ha! Jeff's celebrating his newly found independence. He has just exercised his inalienable right to self-determination.

when I was last a student it was based on rank, 5 minutes for an instructor, up to 20 for a full professor.

Jeff is definitely a full professor.

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

Do we mean "Worktrack 5" or Package 5? Agenda looks weird

We mean Work Track 5, yes?

@Cheryl - thanks.

it was the last part of package 5 that rolled over from last call Paul

Sorry, dealing with a Word doc this time

@Martin - thanks! Explains why I had my wires crossed.

dropped twice sorry

@CLO, so is this a personal dissenting statement?

Small group

Thanks!

i don't think any consensus calls have been conducted.

Correct, Jim

correct but we were not sure the intent... "Dissenting View now noted... Thanks @Justin

Yep, pertinent clarification. Thanks @Justine

@Justine - could you summarize the gist of the dissenting view?

Perhaps given the technical difficulties on all sides we should delay the call until next week?

I am on unmuted. Let me go out and try again.

sorry to hear that @Christopher we wish you a speedy recovery

it is a now you know of the view pov imo

@Correct, Paul, IMO.

reading the text, this sounds more like a comment to submit in public comment

Correct Paul

Thanks CLO!

yes

@Justine clarified this already.

@Martin - I agree, but I'm a fan of more speech rather than less, so as long as we aren't harmed by a failure to object to it or tinker with it, I see little harm in it being here instead of public comment.

@Martin- It' s important to include dissenting views of Working Group members. They are close to the work and the point is to raise the dissenting view for public consideration.

indeed it is

Justine, you should do that as well.

Justine, it is just to clarify that this is not a comment from the At Large as a stakeholder group

is it also a candidate for a minority statement? not sure how that works yet

I just wasn't sure where it would be placed within the WT5 report.

It seems to me that only comments of ACs or SGs would rise to the level of a dissenting view that gets appended to the report.

I agree, Anne, you are absolutely right

@Robin, I disagree

I think in the past, when minority views were published, they were from official reps of a SG or AC.

@Robin, that is why I wanted to clarify if this is a view from the whole stakeholdergroup or from some of the members

@Robin, as I said, this is a dissenting view which is different to minority view/statement, as I understand.

Robin - this is not a Minority Statement because there is no Consensus Call at this stage. The Consensus Call and Minority Statements apparently come later after pubic comment.

I'm not a fan of small group dissents trigger re-debate

Does anyone know of a time in the past (precedent) when a minority view was appended to the report when it wasn’t the official view of a SG or AC?

Surely we are straying now into the territory of what the public comment period is for? Why are we having our own internal public comment period? I am very concerned about the procedural appropriateness of this discussion.

@Robin - that's not the guidance we have been given by the cochairs on other issues such as closed generics. it would be good to get clarification on who can provide dissenting views on the final reports since we are getting closer to that stage now.

There was an email conversation triggered by Anne regarding dissenting views which I understood Leadership was agreeable to accept.

Thanks @Steve.

@Paul, the PDP has not debated this yet.

This should have the same status as the comments from CW later in the report. Here it is from 3 At Large members, from CW it is from him. All have been following the WT5 closely, and we should absolutely listen and discuss them

But @Steve, we are asking for this dissenting view be included in the draft final report.

To enrich it.

We have already had several dissenting views described/summarized in the draft Final Report and those sections have been finished.

Who are the "many"?

So are we going to have an appendix to the report with all dissenting opinions even if each is only held by one to 3 people?

no - it's in the deliberations text

including minority views described in a report and appending minority statements to a report are two different actions

different issue

there should be some way to reflect this in an appropriate fashion...

So we are going to leave it to staff to decide what dissenting views are included? What criteria are used to decide when that will happen?

Anne, that’s not inconsistent with what I said. My concern was taking a verbatim dissenting statement and putting it into the report as such.

@Jorge, what do you suggest?

Agree Greg - you point out that staff should summarize the Dissenting View in the Deliberations - no disagreement with that.

@Greg want to propose a way forward?

Hand again

@Annebeth - agree and we have to note who made the statements so that we don't give the reader the false impression that dissent was larger than it was.

I’m not saying they should summarize the Statement. Staff should summarize the deliberations with dissenting views mentioned throughout in those summaries of deliberations.

Does the dissent list who backs it? I can't see the end of the comment...

@Staff - thanks!

+1 Cheryl - there is already an existing practice as to summary of dissenting views and it does not require identifying individuals.

+1 @CLO

We should not elevate one minority view on one item over other minority views on other points, merely because the dissenters have submitted a Dissenting Statement.

Just picking up on Jim's (much) earlier question above about the process of Minority Statements, Section 3.6 of the WG Guidelines tells us something important: "In all cases of Divergence, the WG Chair should encourage the submissionof minority viewpoint(s)."

@Javier: what CLO says sounds sensible

+1 Cheryl

yes @Jorge.

Noted @Cheryl. I look forward to receiving that advice.

@Heather, that is in the final report, is it not?

Just have to be clear that this is not a minority view, but a dissenting view from some (or one) member of the WT5

@Greg - it's more general than that, in the provision outlining how to determine consensus.

@Heather, thanks. But either way that is not the point we are at yet.

thx Steve, that’s helpful

@Steve, I agree.

This could open a floodgate of dissenting views that demand to be included in the report, so we need to be careful.

@Annabeth, I’m not sure of the distinction you are drawing?

The full WG is supposed to be able to review the work of Work Track 5, right? Talking about length of report is not that relevant. This can be summarized in a few sentences I think.

@ Robin - +1

That is a concern Robin

@Greg, I think we agree. It is important that what we have discussed again and again should not be raised again as dissenting views

@Annabeth. Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that we agree.

I'm hearing general possible, acceptable ways forward from @Greg, @Jorge, @Anne and perhaps others, but with great care and caution and adherence to precedent as stated by @Robin and others.

@Greg, we have not all got what we wanted as a a first priority, but this should be a “group result”, where you give and take

I expect that there will be a minority Report Christopher, these things are not at all unusual with Reports of this size and nature … Thanks

I think these views have been heard over and over again, not they were suppressed.

@Annabeth, agree again and the concept of grasping onto the Group Result even when you do not love every aspect of that report is an essential part of this process.

And saying that a bigger guy out there will come and smash the group position is not helpful for discussions.

Well said, Cheryl!

+1 CLO

+1 Cheryl

Let's do a quick reminder

There is also a new proposal from Jim

Ahh Yes Noted @Steve

let's see what comes in the public comment...

And then another new one from Paul

…I think

@Jorge, yes, that will be important

@Steve - not new - just fleshing out details for Proposal 4

I believe that people preferred having the weekend to analyse the proposals.

thats Pauls. Mine is new

(Or at least that's what I read)

It might be helpful to take a look at the predictability framework instead?

more an amalgamation

+1 Steve

@Cheryl, perhaps, we could skip to item 4 instead and move item 3 to the next call?

Unless Jim wants us to consider it now?

Agree with those who believe it's best to move Item 3 to next call

agree, let’s move resolution to next week so that Jeff can participate, and everyone has time to digest the proposals

My hand is about agenda too

@Donna, that's fine with me, up to Jim.

I think @Heather also had a reschedule ask.

Donna's suggestion as to 3. makes sense as long as the discussion can take place on Monday

Agree with Paul, there are things to flesh out, but not a bad idea for Jim to table his proposal.

Justine, European meaning of table or American meaning of table (putting that aside) ?

New hand for me

@Rubens, "table" to me means "put it on the table for discussion".

The longer word is the one that comes after "Now a short word from our sponsor".

Did not know those nuances of the English language !

@Javier, wide world, but appreciate the opportunity to respond to Ruben's question.

As I recall, the international disagreement over the meaning of “tabling a document” has led to at least one GNSO Council controversy over the years.

:-)

I can kick us off if you’d like CLO

thanks for "table a document" discussion - very useful for diplomatic practice ;P

Yes the Tabling of a Doc meaning can indeed cause confusion unless we are all clear as they are lterally opposite in meaning.... We Aussies mean put it ON the table For Discussion and Review

I knew the Aussie meaning (=UK, right?)

indeed @Jorge but with less pomp and circumstance ;-)

Aussie meaning makes more sense to me!

@CLO: I knew sth like that would be coming ;D

+1 Javier - for me a well

Thanks Steve - helpful to go through changes!

Yes, lets use the time to walk through the proposed changes.

Many thanks to staff for their hard work on this under tight time frame!

Indeed--thanks Steve, Emily, Julie, all

In Spanish when we put things "sobre el tapete" literally "over the carpet" when we "table" something in the Aussie sense.

Yes indeed @Donna fabulous and we trust very helpful work

(more mat than carpet)

Javier - perhaps we should adopt the carpet/mat phrase to be entirely clear

yah, its probably mat. Maybe its just that our tables always have mats and we put stuff on top! (Ok enough of this)

@Steve - will the change log be published? If so, can we say "published change log"?

So far, it seems the changes reflect community discussion, IMHO.

Psychics and Spirits, and meeting after Midnight (for me at least). This is quite spooky. Especially the part about Consulting with the Spirit.

@Paul, "Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 1): ICANN Org should maintain a change log or similar record to track changes to the New gTLD Program, especially those that arise and are addressed via the Predictability Framework and the SPIRT. The GNSO Council should be informed of updates to the change log on a regular and timely basis. Interested parties should be able to subscribe to the change log to be informed of changes." suggests that the change log IS NOT published. But I could be wrong.

Thanks Justine

Greg, LOL

Hard to multitask :)

just add the following to that sentence after collaborate "in formulating its recommendation to Council"

+1 Ann

I like Anne's language. Belts and suspenders.

Anne

I have a hand

"as a recommended solution is developed for Council"

good points, Steve

Anne is this a new hand or a continuation on the current points for A and B ?

Could the change log be a permanent fixture near the public comment section of the main website?

"transparency" was also raised by the GAC...

so was inclusivity = e.g. include also other SO/AC

+1 Paul!

Regular place for change log on SPIRT website

Publishing it doesn't necessarily mean folks know about it. Just saying.

yep

here is the relevant text from GAC Communique "While the GAC appreciatesthe efforts of the WG to create a Predictability Framework, some GAC members raised doubts onthe added-value of a SPIRT, and expressed concerns that its creation, if adopted, could addcomplexity to the current procedure and potential inconsistency with existing roles andresponsibilities according to the ICANN Bylaws. It was proposed that if established, the newmechanism be lean, inclusive and transparent."

Procedural processes

Agreed

Tx Jorge to share the language of the Communique

"thorough" :-) Karen is so nice to put it that way!

One way to figure out policy or implementation in the SPIRT case specifically is to see whether it's in the WG final report or not.

can someone give an example?

what are the incentives being created for putting an issue in one bucket or another? and who decides?

All - just an update. Just heard from Jeff - he is fine. Just had a family emergency but all is on the mend now. He sends his belated apologies.

But this is the essential problem - staff cannot be the determiner of whether an issue is policy or implementation. Council has the final say and the SPIRT cannot make that determination- they can only make a recommendation as to whether it's implementation or policy.

it is ok now

Not in a position to speak at this time of night

for the time being I see a lot of complexity being created here...

could someone post (or report) the link to this document?

@Steve, does any of the changes we're discussing affect the flowchart?

I did not mean to suggest the Council could not be actively notified - certainly they could

question: how will the GAC be involved in the SPIRT?

Yes all Very new woth a LOT of reporting and update and a MORE active role

2 minute warning

The key here is "material effect" on applicants or others in the community. Staff and the SPIRT should describe the issue to Council with the recommended solution.

@Justine, some, but I’m not sure the way it’s currently designed is fit for purpose

Both policy and non-policy changes can have material effect.

It might need to be broken out by type

Come to think of it, Cheryl, the role of the Council Liaison in the SPIRT is something to be thought out in greater detail perhaps

IRTs usually have a council liaison and I don't see why SPIRIT wouldn't have one.

+1 Anne and Rubens -- there may be more impacted parties than we think.

there should be at least a GAC liaison...

Thanks CLO. Good call tonight!

Apologies, all - I have a hard stop, must drop now. Agreed @Rubens

Agree Rubens - but Jeff wanted a Chair of SPIRT instead - can't remember why

Anne, but I don't think it was in exclusion of a liaison.

We will need to review/discuss in the next meeting

NEXT CALL: Monday, 06 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

2b. The GNSO Council is expected to designate a GNSO Council liaison to the SPIRT to ensure a direct link to the GNSO Council if/when needed.

Yay!!

good 2 hear

Photos or it didn't happen

ICANN is going to the dogs....

Many thanks Cheryl et al

thanks all and stay safe

Thanks, bye all, good discussion

Thanks, CL)

ciao