subject to an IRP under the bylaws. ICANN will never go for that.
Jamie Baxter
46:36
+1 Paul
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:41
Theoretically no one is more biased than the applicant so a panelist has to be able to research the validity of the applicant's assertions.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:41
+1 Paul
Kathy Kleiman
46:57
How do third parties know to show up?
Jim Prendergast
47:02
I agree with the ability to submit a fulsome record but recall that applicants had arbitrary character limits at time of application
Paul McGrady
47:21
@Anne - but that is why people can oppose and why we have a public comment period
Kathy Kleiman
47:48
I agree with Jeff on this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:10
@Paul -more cost, more time, more delays, more legal fees! possibly not necessary
Paul McGrady
50:54
@Anne - not what I said. What I said was the examiner should rely on the entire record.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
52:26
+1 Paul.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:36
I don't agree that we can ban a panelist from doing outside research. That is too extreme.
christopher wilkinson
55:00
Please recall that all this is supposed to work in all non-US jurisdictions, all third languages and all IDN applications. CW
Paul McGrady
55:47
I'm not sure that the Alzheimer's association has a "competitor" if they apply for .memory...
Paul McGrady
57:06
Wouldn't that independent information already be in the record?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:09
Suggest we just say: In the event panelist(s) rely on independent research, that will be disclosed to the applicant and the applicant allowed to respond prior to ruling.
Kathy Kleiman
57:21
+1
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:44
+1
Kathy Kleiman
58:00
@Paul: memory -- mental health issues, computer memory hardware groups, more...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
58:53
1 Paul
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
58:58
+1 (I mean)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:18
If Panelist has to disclose to Applicant, they won't be disclosing fake news sources.
Kathy Kleiman
59:45
Agreed
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:29
go ahead Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:03:21
@Kathy - how do we know that?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:29
But how would an evaluator know that a term is commonly used in other industries without doing research. The Applicant is not going to put that into its own application
Jeffrey Neuman
01:03:58
In your example, the Alzheimers group will not talk about the term being used in connection with computers, right?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:04:37
@Kathy, so let's not say "fake news." All an applicant needs is one person or company that doesn't like the application who writes 25 blogs and Tweet-storms for an evaluator to decide there is overwhelming lack of support.
Paul McGrady
01:04:41
@Jeff - Kathy called me out specifically. Can I respond
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:07
sorry Paul, my bad
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:14
But you are in the queie
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:17
queue
Paul McGrady
01:06:44
+1 Jaime - sounds like a good example of an examiner engaging in advocacy rather than nuetrality
Katrin Ohlmer
01:06:51
+1 Jamie
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:44
tx Paul :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:23
No agreement to bar examiners from study/review.
Paul McGrady
01:09:28
I'm more concerned about an examiner becoming an advocate based on his/her biases.
Susan Payne
01:10:14
I'm mystified why it matters that someone else in a different field might want to use the string, which seemed to be what Kathy was arguing as justifying the need for research, but I may have misunderstood. Surely it's a given that someone else wants to use the string or there would not even be a community evaluation
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:33
Agree we cannot ban all research. Just limit it to verification and add a requirement for the panelist to disclose research relied on.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:15
I recall that applicants have to confirm that the Information they submit have to be true, no?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:39
+1 Jeff
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:53
+1 Paul
Phil Buckingham
01:18:08
Personally I would stop any evaluator ( employed by ICANN) doing outside research . so when are they are in breach of their contract with ICANN . where do you draw the line ?
Paul McGrady
01:19:36
Thanks Anne!
Susan Payne
01:21:08
I don't think there's any question about community applications getting priority
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:09
Wait, has anyone on this call opposed community applications?
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:20
few dozens?
Paul McGrady
01:21:29
@Christopher - not me. I'm coming at it the other way. I don't want examiners to be able to knock out community applications that they simply don't like for personal reasons.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:34
On the contrary Christopher - I actually support an exclusive Priority Round for Community applications so your accusation is incorrect.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:36
+1 Jeff, I think we already determined communities get priority.
Christa Taylor
01:21:52
If the issue is the concern on bias why not increase transparency on the information that is being relied upon, perhaps some type of scale that panelists assign to the info. This would also help overcome any biases and allow applicants a method to address any sources that may not be overly legitimate
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:25
yes Christa - DISCLOSURE is the key. Independent evaluation requires independent research.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:29
SO,eone needs to mute
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:02
That depends on ICANN outreach. I personally favor a priority round for communities but I think that did not fly in our group.
Paul McGrady
01:29:11
We can increase the success rate by driving bias from the evaluation process.
Alexander Schubert
01:30:02
One idea could be that an applicant could go through CPE before they submit the application - so they can adapt in case of "shortcomings"? If they pass - they already passed. The procedure should probably be confidential.
Phil Buckingham
01:30:06
agreed . so important to get specialist evaluators . CPE needs to be a separate , prioritised , evaluation track .
MAZZONE - ebu
01:31:49
it was the Economist Intelligence Unit in charge of CPE. and the ombudsman stigmatize the way they acted….
Jim Prendergast
01:33:21
btw - GAC "communique" is at https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann67-gac-communique
Alexander Schubert
01:33:57
To Jamie's point: The amount of opposition should be compared to the amount of support. 5 letters of opposition might be irrelevant - if you have 500 letters of support. 1 or 2 letters shouldn't automatically cost a point. Opposition should be weighted against support.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:34:41
We also saw "campaigns" against community applicants driven by just one entity, this should be better taken into account in the next round by examiners.
Alexander Schubert
01:35:02
+1 Katrin
MAZZONE - ebu
01:36:22
+1 Katrin
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:36:41
+1 Katrin...that's what I was referring to above.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:37:05
A single entity, person, or whatever can be very loud and have a disproportionate impact.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:37:24
Correct, Kristine.
Giacomo Mazzone - ebu
01:40:26
quantitative and qualitative assessment by expert in communities.
Jamie Baxter
01:41:19
+1 Katrin
Alexander Schubert
01:41:36
My idea was that you can engage in CPE before you submit the application - to be able to adapt once you see the CPE result. After that you apply with all others - but you already passed CPE (might still lose 1 point for opposition after reveal day of course). I don't support an extra round for community applicants - it disadvantages non-community applications.
Michelle DeSmyter
01:42:06
Next meeting: Thursday, 19 March at 20:00 UTC
Annebeth Lange
01:43:11
Bye, interesting discussion
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:43:13
Good work to all!!!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:43:15
Thank you, all!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:43:17
Stay safe
Alexander Schubert
01:43:21
bye
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:24
bye all