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

Here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit#

Support this change. It addresses the "making policy concerns"

Apologies for arriving late

And isn't part of the reason for that so that the Council can consider whether the suggestions of the SPIRT had policy implications.

That is my understanding @Donna

+1 Donna. Without GNSO oversight, the SPIRT doesn't work.

But GNSO was responsible for the 2007 texts and for the flawed vertical integration decisions in 2010…

hand up

@Steve please fix the fonts on screen to be legible

It should have been linked not sure why it separated @Kathy, good catch

@Christopher, if you’re referring to the colors, that’s controlled by Google as far as I know

But only if the Council knows about it...

Could we say "ICANN org must inform the GNSO Council and the SPIRT of issues arising in this category and the SPIRT will have the option to collaborate with ICANN org as a solution..."

But the change log is after implementation...

+1 to Paul's change. But we may need to may need to modify some language on page 3 of the main Predictability Index text if we go this direction. This is because - On page three of the main Predictability Framework text, we say the following, which conflicts with the language of B currently under discussion. "The Framework seeks to allow ICANN Org to make changes to its internal processes that DO NOT HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT (emphasis mine) on applicants or other community members, change applications, or impact any of the processes and procedures set forth in the Applicant Guidebook."

The change log does not inform the Council of what is happening, it informs the Council of what has already happened.

@Jeff - that is fine.

Just so long as the Council knows beforehand what is happening

I am okay with having SPRIT inform Council

Yes

@Steve, NO , all text on screen

Couple hands up Jeff

OK good catch

Good question Kathy!

makes sense

BG noise

We do provide links to the GDocs so one can follow along in larger format

All of this can only be a'best effort'Christopher the processes may still need course correction if holes appear later

Here’s the doc link again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit#

time is up, Christopher. please don’t monopolize the meeting time

our job is to propose improvements on what happened before and minimise risks while increasing predictability

for Applicants and others

Christopher, you seem to think that contracted parties and GNSO are one and the same. In fact there are a range of perspectives in the GNSO. It would be a very rare topic on which everyone in the GNSO wholeheartedly agreed in the manner you seem to envisage

@Cheryl, +1

+1, Susan. I don’t think this diatribe against the GNSO is relevant to our work. This is a GNSO PDP - period.

Disagree with CW. The PDP has worked hard to make it inclusive. Whether people want to participate is another matter.

+1 CLO!!!

I disagree with CW, as well. This is the system in ICANN, and this round has really worked hard to get all the AC/SOs aboard. For those of us that were part of the last process, this is a huge improvement

great improvements

Hand up :)

My favorite bullet point "For avoidance of doubt, the SPIRT cannot refer an issue to itself."

For D and E shouldn't we include a note that GNSO Council oversees?

Thanks @Steve, I was getting a little thrown off between annex and non-annex

is that a new hand @Kathy?

Thx

nope

:-)

@Jeff - super dumb question - is there a limit to the size of the SPIRT? Sorry to ask when the answer is probably well settled.

good idea , Donna

Correct.

customised text

statement of participation is a difference concept...

different

declared and public management of any perceived or actual conflicts is important in this

Thanks Jeff.

it would be specified in both criteria and Charter specifics would it not?

@CLO - thanks. That makes sense.

Hand up

hand up

Well, Kathy has one, but I would also like to make a comment

Continuous disclosure is essential

+1 Cheryl

I think you should disclose again. People forget after 5 years.

It should be an issue by issue for SPIRIT

Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution

Jeff, I had a comment on the term limits

Even better said - tx Cheryl. <<Annual SOI Updates does not negate the expectations of Continuous Disclosure AT the time, and operating in an abundance of caution.>>

that's interesting, Paul.

Good point Jeff on the non-binding issue. Thanks!

new hand

Participants with a COI should not be appointed to the SPIRT in the first places. Independence and Neutrality OK.

I think Kathy's point makes sense

Jeff, I still have a hand as well

@Steve - it doesn't

@Steve, but updates to SOI doesn't flag an interest

+1 Justine.

Yup @Steve that's also what I wanted to raise

@Steve: the opening call could be changed.

new hand

So stay silent in length of term"? As after all such Terms MAY be set in a CHarter

shouldn’t the length of term be tied into a round (s)

This was why I was asking about the size of the SPIRT. If it is open to all and could be 500 people, what do term limits matter?

I think we need to pick what we want (open or closed) or at least express a preference. But definitely not get into the argument about how many seats each group gets.

What Cheryl says works for me.

this is starting to have Gordian knot design otherwise

We need clearer language re: ongoing disclosure - to reflect today's discussion.

Lots of progress today Team THANK YOU all!!!

Noted @Kathy

Congrats to Jeff, CLO, and Staff. This SPIRT thing is in much better shape now than when we first saw it.

Next meeting is Tuesday, 14 July at 0300 UTC

a mini package :-)

Thanks @Paul

Bye for now!!!

Interesting discussion :-) Bye all