Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Great to know the dog is doing well!

Congrats Jeff - on your entrepreneurial spirit!

See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing,

For Package 6 Can’t Live With comments

Thanks Jeff

Not at this moment

The priority for IDNs is still there.

Group the priorities only.

Not the actual evaluation.

The difference is not dividing the evaluation work.

types not sets of applications

Yeap

QUESTION: How would ICANN determine order of evaluation if not by order of priority?

Anne, in the report it says the evaluation should be done to minimize evaluation work.

Are we talking about auctions now? I thought that was later...

Thanks Jeff!

Just clarifying that this change for Rubens does not change the priority groupings in any way.

It doesn't.

ok thank you.

There are a number of text changes required anyways to adapt the text, so this indeed requires caution at writing.

This is the same issue.

6.3 is a different one.

fee was $100 last time, right?

It's a substantive change.

Jim. yes, $100 + money sending costs.

Should this be subject to Legal advice?

How does this affect ICANN budget to operate the drawing?

The text prescribes a legal basis, so IRT will required legal advice.

ICANN has the legal opinion on how they did the draw last time so we'd have to ask them

@Jeff - didn't we explore this in the last round and people were afraid it was a lottery?

Last time it decided to do the drawing after application, so they didn't explore the possibility of not charging or including that in the application fee.

Raffle I believe

I wonder if it going to be legal to held a formal lottery fully online

@Jeff - thanks.

Rubens - is it a question of the $$ or is there another reason for this? You've already spent $185l on the application

due to possible restrictions for the physical presence

The entire methodology was based on a legal review to ensure it was fine. Otherwise, some other method will be needed. If an applicant wants priority evaluation than they could show their intent buy entering the draw

CA lottery law was the reason they charged the fee. Otherwise - it was illegal. But what pays for the cost of the draw? Would we say the application fee pays for that?

Money sending costs and issues. Sending money in some jurisdictions is problematic.

We never really dug into the $100 - it was some minimal amount

Will do.

6.4 is the same batch/group issue.

I don't see that Susan is on the call.

I think that the exchange of priority numbers affects other in contention sets, but not applications not in contention.

So I support the idea only if it doesn't apply to in contention strings.

+1 Rubens

@Rubens - does the $100 lottery ticket carve out applications in contention sets? The $100 lottery ticket also affects other applications in contention, no?

@Jeff - any actual evidence that happened? Or is it a hypo-fear?

one of the benefits of my compromise auction proposal is nearly all contention sets are settled in a matter of months. Eliminates this problem

if Jeff is thinking about it - others are

@Jim - again, are we talking about auctions now?

Jeff answered that - but just pointing out how this problem goes away with my proposal

Could we limit this to brands?

so can we simply exclude those in contention

+1 Martin - exclude those in contention.

+1

Agree with Jeff

+1 Jef

makes sense - let comment be filed during comment period

Apologies all, I've had technical difficulties this morning and have only just been able to join.

Paul, if the priority number is not used in contention set resolution, then it doesn't matter, but we might consider that during the decision on contention set resolution, perhaps ?

Me

Correct, I was confused.

With your comment

IS this default to one panelist if parties don't agree? I support that

It was a question and Emily has provided an answer.

@Rubens - I'm not sure that is necessary. My point was that there are lots of things that could affect cnotention sets, so there can't be a brightline rule. That said, I think Jeff's suggestion that the place for last minute substantive changes to the status quo is public comment is right.

Yes - iti should be a recommendation

This appear somewhere else I believe, so whatever it is we should treat them equally.

* appears

yes, will do. thanks Justine.

Language issue?

Can we specify that agreement to have a 3-expert panel could mean someone agreeing to pay 2.5 experts or is this too descriptive ?

My problem was with the words "filing of"

ok, it's a sentence structure

it's okay

performance?

Execution of the IO sounds like we are killing him ? ;-)

+1 Rubens

performance by

sure, understood

At-Large

yes

To be fair to other groups, this should be submitted as a comment rather than in the text of this document.

Isn't "we are seeking public comment" inherent in seeking public comment?

The At-Large are proposing such changes

I don't believe we should say in the report to seek public comment. We can welcome it if believe it's warranted. Agree with Paul.

I thought the WG did a piecemeal check on the 2012 CPE Guidelines. Which is why At-Large decided to review it and submit a revision.

Right - but we should get public comment on the CPE Guidelines.

+1 Jamie. How do we effect change to CPE Guidelines, criteria, scoring?

I thought the scoring system was laid out in the CPE Guidelines

gaggle of guidance?

:-) @ Jim

@Anne, the scoring is in the AGB and replicated in the CPE Guidelines

i’m definitely not talking about changing the scoring, but more specifically about the language of the CPE guidelines, such as the suggestions that ALAC are providing

@Justine - yes - the CPE Guidelines make the existing scoring system very visible and easy to understand - that is why iit is good to get public comment on that.

We need to point it out. It's important

Do we really need to quote the same language in both this No Agreement section AND the rationale. Seems like overkill.

hand up

Agree with Paul

"Also not able to agree whether what status quo would be in this case"

Good point, Rubens

+1 Rubens

I have no issue with putting down the history, I'm just saying we don't have to repeat it 2 sections.

@Rubens - maybe. But the AGB can't be changed without conensus. If the Board thinks the "default" is AGB + something else, that is up to them. But we can't declare a change to the status quo without consensus.

correct

There is no agreement on what the default is

Can we say there was no consensus for change, as opposed to trying to say what the default is?

Change to what?

hand up again

Paul, our general default was 2012 implementation, not 2012 AGB. And the 2012 implementation is in the eye of the beholder because it stopped short of being implemented.

@ Robin - no consensus for change is the same thing as saying the 2012 AGB is the default.

but we don’t agree on default, so we leave that alone.

The 2012 AGB is not an agreed default.

status quo is, and AGB is a part of that

if we say its the AGB - then we completely ignore how the program was implemented. We can't do that. That's a reality that doesn't exist. I don't agree with how the Board went about that but it is what it is.

But what is status quo?

Priority Raffle...

We could also argue the Board resolution is the status quo

So we are saying that going forward that we endorse the Board's ability to deviate from the AGB without consensus?

@Jeff - that is fine: "The WG could not reach consensus on any changes to the status quo"

But you said "no change to status quo" so what does that mean?

Have we asked Board liasions?

"Some members believe the status quo is the AGB which is silent on the topic. Other members believe the status quo is the Board resolution"

I think Jim means Becky and Avri

That is a difference for the board to solve, it seems to me.

I am listening.

@Marc, if there is no recommendation, than yes, IRT, Council and Board may go in a different direction with no repercussion.

Are we indicating that it's up to the Board to decide what status quo?

*what status quo is?

Justine, Board is not bound to follow status quo.

@Justine - that seems a bit awkward...

one way to solve this is "The Working Group could not agree." FULL STOP.

But that's what Jeff said

@Staff - can we see the change to the language in the document? "The WG could not reach consensus on any changes to the status quo"

@Paul, we are trying to see where things land before we start integrating language.

There’s still on-going discussion

Have redone a consensus call?

have WE done a consensus call?

Hmm, I think we have used "WG did not agree" or "WG was not able to agree" in many other places.

+1 Justine

@Justine - point taken. OK

@Justine - to Elains point - right now there is no agreement but could be no consensus post consencus calls?

The Board has not had a conversation on it. One is planned for beginning of Aug. I only can offer my thought that the decision made in the last round was that the decision made in the last round did not have status quo status.

@Jim, you've lost me.

@Anne - I'm not ignoring the Board's decision. In fact I asked for the Board resolution to be typed into this document.

@Jeff - can I defend my honor? :-)

@Justine - sorry - for now - all references are "do not agree." But once consensus calls are taken, those could change to "do not have consensus."

Paul - very simply we disagree on what "status quo" means - everywhere else implementation is the status quo.

@Jim, I agree. Hence the "did not agree" should prevail at this point. As conceded by Paul.

@Anne - perhaps, but I'm not hiding the Board's decision. I think the Board's decision is really clear that it only applied to the last round. If it applies to future rounds, why would he Board have asked us to develop policy.

"Ban" was spin - not historically factual.

I don't think that the spin should govern and the Board's actual resolution be relegated to a footnote.

Agree with Paul, “ban” is spin and rather emotional.

I don't see this group agreeing on putting "ban" or "banned" in the report.

"ban" is clearly not accurate based on the fact that applicants could choose c and maintain their generic application for the next round

It is better to quote the board’s actual words rather than trying to put words in the board’s mouth on this controversial topic. We should be cautious.

Not accurate. Spin

"ban" is fake news

COMMENT: I just think we have to point out that the Working Group does NOT agree on what the status quo means. In all other issues, it's 2012 implementation.

It is accurate now, as written. What could be more accurate than the Board's actual resolution?

+1 tp Paul

The board didn’t say “ban”, we should use the words the board used.

There was never any agreement on the word "ban." That was one side's spin and it is appropriate for it to come out and be replaced by the Board's actual resolution.

I strongly disagree with the loaded term "ban". Factual reference to the text of the actual resolution cannot reasonably be objected to

I can speak to what I believe what was the intent of the Board. I believe that the intent was to institute a ban which the GSO could, if it wished, propose an alternative in the future. But that hasn't happened.

+1 Susan.

There is other guidance that it only applied to 2012 - in the Board's direction for the GNSO to decide what to do for the next round

+1 Marc. The Board's resolution is the Board's resolution. It isn't vague.

... the Working Group was not able to agree on any changes to the status quo or what the status quo is.

+1 Justine

George is not the Board.

He is a beloved and respected, but the Resolution says what it says.

The board’s resolution didn’t say “ban”. They could have, but they did not. We shouldn’t lose sight of that fact.

Jeff, that's right, and these memories are 6+ years old.

Exactly right Jeff.

Apologize but have to move to another call

+1 Robin. If it was a ban, why in the world would they ask us to develop Policy (which we have failed to do)? The resolution says what it says. Spin isn't helpful.

How you saw it is not relevant Kathy

@jeff, can we please add "....... the Working Group was not able to agree on any changes to the status quo OR WHAT THE STATUS QUO IS."

+1 Justine

Kathy's individual impressions shouldn't trump the Board resolution.

Next: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 09 July 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

+1 to Justine's suggestion