Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Julie Bisland
29:19
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Donna Austin, Neustar
29:39
me too
Anne Aikman-Scalese
29:50
I always have to type in the password.
avri doria
30:10
cut & paste worked for me.
Julie Hedlund
34:58
The document we are looking at is here: 2.2.2 Predictability: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
35:05
page 4
Kathy Kleiman
36:11
I'm glad that Jeff is noting that RPMs is very much a part of the "changes" we are discussing.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:43
As long as you have enough representation from the community and from the PDP working group, you should be okay but "at least one" person from the PDP WG is not at all acceptable in terms of representation.
Kathy Kleiman
38:39
Agree with Anne
Katrin Ohlmer
40:28
Sorry for being late
Olga Cavalli
40:49
Hi sorry for being late!
Donna Austin, Neustar
40:53
I thought we agreed last week that representation from the PDP WG was optimal, but it needs to be recognised that because of the passage of time this may not always be possible.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:07
Yes Donna - what I am objecting to is the language that says SPIRT should have "at least one" member of the PDP WG. It should say that invitations should be broadly distributed and should go out to ALL members of the PDP WG - just as the IRT guidelines say.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:22
Hypothetical: I hereby volunteer to serve on the SPIRT team. Who is going to say that I should or should not be a member?
Paul McGrady
47:23
@Jeff, I suppose. But what we are asking here is that the GNSO change its process and permanently delegate part of its role
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:15
@Anne, I think it would be beneficial if there is an upper limit on the number of people on the SPIRT so I don't necessarily agree that it should be an open call for members.
Paul McGrady
49:33
SPIRT will not be nearly as fully representative of the entire GNSO community as Council will be.
Paul McGrady
51:14
@Jeff - perhaps, but where does the danger lie? That the Council may accidently do implementation or that the SPIRT accidently does policy? I think it is the latter.
Kathy Kleiman
52:02
+20 Paul.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:08
Thanks Donna - makes sense but how do you decide WHO gets to be a member of the SPIRT?
Kathy Kleiman
52:11
@Jeff: did you say you had a question for me?
Paul McGrady
52:27
@Donna - for me, yes. That would help a lot.
Kathy Kleiman
52:39
GNSO Council for D and E should get input from the Community!
Paul McGrady
53:39
@Jeff - but we can't reconfigure how policy is developed just because everyone is frustrated with how slow Council works. If Council is too slow, the Community can take steps to address that. Circumventing the Council is not an answer.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:14
The biggest issue is how you determine which bucket the issue belongs in - A, B, C, D, or E - Council has to have the final say on that. but there is an issue as to how quickly Council could make that determination.
Kathy Kleiman
54:29
new hand
Justine Chew
54:48
Plus, GNSO Council aside, don't forget that the Board and ICANN Org could also send things to SPIRT, isn't that so?
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:23
@Justine, yes they can, but those issues can also be Policy
Paul McGrady
55:31
Transparency and predictability is the bed rock of multistakeholderism, not efficiency (although efficiency is good where we can get it, but not at the cost of sacrificing the Council's role).
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:41
It doesn't matter where the issue comes from
Justine Chew
57:32
@Donna, my question points to the possibility that things get sent to SPIRT without going though GNSO Council. So are you saying that in such events SPIRT has to first ask GNSO Council what it should do?
Donna Austin, Neustar
58:37
@Justine, it was a suggestion to overcome concerns by Paul and Kathy. Not sure what view I subscribe to yet.
Justine Chew
59:12
@Donna, right. So I should pose my question to @Kathy and @Paul.
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:04
@Donna - could you repost the question?
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:07
Chat is hard!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:01:45
@Donna, my question points to the possibility that things get sent to SPIRT without going though GNSO Council. So are you saying that in such events SPIRT has to first ask GNSO Council what it should do?
Justine Chew
01:02:27
Thanks @Donna, @Kathy, that was my question (incorrectly) posed to Donna.
Justine Chew
01:06:21
I think what Jeff says makes sense. The safety is the GNSO Council retains control over SPIRT.
Paul McGrady
01:07:27
Taking Staff out as a referral source to SPIRT and leaving only the Board and Council as the referral sources would also bring some comfort.
Annebeth Lange
01:07:47
@Anne, that makes sense
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:08:09
The SPIRT is more than a sorting function.
Annebeth Lange
01:08:45
But don’t forget that there are other SO/ACs out there as well
Justine Chew
01:09:28
@Kathy, that was my question actually.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:10:12
@Donna - please elaborate - I understand SPIRT as only making recommendations as to how to handle an issue that arises after the applications are in.
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:02
"Issues identified as C,D, and E would generally speaking, be expected to be referred to the SPIRT" => from the GNSO Council [!][chart]
Paul McGrady
01:13:54
@Jeff - what is the threshold for the Council to reach down and bring something up to Council? 1 Constituency? Supermajority of entire Council?
christopher wilkinson
01:14:42
@Annebeth +1. There are other SO/ACs that are representative of the Community.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:17
@Paul - that should be the threshold triggers in the Annexes on Input, Guidance, and EPDP. My recollection is one Council member can initiate that discussion at GNSO Council
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:42
bottom section
Justine Chew
01:16:05
What is the check and balance preventing (eg) Org from framing an issue as operational and not send it to SPIRT at all?
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:06
there is no such thing as a pure policy issue in our world
Phil Buckingham
01:18:39
I don’t want complicate this anymore , but where does the GDD slot into this . does it report into the Spirt team ?
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:47
The GNSO is the expert on policy elements
Paul McGrady
01:19:46
Why do we think the SPIRT is better position to parse out what is policy and what is not?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:57
@Justine, I don't know that there is one.
Justine Chew
01:20:33
@Paul, because SPIRT is more nimble and can act more quickly than GNSO Council.
Paul McGrady
01:21:37
@Justine - we are assuming such is the case, but the SPIRT is an experiment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:18
Triage *is* more than mere sorting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:41
exactly @Anne
Paul McGrady
01:24:07
Another possible safety net is that everything that leaves SPIRT goes to Council.
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:31
"Expediting sorting process" => good
Justine Chew
01:24:45
@Anne, and to figure out solutions to recommend on issues that it is given to figure out after the triage.
Justine Chew
01:25:34
*issues that are given to SPIRT to figure out after the triage exercise
Paul McGrady
01:27:09
+1 Anne
Paul McGrady
01:28:35
How is an accountability mechanism more efficient than just having Council sort policy from implementation at the outset?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:59
We can make some annotations to go with the flow chart
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:07
Paul - because Council is too slow and public comment said "We want a Standing IRT".
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:48
sorry for being late, other conf call just ended
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:07
Welcome @Maxim
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:50
Did you send this out to us? It's very helpful. But the flow chart is still wrong if it implies staff can decide the A & B bucket or that SPIRT can decide a policy issue.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:34
Issue - If I volunteer to serve on SPIRT - who decides whether or not I do serve?
Julie Hedlund
01:32:52
See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
01:33:20
Quick process question Jeff. Hand up.
Emily Barabas
01:34:23
Justine proposed adding footnote 2
Emily Barabas
01:34:37
the rationale she provided for this change is included in the comments
Emily Barabas
01:34:50
“Proposed change does not impact rationale but instead adds necessary clarity by addressing omission of a dependency to the Role of Application Comment section.”
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:34
Were trying to get to Recommendations Language Yes @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:56
We would need to *STATE* ""Consensus Call"" for it to be one @Paul
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:32
@Chery - will the Consensus Call come section by section?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:36
No ypur not @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:08
@Jeff is saying we are hopefully not going to get too many suproses FROM the C Call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:43
The LT has not actually decided that yet @Anne with Large Works that is often my personal preference however, but not able to answer that yet... Will do hwever
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:16
I thought this was just short of the finish line and certainly those that have been participating in this process should be pretty comfortable with the recommendations.
Justine Chew
01:42:34
@Donna, so did I, so did I.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:41
We would hope do @Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:30
I think Paul makes a good point that feedback from our constituencies was not what we were contemplating at this phase of drafting
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:50
I consider the feedback from constituencies/community to be a separate effort. The public comment period is an opportunity to hear from those not closely involved in the day-to-day of this WG.
Annebeth Lange
01:45:31
I am a little confused here. I have always thought that when we are doing a consensus call, it is the total we are discussing, can we accept consensus. Here we are talking about specific things we should flag that are really problematic for us. Have I misunderstood completely?
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:10
why did we need veto rights for outside of GNSO bodies?
Paul McGrady
01:47:58
@Annebeth - agree. Consensus calls are meant to look at the entire package. It appears, now, that this "can't live with" process is meant to accelerate the consensus call process at a recommendation by recommendation level.
Paul McGrady
01:48:12
But, I don't think this is proper.
Justine Chew
01:48:23
I think most of the Package proposals submitted are meant to address omissions, small errors, things to clarify - that sort of thing. Can those who have submitted Package forms confirm or deny this?
Paul McGrady
01:48:33
+1 Anne.
Annebeth Lange
01:49:27
@Paul, I have seen this as an opportunity to flag an issue that is really unacceptable and an opportunity to offer an alternative
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:26
Justine- I think there are substantive changes in the comments made.
Emily Barabas
01:52:48
Rationale provided by Justine: "1. Since insufficient awareness of the Program prior to the last round is well acknowledged, this ImplementationGuidance ought to prescribe – not merely suggest – a minimum time period for the next round’s Communications Period. 2. Prior WG discussion on the distinction between the terms “must” and “should” and when either ought to be used, applies."
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:27
Is this helpful: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
Jamie Baxter
01:55:55
I would support Justine’s request to change “should” to “must,” otherwise it’s possible the communication period could be truncated for any number of reasons. I also agree with Anne that we need clarity on the definitions of each word.
Justine Chew
01:56:46
@Paul, that is unacceptable.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:10
should has been the consistent use to date
Julie Bisland
01:57:20
NEXT CALL:Thursday, 28 May 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Jamie Baxter
01:57:32
@Paul .. are there other ways to prevent ICANN from holding up the start of subsequent procedures thought?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:38
"should" does not achieve the public communication goal unless "should" has a LOT of "umph"
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:57:44
The IETF has definitions that may be helpful: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:08
lots of important discourse today people Thank You All!! Bye for now...
Justine Chew
01:58:09
@Anne, can you think of an alternative that gives the requisite ooomph?
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:15
bye all
Tracy F. Hackshaw
01:58:16
bye all