Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
tomwdale
37:45
It was the worst of times, it was the even worst of times…
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
38:06
Hi 2 all!
Maxim Alzoba
38:14
staying home is a habit , so it does not count
Anne Aikman-Scalese
39:10
Hi Jeff, Cheryl, staff et all - Re RVCs, in the Google doc I added after the phrase about the post-application RVCs being subject to Application Change Request, the following for clarity, "including, but not limited to public comment pursuant to standard ICANN procedures and time frames" .
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:22
Noted thanks @Anne... That is your AI reported then :-)
Paul McGrady
41:24
Yes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
41:57
Thanks Cheryl.
Steve Chan
42:39
PDF here to follow along.
Steve Chan
42:50
And the red-lines here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:00
@Annebeth Yes Zoom Party and other celebrations ( I am doing a monthly luncheon with friends that has been running 35 years now via zoom in April, and attended my 1sr live streamed funeral yesterday evening..
Steve Chan
43:13
Though that version has Paul’s edits, so it differs versus the clean version now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:34
Well noted @Steve
Kathy Kleiman
50:15
+1 Anne - share question
Olga Cavalli
51:56
@Paul when you talk about “community wants predictability” how you define community?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:05
THank you Paul - saves time for IRT
Justine Chew
52:30
Well if you keep the text in " " then keeping reference to s 1.1.2.4 AGB makes sense.
Olga Cavalli
52:52
@Paul thanks
tomwdale
55:02
Those most concerned to secure predictability will, inevitably, be those directly engaged in the application process. And rightly so, I think.
Paul McGrady
55:46
@Christopher - could we get through the proposals before they are deconstructed?
Donna Austin, Neustar
56:09
Agree Tom
Maxim Alzoba
56:10
the last idea is not clear, why the predictability is less important for applicants?
Maxim Alzoba
56:38
it might be equally important (from philosophical point of view)
Annebeth Lange
56:59
Agree Tom
Katrin Ohlmer
57:24
+1 Maxim, Tom
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:07
Is it okay to redline the Google doc rather than doing it in "suggest" mode?
Martin Sutton
58:19
would be helpful to go through Paul’s suggestions
Donna Austin, Neustar
58:32
I think Paul's changes are just trying to put a 'timeframe' on GAC Advice, he's not ruling out GAC Advice, just putting timing on it, which is important for applicants and predictability.
Annebeth Lange
58:56
I also agree with Christopher Wilkinson that it is very difficult to restrict governments and “put them inside a box”, as he said. Experience shows us that there will be situations where governments will react that are very difficult to predict.
Annebeth Lange
01:00:24
What we hope this time is that the GAC has been involved much earlier than last time, so that we can avoid some of the problems from the last round
Paul McGrady
01:00:36
+1 Martin. Would be helpful if we could go through these before they are taken apart (and mischaracterized as somehow trying to bind the GAC, when in fact it does the opposite).
tomwdale
01:00:37
The GAC operates more efficiently now than it did during the early days of the last round.
tomwdale
01:00:51
And is more engaged.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:02
I suspect the more softer result might be where we might end up @Greg (personal POV)
Annebeth Lange
01:01:20
Agree @ Greg
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:01:38
@Annebeth and Christopher--this has always been a tension within the MS model, that GAC Advice has elevated importance. However, in the context of a process such as New gTLDs, can we find a way that ensures governments don't come in after the fact to change agreements made during our four year process?
Elaine Pruis
01:01:55
that may be the case today but the GAC turnover ensures we won’t have the same group when the next window opens
Annebeth Lange
01:02:53
@Donna, as Tom says, the governments are more prepared this time, are more effective and more engaged. So I think it should be possible to find a model that works.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:03:16
@Elaine, GAC turnover should not be an issue as government positions generally stay the same regardless of who the representative is.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:03:29
+1 Paul... this gets that predictability
tomwdale
01:03:41
+1 Paul
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:02
I agree Annebeth
Luisa Paez (GAC Canada)
01:05:49
Yes, as the Canadian GAC Rep, I can attest that we are now doing more 'early engagement' with the PDP policy process which will hopefully provide better outcomes for all and for more continuity/predictability. I also suggest that we would need a bit more time to review the suggested text and welcome the collaborative spirit and support the suggestions to reframe proposed changes more positively .
Justine Chew
01:06:33
I would prefer retaining "the Working Group urges the GAC to provide this Advice ....."
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:19
@Paul, right - your proposal changes it from a "should" to a "must"
avri doria
01:07:23
Is this intended to supersede the Bylaws?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:40
@Avri - Not in the original clean text
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:52
for example imagine now TLD covid .. how GAC would reacted
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:05
very concerned about these revisions
Paul McGrady
01:10:48
@Avri - no. All the mechanisms in the Bylaws remain in place. It changes nothing for the GAC and it provides a basis for how the Board should treat certain GAC Consensus Advice. Since it would be the Board adopting this Recommendation, it would be the Board self-limiting and not the WG limiting the Board - we can't do that. But, we can let the Board know what we want by sending up a Recommendation that provides predictability.
tomwdale
01:10:52
Well there is a lot of effort put into (endlessly) improving Board-GAC working arrangements (special working group etc) so there should be scope for the Board (maybe more so than the GAC) to make any recommendations here work in practice.
Justine Chew
01:13:45
+1 Jeff re examining existing GAC Advice on various things with the view of maximizing predictability on what we do know now. But we cannot expect GAC to predict or foresee what will happen in the next round outside of existing GAC Advice.
Paul McGrady
01:13:54
I can't hear Kathy. Is it me or her?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:01
you
Annebeth Lange
01:14:59
+1 Justine
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:01
Sorry you missed my comments, Paul :-(
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:01
Categories are just groups of individual applications...
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:16
Categories are also helpful.
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:33
It makes the advice more consistent...
Paul McGrady
01:18:31
+1 Jeff
Katrin Ohlmer
01:18:40
Isn't it a bit odd to suggest that the board shall agree to our proposal where they agree to reject GAC Consensus Advice instead of making a decision depending on the actual circumstances?
Justine Chew
01:19:13
Yes, I have difficulty telling GAC and Board what they can or cannot do.
Annebeth Lange
01:19:31
+1 Justine
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:31
it might be better to use wording saying that the document should contain something
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:52
instead of saying that the body issuing the document must
Greg Shatan
01:19:57
But the Board can tell itself what to do. Since it would approve the recommendation, it’s their action, not ours.
Annebeth Lange
01:20:02
The wording is important here
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:13
offending GAC might not be wise
Justine Chew
01:20:14
+1 Anne, exactly why I would prefer to retain "WG urges"
Katrin Ohlmer
01:21:05
+1 Justine, +1Annebeth
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:08
Agree with Katrin about defining circumstances.
Greg Shatan
01:21:28
That said, I doubt the Board will bind its own hands, absent unanimous support by the Community (and even then...)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:24
It makes us look a bit stupid to say "The ICANN Board must" . They can NEVER agree to this.
avri doria
01:22:25
in many worlds, a "must except in..." is known as a should.
Greg Shatan
01:22:31
We could say that the Board should take into account whether the GAC had a clear opportunity to give this advice before the milestone (not deadline), in considering whether to adopt GAC advice.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:24:15
The Board cannot amend its ByLaws by adopting policy that reverses the effect of the ByLAws. A ByLaws amendment is subject to Accountability mechanisms.
Annebeth Lange
01:24:43
If we can find words that explains a kind of way out if something unexpected happens after the AGB is published
Justine Chew
01:25:00
If we stick to "the WG urges the GAC to do something" we can avoid using the words "should" and "must".
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:28
+1 Justine. We should also say "urges the ICANN Board"
Luisa Paez
01:25:49
+ 1 Justine
Justine Chew
01:26:34
Heck, yes, @Anne. And if we need, to we can say "The WG STRONGLY urges the GAC or Board ..." (as the case may be)
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:08
I think this paragraph serves an important purpose
avri doria
01:27:13
A recommendation of 'urges' may be more workable than one the tells the Board to go around the Bylaws.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:18
Personlly I am more comfortable with the softer language as mentioned above by either @Greg or @Justine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:48
+1 Avri
Annebeth Lange
01:28:03
+1 Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:18
indeed @Avri
Luisa Paez
01:28:44
+ 1 Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:29:00
I wonder if we might defer this topic and jump to Applicant Support?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:29:29
@Justine.....we need to go through the substance of each of these before a deferral
MAZZONE - ebu
01:31:01
i agree with Christopher's suggestion
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:01
I agree with Justine that deferral makes sense given the extent of the changes
christopher wilkinson
01:32:06
Delete FN 18
Justine Chew
01:33:01
@Jeff, how does ICANN Org mitigate concerns?
Justine Chew
01:33:36
I thought it facilitates mitigation between applicants and the GAC.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:58
Doesn't Paul propose major changes here as well?
christopher wilkinson
01:34:22
Defer: I am not able to take extensive amendments on the fly. CW
Justine Chew
01:34:49
Okay, thanks @Jeff
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:35:06
Apologies all, I need to run, I have another call starting now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:46
Thanks @Kristine
Paul McGrady
01:37:17
Got confused about which one fo these we were talking about.
Paul McGrady
01:37:21
Sorry all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:41
LOTS going on @Paul... NP
Paul McGrady
01:37:58
I didn't make any changes to rationale 3.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:01
LT and staff is the CLean version
Justine Chew
01:38:05
Not Paul @Kathy, Emily
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:36
x!
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:38
TX!
Paul McGrady
01:38:50
no edits from me on Rat. 3
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:46
If it helps to clarify when your in the redline doc, if you highlight either the text or a Comment the related comment or text will highlight...
Justine Chew
01:40:40
Footnote on Bylaws section is in there @Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:00
Noted @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:42:40
Thank you Jeff and Cheryll.
Paul McGrady
01:42:49
No more recommendations from me on any that we have not already looked at.
Paul McGrady
01:43:39
My comments were limited to GAC Consensus Advice which are creatures of the Bylaws. I haven't make any comments on GAC Early Warnings which are creatures of the AGB.
Paul McGrady
01:44:37
+1 Anne. Good catch
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:41
Good catch @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:13
Thanks
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:50
There is a distinction between Early Warnings and GAC advice. An early warning was generally made by a single government.
Justine Chew
01:48:58
So practically speaking, GAC Consensus Advice has to be addressed via Application changes, PICs etc but if GAC EW is not addressed, then the government that issued the GAC EW should rely on the objection process to bring forth its EW?
Arasteh
01:49:56
Dear DONNA ,Nothing prevent the GAC to make a collective early warning. pls advise where such action is prohibited
Jeffrey Neuman
01:50:07
@Justine, yes only GAC Consensus Advice will likely lead to commitments, unless a registry wants to voluntarily make changes in response to an Early Wanrining
Jeffrey Neuman
01:50:12
Warning
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:50:54
@Kavouss--agreed, just saying that in 2012 the Early Warnings were generally made by individual governments.
Paul McGrady
01:52:20
@Justine - i think the idea is, hopefully, avoid GAC Consensus Advice by addressing concerns found in a GAC Early Warning
Justine Chew
01:54:09
@Paul, my point is GAC EW does not stop an application from proceeding whereas GAC Consensus would.
Paul McGrady
01:55:18
@Justine - GAC EW does not stop an application, Neither does GAC CA, unless the Board agrees with the GAC and adopts the GAC CA. Ultimately, it is the Board that stops applications, not the GAC.
Justine Chew
01:58:02
@Paul, "might" not "would" I give you that.
christopher wilkinson
01:58:10
N B: some of our language is not current beyond our PDP bubble: e.g. actionable, merit-based etc. CW
MAZZONE - ebu
01:58:17
Advice of GAC can be deducted from the EW expressed by GAC in the first round.
MAZZONE - ebu
01:59:37
I Don't think could be a problem for GAC to summarize these views if this could help…. but makes sense only if this is reflected into the AGB...
Justine Chew
02:00:17
Repeating myself. +1 Jeff re examining existing GAC Advice on various things with the view of maximizing predictability on what we do know now. And ask GAC members if there might be updates.
Arasteh
02:01:06
leave it to next meeting
Arasteh
02:01:53
My comments was on Rational 3
Phil Buckingham
02:03:12
I was going to send a personal comment to the leadership team
Paul McGrady
02:03:38
Sending prayers for unity for all people, everywhere, regardless of geography, faith, form of government, or any other factor that tends to drive us apart. Stay safe everyone.
avri doria
02:03:49
Thanks, Be well!
Annebeth Lange
02:03:59
Bye, thanks a lot.
Maxim Alzoba
02:04:08
bye all and stay cool
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:11
Stay safe (and sane) people make smart choices and wash your hands!!!
Luisa Paez
02:04:14
Take care everyone, good bye.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:32
Bye for now...
Katrin Ohlmer
02:04:38
Bye