051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Support this change. It addresses the "making policy concerns"
Apologies for arriving late
Donna Austin, Neustar
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…
@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
@Steve, NO , all text on screen
Couple hands up Jeff
OK good catch
Good question Kathy!
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
+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.
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
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?
@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
Donna Austin, Neustar
statement of participation is a difference concept...
declared and public management of any perceived or actual conflicts is important in this
it would be specified in both criteria and Charter specifics would it not?
@CLO - thanks. That makes sense.
Well, Kathy has one, but I would also like to make a comment
Continuous disclosure is essential
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!
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
Yup @Steve that's also what I wanted to raise
@Steve: the opening call could be changed.
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!!!
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 :-)
Bye for now!!!
Interesting discussion :-) Bye all