Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
21:13
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#
Julie Hedlund
21:13
Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
21:25
Emily was faster :-)
Julie Hedlund
21:38
Page 30 of the Google doc
Jim Prendergast
29:13
order of IDNs was drawn. Not rndomized
Katrin Ohlmer
29:26
Correct, Jim.
Kathy Kleiman
29:32
Great!
Jim Prendergast
29:35
or is a draw = to randomizartion?
Kathy Kleiman
30:12
I support Greg's modification -- morning fingers :-)
Justine Chew
30:50
"save for applications for IDNs"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:22
Sugesst you look at making the insertion after the word "randomize", e.g. "with idns taking priority at a group and randomnized separately"
Kathy Kleiman
32:37
nice wording
Justine Chew
32:47
"which were treated separately but for which queueing was also randomized"
Katrin Ohlmer
33:16
+1 Anne
Susan Payne SCA
33:34
yes, with AGB
Annebeth Lange
33:40
+1 Anne
Justine Chew
34:31
Yes to publishing at the same time.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
34:57
+1 Jim
Annebeth Lange
34:59
+1 Jim
Donna Austin, Neustar
37:16
What's the purpose of the Applicant Guidebook?
Donna Austin, Neustar
37:54
Is it to document all elements of the application, evaluation and other related information?
Paul McGrady
38:00
+1 Donna.
Justine Chew
38:46
"at the same time AS the AGB"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
39:23
Applicant guide should refer to where to find it
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
39:33
+1 for having it in the AGB. If not in the AGB, it seems appropriate to have it published prior to the application window opening.
Greg Shatan
40:25
Who objects to having in the AGB package? Not sure why this is being considered so final that changing it is a die in the ditch issue.
Jim Prendergast
40:33
I agree with the support for having it in AGB. New comers will have enough of a time trying to find info on this.
Justine Chew
41:45
@Jeff, can we add a brief explanatory note to the effect of what you just said re: the Implementation Guidance?
Rubens Kuhl
41:50
Suggestion: move ICANN HQ to Nevada where they know how to allow honest random processes.
Annebeth Lange
42:34
I agree that it makes sense to put it in the AGB. And if not, I support Jamie that it should be published in advance.
Justine Chew
42:39
Cool. Thanks @Jeff.
Kathy Kleiman
49:04
What do we do when we are split?
Robin Gross
52:05
We said at the beginning of this PDP that we wouldn’t make changes to the existing policy if we couldn’t reach consensus to do so.
Alan Greenberg
52:18
We seem to have changed the rules...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:33
Agree with Alan
Maxim Alzoba
52:45
audio is breaking
Kathy Kleiman
52:47
Agree with Alan
Annebeth Lange
53:12
I agree with Robin here, but it is too bad that we cannot agree on this.
Justine Chew
53:43
@Robin, technically speaking, there is no existing policy on this.
Annebeth Lange
54:10
That is true, Justine.
Paul McGrady
54:18
Priority only means priority of evaluation, right? Not priority rights over all other strings. So, for non-contention set IDNs, all we are talking about is non-contested IDNs making their way to market a little fast than non-contested non-IDNs, right? If so, is this a major issue?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:26
Are you saying that staff implementation does not result in a practice that gets affirmed? That will certainly slow the process going forward. Look at all GDD decisions along the way.
Robin Gross
54:48
We said we wouldn’t change what we did last time, so if it was policy via PDP or an insert into the guidebook after, we said we wouldn’t change it without a consensus to do so.
Maxim Alzoba
54:49
implementation is not a policy
Jeff Neuman
55:23
@Anne - it could get affirmed If the group agrees to affirm. But here we do not have agreement to affirm. Nor is there agreement to reject
Maxim Alzoba
55:33
with lack of definition of public interest it is hard to do something against it
Greg Shatan
56:27
No IDNs at all would be a major policy change, and would require the decision of the WG.
Maxim Alzoba
56:56
we do not have agreement on this
Kathy Kleiman
57:18
Many, many commenters were registries
Maxim Alzoba
57:48
does it make comments invalid?
Kathy Kleiman
57:55
Given the length, intensity and complexity of our first report, it was largely an expert incumbent group that responded.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:59
Does the category the item falls in depend in whether or not the Board approved it?
Kathy Kleiman
58:17
We've talked about this before - it's not a surprise.
Robin Gross
59:45
Alan is correct.
Maxim Alzoba
59:56
implementation does not go into policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:00
on full auto
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:00:01
Agree with Alan - that is what we said. We applied this to many topics.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:55
we do not approve or disapprove board decisions
Jeff Neuman
01:02:18
We need to be consistent
Alan Greenberg
01:02:37
I have no concern of the outcome but we cannot change the rules of this PDP because of how the text in this doc. is worded.
Justine Chew
01:02:41
The lack of agreement to change the practice implemented in the 2012 round leads to the retention of what was practiced.
Jeff Neuman
01:02:47
@kathy - Alan is correct in that PICs would be in the same category
Jeff Neuman
01:05:15
The "policy" also had first come first served
Jeff Neuman
01:05:26
@paul - correct
Jeff Neuman
01:05:48
There is agreement that we not do first come first served
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:54
@Jeff: absolutely not. Voluntary private interest commitments are an unlimited, unbounded, bilateral, unreviewed set of anything a registry might want -- regardless of law, consensus policy or due process. It's an unlimited dumping ground -- that's not a policy.
Annebeth Lange
01:06:20
@Alan, I agree
Annebeth Lange
01:06:20
AGB as implemented
Jeff Neuman
01:06:26
@kathy - PICs were the solution that ICANN org decided would be implemented to address GAC Advice
Jeff Neuman
01:06:35
This is not different (except without the GAC Advice)
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:08
@Jeff -- and the kitchen sink went in. ICANN Staff never reviewed the voluntary private interest commitments in many cases had absolutely no alignment with GAC advice.
Justine Chew
01:07:21
@Paul, but some of the 2007 GNSO Policy were displaced by different implementation.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:34
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:37
@Jeff - how did the Community do that?
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:49
where/when?
Paul McGrady
01:08:47
@Justine - correct and I think any implementation that runs afoul of the Policy is fair game.
Paul McGrady
01:09:08
@Jeff - where in the 2007 Policy does it say first come first served?
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:27
Therefore, we have no agreement to do it a different way...
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:31
bye all, have to drop for SCBO
Jeff Neuman
01:11:04
@Kathy - When did the community approve this?
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:48
@Jeff: I just askedyou that :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:26
The ground rules of the PDP were that if there is no agreement, we fall back to the 2012 practice.
Annebeth Lange
01:12:57
As long as we cannot agree on a change, my view is that we must be consistent and leave it as AGB as implemented, that os 2012 practice
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:03
@Greg - that elevates implementation over policy decisions.
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:08
That can't be right.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:14:20
Yes Annebeth - that has been the understanding all along in the PDP.
Justine Chew
01:14:41
The lack of agreement to change what was implemented in the 2012 round therefore leads to the retention of that implementation in subsequent rounds.
Paul McGrady
01:14:50
@Jeff - I think conflating this with Closed Generics is a problem. One could well argue that the creating a prohibition of Closed Generics after applications were in ran afoul of Policy ("All applicants for a new gTLD registry should therefore be evaluated against transparent and predictable criteria, fully available to the applicants prior to the initiation of the process. Normally, therefore, no subsequent additional selection criteria should be used in the selection process."). This prioritization of IDNs isn't of the same ilk at all.
Robin Gross
01:15:57
We can change any previous implementation we want, provided we have consensus to do so.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:16:28
AGree Jeff - which means that the staff practice would stand based on our ground rules where there is no agreement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:36
Conflating with PICs also makes no sense.
Greg Shatan
01:16:59
@Kathy, that wasn’t what I was saying, If there is implementation that violates policy, it should not be considered “status quo.”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:09
That's fine Jeff.
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:19
hand raises
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:23
raised
Annebeth Lange
01:17:39
@Jeff, I agree
Annebeth Lange
01:17:48
Consistence is important
Alan Greenberg
01:17:59
Kathy, The Chair trumps a raised hand.
Robin Gross
01:18:04
Agree, Annebeth.
Paul McGrady
01:18:08
@Jeff - its not about emotion. Its about whether or not it violated a policy. that is the consistency issue here
Paul McGrady
01:18:59
IDN Prioritization didn't seem to violate a policy. Conflating it with Closed Generics stacks the deck against the pro-closed generics folks in the next topic. Unfortunate.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:36
We have not heretofore made a distinction in the "fallback to 2012" ground rules based on a conclusion as to whether or not the item was policy or implementation. If we start trying to do that, we will never get to the next round.
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:59
For the next round of public comment- right here -- let's add: "In the absence of agreement, our default recommendation is to continue to prioritize IDNs first -- as we did in the first round." And ask -- what do Commenters think. Pleasae make this nice and bold :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:21
so people can find it easily...
Paul McGrady
01:31:06
Folks, I don't think we have enough time left to appropriately discuss Closed Generics. This is an important issue and I think it should get a fair hearing. It also would be nice if we could have a call about it where it wasn't already conflated with a fairly minor Staff implementation change.
Jim Prendergast
01:36:21
https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-new-gtld-2015-06-21-en#2.a
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:26
my hand up too
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:38:42
There would have to be a criteria applied to any decision of this kind by the board, otherwise it becomes too subjective.
Robin Gross
01:39:04
I think the threshold should be lower for approval of closed generics. Generally allow them.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:39:23
I agree Robin.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:34
@Alan, how would you prevent a string of challenges and appeals?
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:43
My hand has been up for a long tiem
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:40:44
@Alan, have we defined a "good" vs "bad" closed generic?
Alan Greenberg
01:40:53
@KAthy, I thought I explicitly said that the Board decision was final and not appealable by any of the regular reconsideration measures.
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:33
@Alan, I just don't know how to make that implementable in light of existing Bylaws. That's why I'm asking...
Alan Greenberg
01:43:02
@Kristine, that is why we have a Board. It is composed of people from all parts of the community and we appoint them because we beleive we trust their judgement. ANd if something is viewed to be "good" by the vast majority of the sitting Board (say 90%), then it is good. If the community disagrees, there are Empowered Community actions the community can take.
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:31
@Jeff - that's not what George and others were saying
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:10
The Empowered Community actions are very limited and I don't believe they would expand to disagreement with the Board on a closed generic string.
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:22
Agree with Jim
karen.lentz
01:44:44
Rationale to resolution: The NGPC is also requesting that the GNSO specifically include the issue of exclusive registry access for generic strings serving a public interest goal as part of the policy work it is planning to initiate on subsequent rounds of the New gTLD Program, and inform the Board on a regular basis with regards to the progress on the issue. The President and CEO should provide the GNSO with information needed to support this request.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:02
This issue demonstrates why it's possible many large applicants may go ahead to apply for Closed Generic Strings in a speculative manner in order to establish priority. Due to the majority PDP position, they will thus be able to bar such applications in subsequent rounds where a new policy may apply. In other words, plant a flag on the moon and prohibit anyone else from landing there after you do so. The application does not get approved, but the applicant refuses to withdraw and gets priority.
Alan Greenberg
01:45:16
@Donna, we could add a Bylaw including this as an action the EC could take, but I really don't think that is needed in this case,
Annebeth Lange
01:45:38
Sorry, I fell out. My net is awful, where I am. Had problems getting contact again. Will read transcript
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:45:41
@Alan, that would take a very long time.
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:29
It seems a little late...
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:32
and Kathy??
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:34
@Alan - I don't think EC powers apply either in terms of Board approval of a specific application.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:47:44
I agree that the public interest is important, but shouldn't we also try to balance this with one of the goals of new gTLDs is introduce competition and innovation. Closed generics places limitations on innovation.
Justine Chew
01:47:50
@Paul, that's a stretch
Alan Greenberg
01:48:15
Again, our ground rules say with no agreement, we revert to the 2012 round AS IMPLEMENTED
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:34
If anything would survive of its own accord, it's a Board-created policy with enormous public input.
Annebeth Lange
01:48:35
@Alan, agree
Robin Gross
01:48:36
I think Paul is right because the previous policy was explicit in not being ongoing.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:49:00
@Alan, I'd argue this is an outstanding implementation issue because of the impact of the Board's options on applicants.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:49:12
+1 Paul
Paul McGrady
01:49:17
We need to get to absolute clarity on what happens if we don't adopt an affirmative Policy ban on closed generics (which has never been adopted, by the way)
Annebeth Lange
01:49:28
@Jeff, good idea
Paul McGrady
01:49:54
@Jeff - that will only work if the Leadership doesn't presuppose an outcome.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:49:57
I think we need to develop a solution. If we want applicants to innovate in the next round, we need to make sure their hands aren't tied.
Sophie Hey
01:50:11
+1 Kristine
Paul McGrady
01:50:25
+1 Kristine.
Robin Gross
01:50:26
Agree Kristine. We need clarity on this point.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:27
The Framework on Global Public Interest is important here - good "test case" for the discussion in Cancun on that particular topic.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:50:43
Let me clarify...it
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:28
@Jeff - would you consider moving this topic to the Face to Face meeting?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:51:47
It's possible an outcome is "it seems applicants CAN mostly do what they want within the existing rules...let's codify some form of a ban" (Not saying that's likely, but possible.) But we should explore it to make sure we aren't unduly prejudicing new applicants.
Jeff Neuman
01:51:55
@Anne - only IF it looks like we can make progress
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:53:03
We could consider Alan's proposal and it would solve the conflict with the EPDP.
Paul McGrady
01:53:07
I need to drop soon
Paul McGrady
01:53:46
+1 Kristine. Time for us all to get flexible and creative here.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:56
Need to drop.
Susan Payne SCA
01:55:07
agree Alan
Martin Sutton
01:55:45
Let’s use the Board resolution rather than George’s interpretation.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:57:31
+1 Martin.
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:42
Clearly people on the Board felt strongly :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:04
That says something about the policy that they adopted...
Robin Gross
01:58:20
Agree with Jeff. We should participate in good faith and assume others are as well.
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:21
But George
Michelle DeSmyter
01:58:29
Next meeting: Thursday, February 20th at 15:00 UTC for 1 hour
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:44
George's words are useful for helping us understand what the Board did... and why
Katrin Ohlmer
01:58:56
Thank you!
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:01
bye all