Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Javier Rúa-Jovet
32:13
ha! Jeff's celebrating his newly found independence. He has just exercised his inalienable right to self-determination.
avri doria
32:15
when I was last a student it was based on rank, 5 minutes for an instructor, up to 20 for a full professor.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:38
Jeff is definitely a full professor.
Julie Bisland
32:46
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Paul McGrady
33:06
Do we mean "Worktrack 5" or Package 5? Agenda looks weird
Paul McGrady
33:34
We mean Work Track 5, yes?
Paul McGrady
33:54
@Cheryl - thanks.
Martin Sutton
34:25
it was the last part of package 5 that rolled over from last call Paul
Steve Chan
34:49
Sorry, dealing with a Word doc this time
Paul McGrady
34:55
@Martin - thanks! Explains why I had my wires crossed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:35
dropped twice sorry
Paul McGrady
36:57
@CLO, so is this a personal dissenting statement?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:41
Small group
Paul McGrady
38:22
Thanks!
Jim Prendergast
38:39
i don't think any consensus calls have been conducted.
Annebeth Lange
38:56
Correct, Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:56
correct but we were not sure the intent... "Dissenting View now noted... Thanks @Justin
Javier Rúa-Jovet
39:29
Yep, pertinent clarification. Thanks @Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
39:42
@Justine - could you summarize the gist of the dissenting view?
Heather Forrest
41:13
Perhaps given the technical difficulties on all sides we should delay the call until next week?
Annebeth Lange
41:15
I am on unmuted. Let me go out and try again.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:09
sorry to hear that @Christopher we wish you a speedy recovery
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:09
it is a now you know of the view pov imo
Justine Chew
43:11
@Correct, Paul, IMO.
Martin Sutton
43:13
reading the text, this sounds more like a comment to submit in public comment
Javier Rúa-Jovet
43:17
Correct Paul
Paul McGrady
43:25
Thanks CLO!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
43:36
yes
Javier Rúa-Jovet
44:24
@Justine clarified this already.
Paul McGrady
44:36
@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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
44:40
@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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:13
indeed it is
Annebeth Lange
45:49
Justine, you should do that as well.
Annebeth Lange
46:43
Justine, it is just to clarify that this is not a comment from the At Large as a stakeholder group
Jim Prendergast
46:58
is it also a candidate for a minority statement? not sure how that works yet
Justine Chew
47:03
I just wasn't sure where it would be placed within the WT5 report.
Robin Gross
47:18
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.
Annebeth Lange
47:38
I agree, Anne, you are absolutely right
Justine Chew
47:45
@Robin, I disagree
Robin Gross
48:03
I think in the past, when minority views were published, they were from official reps of a SG or AC.
Annebeth Lange
48:57
@Robin, that is why I wanted to clarify if this is a view from the whole stakeholdergroup or from some of the members
Justine Chew
48:58
@Robin, as I said, this is a dissenting view which is different to minority view/statement, as I understand.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:13
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.
Paul McGrady
49:28
I'm not a fan of small group dissents trigger re-debate
Robin Gross
49:31
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?
Heather Forrest
50:12
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.
Jim Prendergast
50:13
@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.
Justine Chew
51:02
There was an email conversation triggered by Anne regarding dissenting views which I understood Leadership was agreeable to accept.
Justine Chew
51:06
Thanks @Steve.
christopher wilkinson
51:55
@Paul, the PDP has not debated this yet.
Annebeth Lange
52:03
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
Justine Chew
52:40
But @Steve, we are asking for this dissenting view be included in the draft final report.
Justine Chew
52:48
To enrich it.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:05
We have already had several dissenting views described/summarized in the draft Final Report and those sections have been finished.
Paul McGrady
54:18
Who are the "many"?
Marc Trachtenberg
54:33
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?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:54
no - it's in the deliberations text
Robin Gross
55:02
including minority views described in a report and appending minority statements to a report are two different actions
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:02
different issue
Jorge Cancio
57:03
there should be some way to reflect this in an appropriate fashion...
Marc Trachtenberg
57:10
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?
Greg Shatan
57:24
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.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
57:31
@Jorge, what do you suggest?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:11
Agree Greg - you point out that staff should summarize the Dissenting View in the Deliberations - no disagreement with that.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
58:41
@Greg want to propose a way forward?
Steve Chan
58:46
Hand again
Paul McGrady
58:54
@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.
Greg Shatan
59:31
I’m not saying they should summarize the Statement. Staff should summarize the deliberations with dissenting views mentioned throughout in those summaries of deliberations.
Paul McGrady
01:00:14
Does the dissent list who backs it? I can't see the end of the comment...
Paul McGrady
01:00:26
@Staff - thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:00:30
+1 Cheryl - there is already an existing practice as to summary of dissenting views and it does not require identifying individuals.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:00:35
+1 @CLO
Greg Shatan
01:00:46
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.
Heather Forrest
01:00:51
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)."
Jorge Cancio
01:00:52
@Javier: what CLO says sounds sensible
Annebeth Lange
01:00:54
+1 Cheryl
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:01:16
yes @Jorge.
Justine Chew
01:01:19
Noted @Cheryl. I look forward to receiving that advice.
Greg Shatan
01:01:30
@Heather, that is in the final report, is it not?
Annebeth Lange
01:02:08
Just have to be clear that this is not a minority view, but a dissenting view from some (or one) member of the WT5
Heather Forrest
01:02:12
@Greg - it's more general than that, in the provision outlining how to determine consensus.
Greg Shatan
01:02:46
@Heather, thanks. But either way that is not the point we are at yet.
Martin Sutton
01:02:52
thx Steve, that’s helpful
Annebeth Lange
01:02:59
@Steve, I agree.
Robin Gross
01:03:28
This could open a floodgate of dissenting views that demand to be included in the report, so we need to be careful.
Greg Shatan
01:03:32
@Annabeth, I’m not sure of the distinction you are drawing?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:43
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.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:03:47
@ Robin - +1
Martin Sutton
01:04:03
That is a concern Robin
Annebeth Lange
01:04:30
@Greg, I think we agree. It is important that what we have discussed again and again should not be raised again as dissenting views
Greg Shatan
01:05:36
@Annabeth. Yes indeed. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that we agree.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:06:19
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.
Annebeth Lange
01:06:37
@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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:48
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
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:30
I think these views have been heard over and over again, not they were suppressed.
Greg Shatan
01:09:17
@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.
Rubens Kuhl
01:09:24
And saying that a bigger guy out there will come and smash the group position is not helpful for discussions.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:09:48
Well said, Cheryl!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:09:55
+1 CLO
Annebeth Lange
01:10:18
+1 Cheryl
Paul McGrady
01:10:26
Let's do a quick reminder
Steve Chan
01:10:27
There is also a new proposal from Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:41
Ahh Yes Noted @Steve
Jorge Cancio
01:10:43
let's see what comes in the public comment...
Steve Chan
01:10:47
And then another new one from Paul
Steve Chan
01:11:02
…I think
Annebeth Lange
01:11:05
@Jorge, yes, that will be important
Paul McGrady
01:11:19
@Steve - not new - just fleshing out details for Proposal 4
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:24
I believe that people preferred having the weekend to analyse the proposals.
Jim Prendergast
01:11:44
thats Pauls. Mine is new
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:45
(Or at least that's what I read)
Steve Chan
01:11:57
It might be helpful to take a look at the predictability framework instead?
Jim Prendergast
01:12:09
more an amalgamation
Paul McGrady
01:12:09
+1 Steve
Justine Chew
01:12:12
@Cheryl, perhaps, we could skip to item 4 instead and move item 3 to the next call?
Justine Chew
01:12:31
Unless Jim wants us to consider it now?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:44
Agree with those who believe it's best to move Item 3 to next call
Elaine Pruis
01:13:22
agree, let’s move resolution to next week so that Jeff can participate, and everyone has time to digest the proposals
Paul McGrady
01:13:44
My hand is about agenda too
Justine Chew
01:14:03
@Donna, that's fine with me, up to Jim.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:14:08
I think @Heather also had a reschedule ask.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:05
Donna's suggestion as to 3. makes sense as long as the discussion can take place on Monday
Justine Chew
01:15:25
Agree with Paul, there are things to flesh out, but not a bad idea for Jim to table his proposal.
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:50
Justine, European meaning of table or American meaning of table (putting that aside) ?
Paul McGrady
01:17:53
New hand for me
Justine Chew
01:18:46
@Rubens, "table" to me means "put it on the table for discussion".
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:52
The longer word is the one that comes after "Now a short word from our sponsor".
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:18:54
Did not know those nuances of the English language !
Justine Chew
01:20:12
@Javier, wide world, but appreciate the opportunity to respond to Ruben's question.
Robin Gross
01:20:34
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.
Paul McGrady
01:21:14
:-)
Steve Chan
01:22:29
I can kick us off if you’d like CLO
Jorge Cancio
01:23:09
thanks for "table a document" discussion - very useful for diplomatic practice ;P
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:29
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
Jorge Cancio
01:25:17
I knew the Aussie meaning (=UK, right?)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:43
indeed @Jorge but with less pomp and circumstance ;-)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:25:47
Aussie meaning makes more sense to me!
Jorge Cancio
01:26:11
@CLO: I knew sth like that would be coming ;D
Annebeth Lange
01:26:16
+1 Javier - for me a well
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:20
Thanks Steve - helpful to go through changes!
Paul McGrady
01:27:37
Yes, lets use the time to walk through the proposed changes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:28:05
Many thanks to staff for their hard work on this under tight time frame!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:28:28
Indeed--thanks Steve, Emily, Julie, all
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:28:48
In Spanish when we put things "sobre el tapete" literally "over the carpet" when we "table" something in the Aussie sense.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:14
Yes indeed @Donna fabulous and we trust very helpful work
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:29:55
(more mat than carpet)
Martin Sutton
01:30:39
Javier - perhaps we should adopt the carpet/mat phrase to be entirely clear
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:31:54
yah, its probably mat. Maybe its just that our tables always have mats and we put stuff on top! (Ok enough of this)
Paul McGrady
01:32:34
@Steve - will the change log be published? If so, can we say "published change log"?
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:31
So far, it seems the changes reflect community discussion, IMHO.
Greg Shatan
01:33:38
Psychics and Spirits, and meeting after Midnight (for me at least). This is quite spooky. Especially the part about Consulting with the Spirit.
Justine Chew
01:34:25
@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.
Steve Chan
01:34:40
Thanks Justine
Robin Gross
01:34:43
Greg, LOL
Steve Chan
01:34:53
Hard to multitask :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:07
just add the following to that sentence after collaborate "in formulating its recommendation to Council"
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:04
+1 Ann
Paul McGrady
01:37:06
I like Anne's language. Belts and suspenders.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:08
Anne
Steve Chan
01:39:24
I have a hand
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:02
"as a recommended solution is developed for Council"
Jorge Cancio
01:41:08
good points, Steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:23
Anne is this a new hand or a continuation on the current points for A and B ?
Paul McGrady
01:43:13
Could the change log be a permanent fixture near the public comment section of the main website?
Jorge Cancio
01:43:30
"transparency" was also raised by the GAC...
Jorge Cancio
01:43:48
so was inclusivity = e.g. include also other SO/AC
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:04
+1 Paul!
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:26
Regular place for change log on SPIRT website
Justine Chew
01:44:36
Publishing it doesn't necessarily mean folks know about it. Just saying.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:44:37
yep
Jorge Cancio
01:45:49
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."
Justine Chew
01:47:04
Procedural processes
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:33
Agreed
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:05
Tx Jorge to share the language of the Communique
Paul McGrady
01:50:18
"thorough" :-) Karen is so nice to put it that way!
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:22
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:27
can someone give an example?
Jorge Cancio
01:51:39
what are the incentives being created for putting an issue in one bucket or another? and who decides?
Heather Forrest
01:51:55
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:57
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.
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
01:52:07
it is ok now
Rubens Kuhl
01:52:12
Not in a position to speak at this time of night
Jorge Cancio
01:53:06
for the time being I see a lot of complexity being created here...
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:52
could someone post (or report) the link to this document?
Justine Chew
01:53:53
@Steve, does any of the changes we're discussing affect the flowchart?
Karen Lentz
01:54:15
I did not mean to suggest the Council could not be actively notified - certainly they could
Jorge Cancio
01:54:36
question: how will the GAC be involved in the SPIRT?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:50
Yes all Very new woth a LOT of reporting and update and a MORE active role
Steve Chan
01:55:42
2 minute warning
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:48
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.
Steve Chan
01:56:13
@Justine, some, but I’m not sure the way it’s currently designed is fit for purpose
Rubens Kuhl
01:56:20
Both policy and non-policy changes can have material effect.
Steve Chan
01:56:22
It might need to be broken out by type
Heather Forrest
01:56:31
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
Rubens Kuhl
01:57:07
IRTs usually have a council liaison and I don't see why SPIRIT wouldn't have one.
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:11
+1 Anne and Rubens -- there may be more impacted parties than we think.
Jorge Cancio
01:57:13
there should be at least a GAC liaison...
Paul McGrady
01:57:17
Thanks CLO. Good call tonight!
Heather Forrest
01:57:19
Apologies, all - I have a hard stop, must drop now. Agreed @Rubens
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:34
Agree Rubens - but Jeff wanted a Chair of SPIRT instead - can't remember why
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:07
Anne, but I don't think it was in exclusion of a liaison.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:50
We will need to review/discuss in the next meeting
Julie Bisland
01:58:55
NEXT CALL: Monday, 06 July 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Justine Chew
01:59:02
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.
Paul McGrady
01:59:31
Yay!!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:59:39
good 2 hear
Rubens Kuhl
01:59:45
Photos or it didn't happen
Greg Shatan
01:59:45
ICANN is going to the dogs....
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:59:53
Many thanks Cheryl et al
Jorge Cancio
02:00:02
thanks all and stay safe
Annebeth Lange
02:00:06
Thanks, bye all, good discussion
Robin Gross
02:00:18
Thanks, CL)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
02:00:20
ciao