051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Any Europeans on this call?
Hello Alexander - CW
I hope more pros than cons!
can we see the form?
Will we be allowing upload of documents?
There is also the fact that Google is blocked in China, which requires relaying thru policy staff so the comment is duly inserted and considered.
We had a lot of complaints about the Google Survey form in Rights Protection Mechanism WG
We even had people go through the form and fill it out, and then not be able to submit it.
I thought ICANN Staff had re-thought this format.
Kathy, that usually means there was an error in the form that required a response for an optional question or implemented field validation.
I have at least 1 full document to submit on the CPE Guidelines, and I was advised to do so during public comment, so now the indication seems to be that I can't. Sigh.
Which is a hint on being to the point ?
@Justine any Doc including/yours in Word or PDF is still wl=elcome
@Cheryl and All, the problem is not for those who know they can submit a Word doc, but for those who don't know this. Huge time spent/wasted.
@Cheryl, thanks, I will hold Leadership/you to that offer.
People submitting Word doc just needs to know that only what can be added to the form by staff will make it to comment evaluation by the WG.
Why don’t we discuss this
Depending on how it is implemented (from EPDP experience), the Google form can be a huge time saver (zoos of hours) for ICANN staff in compiling and parsing the comment. This will result in a cleaner report and a higher likelihood that each comment will be accurately and clearly reported.
@CW On Thursday, apparently
and Yes we are planning a demo on Thursday
After we have seen the ‘google form’?
I have a hand but will wait till you are done
Thanks Kurt, indeed. Otherwise, there is the chance for subjectivity to be introduced if staff must sort comments based on our reading.
A form-based response definitely helps guard against that.
@CW Julie fromstaff will take us all through the Demo Google Form on Thursday whe she is available (she is on leave today)
We certainly need to make a distinction between relatively setttled topics and "live" topics.
The form should acy=tually get MORE comments on all things (or at least give oportunity todo so as All Bits will have their own section
One exception we would need to take into account is when something already settled interacts with a new definition in a perceived to be negative way.
What would be useful IMO is for fresh public comment to be welcomed especially for highly inter-related topics.
like I said - Im looking forward to seeing how this looks on "paper" but I personally do not want to discourage feedback from the community. There is a relatively small group working on this and we could benefit from broader community input
Yes, latter @Jeff. I look forward to Thursday's demo!
Will there an indication of a period for WG members to input on the form after Thursday's demo?
Jim +1 on wanting comment because of relatively small group working on these things.
*Will there be an indication ..
having that standard agreed to before comment and/or consensus designations is important. thanks
ok - that makes sense.
lots more oportunity to discuss after/at the demo on Thur
Not that I’m aware of
Those 3 are it
Sure, link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
Pg. 127, approximately
"If we cannot agree on the high level principles, then we can’t even begin to develop a implementable policy." - Jeff Neuman
I still believe step 1 should be to decide whether or not there is a public interest goal the new gTLD program has to follow: it's a simple yes or no question that needs clarification. Once we have clarified that for once: we can build on it WITHOUT the "other camp" to shoot proposals down.
@Jeff - will we get a chance to haggle over the text of the questions? How the questions are written can greatly affect the responses and this is too important a topic...
Perhaps a short preamble to how we got to the 3 proposals
Agree with the "goals approach":
And maybe also, "What elements, if any, do you like in one or more of these 3 proposals?"
There is not as much detail in the proposal from Kurt. Mike, and I because we are proposing no restriction and structure
WT5 already decided what to with geographical names.
We clearly have 2 camps: "Everything goes - no restrictions" vs. "A public interest goal will have to be followed and proven". We need to find the DIRECTION first: only thereafter we can seek detailed proposals.
I think George's proposal got sufficient air time for those of us who were not permitted to participate in his drafting group for to understand it. It is a proposal about a special kind of non-profit TLD, but it isn't a proposal about closed generics.
+1 to Paul. George's proposal is for a non-profit public interest TLD
Agree with Paul. George's proposal is for something that was allowed in 2012 and so far no recommendation would forbid in SubPro.
@George - it is the reality. I asked to participate and I was told no. It happens- not all voices get heard. Don't sweat it. I understand your desire to only have likeminded voices in your group.
@Rubens - I do not see a consensus over WT5 report as it stands.
@Jeff, do we have a (working) definition of Closed Generics? The community would need to clearly understand that to give valuable feedback.
@Jeff - so just make clear that these 3 proposals are just that - proposals. Please comment that they do not have to accept them as is.
@CW, you not agreeing with it doesn't mean it doesn't have consensus.
Definitions in Specification 11 of Registry Agreement—Generic String: a string consisting of a word or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others.Exclusive Registration Policies: Registry Operator imposes eligibility criteria for registering names in the TLD that limit registrations exclusively to a single person or entity and/or that person’s or entity’s “Affiliates” (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement).
@Marc, like, "What elements, if any, do you like in one or more of these 3 proposals?"
@Karen, we need that in plain English.
@Justine - I think that could still create the impression that these are the only 3 options. We need more time to draft that question than on chat
Paul, it's open right now for you to make ay comments you want, suggest changes, suggest abandoning the wold thing, whatever you want to suggest to the group. If you think that I have violated any standard of group behavior, please suggest how you would like to proceed to deal with this disagreement.
@Marc, it's a start. Somewhere.
@Justine. Agreed. My comment was not a criticism of your start,. Just saying that I want to focus on the discussion here and not finalizing that question language now
Thanks George. I don't think you violated any standards of group behavior, but that doesn't mean that I have to purchase the fiction that your group was open to all voices. While I think that was a mistake and different points of view make proposals stronger, not weaker, how you staffed your closed group was 100% up to you.
Agree to Allen: ask clear questions like: "Do we need to follow a public interest goal"?
@Marc, sure, it was more a suggestion to Leadership/staff on how to frame one question.
@Alex - I don't think that is clear enough either. Does that mean for the program? For each TLD generally? or for each change or restriction to a TLD?
Well: then lets ask these questions...
Pul, we never claimed that our group was open to all voices. It was closed for 8 days while the ideas that we already had were being written down in coherent form.
@Alex: OK so if people say that every change or restriction to a TLD will have to be in the public interest then we go back to the drawing board in this WG?
What the public should focus on...
How do we put that in this report?
We are putting the proposals out for comments, and while we are waiting for input from the "public", since we will have nothing better to do, we will endlessly debate the new proposals.
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit
@Jeff, when might we be asked to review the new paragraph in d (Closed Generics)? thanks,
Sure, just wanted to know, thanks
Thanks for not saying tomorrow Jeff
Agree with Jeff and Justine.
What does "partnership" mean?
Could be just a sub-set.
With auctions we have a similar issue as with closed generics: we need high level community feedback whether or not we need to crack down on speculative application submissions and private auction proceeds being used to finance other auctions.
agree with Alexander ^^^
There are two issues I think that need clarity/transparency - parties who join together to compete for the string and are parties incentivized to drop out. both need transparency.
Alexander, in this area the goals are pretty much aligned. What differs is how far we go; for instance, block any private resolution due to risk of speculative applications. But overall people don't like speculative applications.
I don't like speculative applications and think they are a problem. But I think its a worse problem to create unclear and subjective rules that will be difficult to implement. I.e., the cure is worse than the problem
If a JV is formed and it takes on one application and the other application is dropped, that will trigger a change request for the application that is kept.
On the 1st bullet the trigger for the Application Change is the private resolution, not whether that resolution resolves the entire contention set.
For me the text covers but partial and full resolution.
Some language on this would be appreciated @Jim
I'm with Paul on this, but open to added language to clarify if needed.
assuming I have power tomorrow - will circulate
MIssed the last call - did we establish what the criteria is for good faith?
@Jeff - I don't want to beat the horse again, but please keep in mind there is no NDA in place between applicants and ICANN's evaluators.
Leaving this out inherently harms innovative applicants.
The industry continues to make room for the same old thing, but no innovation. This is just one more example in a heap of examples (resistance to closed generics is another example).
+1 to Paul. Also, good faith is the new CPE. People will be arguing about that for years
Paul: you can innovate - and be very open about it. especially as public interest, non-profit, community priority applicant.
Perhaps an overarching text on need to know, confidentiality etc. ? Not specific to contention set resolution.
Now we cannot even keep sensitive information in a need-to-know box within ICANN...
and ICANN needs to also be comfortable with the information. If its not - it wont approve. See .org as an example
Any RFP is subject to an NDA
And how is that confidentialoity enforced?
Paul: why do you want to publish your trade secrets on the APPLICATION?
on = in
@ Alex - taht's the point - he doesn;t
@Alexander - I don't. That is the point.
You shouldn't have to
Jeff says that you don't have to
@ Alex - the fear is that you can't pass good faith without disclosing all aspects of how you are operating the TLD
And we can't even get language that only those within ICANN with a need to know can know. That would at least provide some comfort, but, oh well.
@Paul, what about an overarching text on need to know, confidentiality etc. ?
I added a question in the older googledoc -- how does losing in CPE shrink a contention set?
Choose among instead of choose between; could be more than 2.
@Rubens, that would be great and we could make it apply to the entire AGB.
@ Rubens - but how would that be enforceable? Once the trade secret or confidential information is disclosed it is destroyed
I too am lost on what are Paul's edits and Jeff's edits. tough to tell
I thought all my edits were taken out by Staff?
That is what the email that went around said...
@Jamie, that's exactly my question
Next call: The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
@Jeff - 15 second question
Jamie, Jim: Old hands ?
We don't have to agree: Jim has a good proposal and we could put it out for comment
@Jeff .. i guess it would be possible to reduce a contention set by losing CPE if there were multiple community appicants
@Jamie, I said that in my comment. But removing "Losing CPE" solved that issue as well, CPE is just part of "etc." now.
Bye for now more on all this on Thur
They would be factors of a breach of the T&Cs. I'll put some language in a comment now that we know the rule not to change the text. Thanks!
Needs more explanation. If one prevails in CPE that one will win outright!
Unless another member of the contention set were trying to knock out the community application on other grounds.
We could have 2 CPE prevailing applications and not resolve the contention set.