Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
21:08
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Philip Corwin
22:12
Good day all. Apologies for late arrival...Zoom was not cooperating
David McAuley (Verisign)
23:56
I was Sub A chair - am in an airBnb in Chicago where the wifi is quite sketchy. Earlier today I asked staff to help with reading these materials and they kindly agreed. I hope to be able to contribute in chat but expect to have some intermittent connection issues. Many thanks to staff for helping.
Julie Hedlund
24:28
hand up
Ariel Liang
27:52
PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=1616618712
Philip Corwin
30:40
The principal feedback is that ICANN was slow to approve ALPs. That is an operational issue. And it may well be in SubPro's jurisdiction rather than ours.
Ariel Liang
31:27
Sunrise Rec 2
Maxim Alzoba
32:27
it was not just slow - one year till almost all ALP attempts were stopped … for .madrid it was years
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:20
I could help but believe we need others as well. and note schedule - next week
Susan.Payne
35:32
happy to volunteer too
Julie Hedlund
35:38
Could we get volunteers on the call?
Julie Hedlund
35:45
David, Susan, Paul…others?
Susan.Payne
36:25
good idea paul
Julie Hedlund
36:49
CORE put it into points
Julie Hedlund
36:55
Staff highlighted
Susan.Payne
37:36
Madrid was given a limit of 3000 names, so I guess it's a comment on that
Mary Wong
37:44
Not to complicate this last lap of drafting/discussion - but a note from staff that any final policy recommendation coming out of this (and any other) PDP will become Consensus Policy (if approved), binding on all Contracted Parties as such rather than binding as a matter of contract or via the AGB. Similar effect, but different method.
David McAuley (Verisign)
39:34
Thanks Mary, and if we think that there are operational recommendations we wish to make we can do so, no? That might be part of the solution, possibl;y.
Mary Wong
40:55
@David, yes, certainly. Just making sure that the WG understands the difference in terms of how specific obligations (policy, contractual, operational) become “binding” on Contracted Parties.
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:13
Good point, thank you Mary
David McAuley (Verisign)
42:13
I expect the small team will discuss that, Brian. Not sure now
Susan.Payne
42:57
since the sunrise is not consensus policy then I don't understand why this (which is essentially an exception to the sunrise) would be
Paul McGrady
43:27
Will Sunrise be consensus policy when we are done?
Ariel Liang
44:05
There is a general overarching question regarding whether any new gTLD RPM should become consensus policy
Mary Wong
44:10
@Brian, @David, all - one thing staff will be doing is going through all the group’s final proposed recommendations and thinking through what recommendations relate to matters that came out of the AGB for the 2012 round or in implementation for the 2012 round.
Maxim Alzoba
44:11
when sunrise is over -it will not be repeated
David McAuley (Verisign)
44:21
probably discuss here after small group reports back?
Maxim Alzoba
44:22
it is a period in life of a TLD
Maxim Alzoba
45:24
ALP is a set of rules for very special TLDs , like GEOs
Griffin Barnett
45:33
Agree Susan … not sure I understand
Maxim Alzoba
45:34
and it is their version of a sunrise
Paul McGrady
49:07
Brian's point is important. It is a point in time but a recurring point in time.
Mary Wong
49:15
Yes, it may be inconsequential - we’re not saying it’s critical or significant; just pointing out the different paths toward what makes something binding as a rule.
Julie Hedlund
49:44
Volunteers were David, Susan, and Paul — any others?
Griffin Barnett
49:46
I mean… that’s true for everything we have done, no? Not sure why it’s being raised now specifically for this item, but ok
Paul McGrady
50:29
The more voices, the better the product.
Mary Wong
50:41
@Griffin, yes it may be relevant to other discussions as well, not just the ALP topic. It’s just that staff is starting to look at how to group and describe the various likely final recommendations, some of which include operational updates.
Griffin Barnett
51:18
Understood
Ariel Liang
53:58
Second paragraph has been covered in a previous Sunrise recommendation
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
57:26
agree
Ariel Liang
58:09
WG deliberation summary about this is on pages 11-12 of the analysis doc
Paul McGrady
58:47
And Kathy wanted to read up on it in between calls. Have we nailed it down to make it clear that Spec. 9 registries don't have to bother with the Sunrise?
Susan.Payne
59:10
it's a small number in the context of the whole universe of new gTLDs but there are probably 100 or so code of conduct exempt tlds
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:00:03
(thx for that clarification)
Susan.Payne
01:01:02
make that 79
Paul McGrady
01:01:18
Is there a criteria list on how you get Spec 9 exemptions?
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:01:41
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting#conduct
Ariel Liang
01:01:48
Hand up
Paul McGrady
01:02:14
Ariel first
Mary Wong
01:02:17
Thanks Brian, we were just about to paste that link.
Paul McGrady
01:03:31
Yes. Thanks!
Julie Hedlund
01:09:43
Yes, Lori has a conflict with this call
Susan.Payne
01:13:20
happy to volunteer for this too
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:11
OK as mentioned by Paul. Note - I will not be able to attend meeting on Aug 20th
Paul McGrady
01:26:46
Thanks Mary!
Steve Levy
01:30:00
Jumping from phone to computer participation.
Mary Wong
01:35:12
It may be helpful to remember that all proposed Consensus Policies, in their final form after IRT work is complete, are usually also posted for public comments by ICANN org.
Julie Hedlund
01:36:01
hand up
Ariel Liang
01:36:02
Does the WG have feedback re Point 1 highlighted by Julie on screen?
Mary Wong
01:36:03
Thanks Brian - ICANN org has certainly (in consultation with the IRT) modified proposed policy language in response to public comments.
Julie Hedlund
01:36:26
Text on the screen relates to IPC’s comments
Michael R. Graham
01:37:47
As to 1) -- Agree to the proposed revision of language.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:40:04
We did actually do a survey
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:40:05
Ariel or Julie, is it possible to see the para this comes from?
Julie Hedlund
01:40:56
@Brian: The IPC comment — or the recommendation?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:24
On small group work, can staff help us arrange a call or two as needed and support us. I recommend that we look at issues and make recommendations to full group that are capable of a decision and put it on list – including, if warranted, suggested implementation guidance. But not just general commentary. And the tools are there online so that if anyone wants to offer an alternative for decision (not just general commentary) they could propose alternative specific language. And we can then discuss at a meeting.
Paul McGrady
01:41:37
+1 Susan. All the change does is introduce the possibility of agnosticism as to whether there is a problem, but does not change the commitment to make improvements whether or not you agree there is a problem.
Susan.Payne
01:41:39
no no - "I would give up" is not necessarily misunderstanding
Paul McGrady
01:42:50
No problem. I said what I wanted to in chat.
Michael R. Graham
01:43:30
@Paul and Susan -- Agree. <Comment> To address Rebecca's point perhaps "possibility" in the revision could be changed to "potential"? <Comment>
Susan.Payne
01:43:37
potential would work brian
Greg Shatan
01:44:06
I would support “potential”
Susan.Payne
01:45:25
who said we weren't paying attention? i didn't say that
Rebecca Tushnet
01:45:54
Zak, that was the argument for using the "any" language in the first place.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:46:09
Susan, Brian suggested that we didn't sufficiently wordsmith the original
Rebecca Tushnet
01:46:16
I agree: you did not say that
Mary Wong
01:47:05
Shouldn’t it be a risk that’s decreased, and not the effects? i.e “decrease the risk of any possible (or potential) unintended effects”?
Paul McGrady
01:47:59
+1 Mary. I like that formulation. Crisper.
Griffin Barnett
01:48:01
Mary is correct
Michael R. Graham
01:48:12
The Subgroup draft is one thing, but looking at and considering revision of the draft for publication is the role of the Whole Group. @Mary -- good point -- "risk" or "potential" appropriate.
Griffin Barnett
01:48:51
You don’t decrease the effect, you decrease the risk, possibility, likelihood etc
Mary Wong
01:50:45
@Griffin, yes
Susan.Payne
01:51:51
risk also seems fine to address the concern raised
Julie Hedlund
01:51:55
From Mary: Shouldn’t it be a risk that’s decreased, and not the effects? i.e “decrease the risk of any possible (or potential) unintended effects”?
Zak Muscovitch
01:51:59
"decreasing risk of unintended consequences" works for me
Scott Austin
01:52:17
@May +1
Griffin Barnett
01:52:25
Fine with that approach Brian
Paul McGrady
01:52:26
+1 Zak
Scott Austin
01:52:27
@Mary +1
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:21
bye all, have to drop the call
Zak Muscovitch
01:53:50
Agree Greg - "decreasing risk of unintended effects"
Julie Bisland
01:54:19
Next call: Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Susan.Payne
01:54:29
great, thanks all
Griffin Barnett
01:54:33
Thanks all
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:36
Thanks Brian and staff and all