Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Terri Agnew
23:59
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Alexander Schubert
25:10
Any Europeans on this call?
christopher wilkinson
26:08
Hello Alexander - CW
Justine Chew
27:43
I hope more pros than cons!
Jim Prendergast
27:46
can we see the form?
Justine Chew
28:52
Will we be allowing upload of documents?
Rubens Kuhl
29:11
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.
Kathy Kleiman
30:34
We had a lot of complaints about the Google Survey form in Rights Protection Mechanism WG
Kathy Kleiman
30:56
We even had people go through the form and fill it out, and then not be able to submit it.
Kathy Kleiman
31:09
I thought ICANN Staff had re-thought this format.
Rubens Kuhl
31:40
Kathy, that usually means there was an error in the form that required a response for an optional question or implemented field validation.
Justine Chew
33:18
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.
Rubens Kuhl
33:26
Which is a hint on being to the point ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:27
@Justine any Doc including/yours in Word or PDF is still wl=elcome
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:36
welcome
Kathy Kleiman
35:11
@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.
Justine Chew
35:28
@Cheryl, thanks, I will hold Leadership/you to that offer.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:54
O..K.. Justine
Rubens Kuhl
36:18
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.
christopher wilkinson
37:32
Why don’t we discuss this
Kurt Pritz
37:45
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.
Justine Chew
37:56
@CW On Thursday, apparently
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:29
Indeed @Kurt
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:47
and Yes we are planning a demo on Thursday
christopher wilkinson
39:01
After we have seen the ‘google form’?
Jim Prendergast
39:02
I have a hand but will wait till you are done
Steve Chan
39:16
Thanks Kurt, indeed. Otherwise, there is the chance for subjectivity to be introduced if staff must sort comments based on our reading.
Steve Chan
39:40
A form-based response definitely helps guard against that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:57
@CW Julie fromstaff will take us all through the Demo Google Form on Thursday whe she is available (she is on leave today)
Justine Chew
41:57
We certainly need to make a distinction between relatively setttled topics and "live" topics.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:06
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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:29
actually
Rubens Kuhl
42:31
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.
Justine Chew
43:35
What would be useful IMO is for fresh public comment to be welcomed especially for highly inter-related topics.
Jim Prendergast
43:41
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
Justine Chew
44:37
Yes, latter @Jeff. I look forward to Thursday's demo!
Justine Chew
46:02
Will there an indication of a period for WG members to input on the form after Thursday's demo?
George Sadowsky
46:12
Jim +1 on wanting comment because of relatively small group working on these things.
Justine Chew
46:27
*Will there be an indication ..
Jim Prendergast
48:13
having that standard agreed to before comment and/or consensus designations is important. thanks
Jim Prendergast
49:26
ok - that makes sense.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:21
lots more oportunity to discuss after/at the demo on Thur
Steve Chan
51:05
Not that I’m aware of
Steve Chan
51:11
Those 3 are it
Steve Chan
52:54
Sure, link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
Steve Chan
53:07
Pg. 127, approximately
Justine Chew
55:17
"If we cannot agree on the high level principles, then we can’t even begin to develop a implementable policy." - Jeff Neuman
Alexander Schubert
55:57
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.
Marc Trachtenberg
56:50
Hand
Justine Chew
58:57
garbled
Paul McGrady
59:09
@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...
Justine Chew
59:52
Perhaps a short preamble to how we got to the 3 proposals
Alexander Schubert
01:00:24
Agree with the "goals approach":
Paul McGrady
01:00:52
Thanks Jeff.
Justine Chew
01:01:32
And maybe also, "What elements, if any, do you like in one or more of these 3 proposals?"
Marc Trachtenberg
01:02:40
There is not as much detail in the proposal from Kurt. Mike, and I because we are proposing no restriction and structure
Rubens Kuhl
01:03:44
WT5 already decided what to with geographical names.
Alexander Schubert
01:03:48
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.
Paul McGrady
01:04:26
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.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:05:17
+1 to Paul. George's proposal is for a non-profit public interest TLD
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:55
Agree with Paul. George's proposal is for something that was allowed in 2012 and so far no recommendation would forbid in SubPro.
Paul McGrady
01:07:17
@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.
christopher wilkinson
01:08:42
@Rubens - I do not see a consensus over WT5 report as it stands.
Justine Chew
01:09:08
@Jeff, do we have a (working) definition of Closed Generics? The community would need to clearly understand that to give valuable feedback.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:09:09
@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.
Rubens Kuhl
01:09:14
@CW, you not agreeing with it doesn't mean it doesn't have consensus.
Justine Chew
01:09:42
Please, thanks.
Karen Lentz
01:10:26
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).
Justine Chew
01:10:27
@Marc, like, "What elements, if any, do you like in one or more of these 3 proposals?"
Justine Chew
01:11:26
@Karen, we need that in plain English.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:12:31
@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
George Sadowsky
01:12:37
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.
Justine Chew
01:13:04
@Marc, it's a start. Somewhere.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:14:07
@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
Paul McGrady
01:14:23
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.
Alexander Schubert
01:14:43
Agree to Allen: ask clear questions like: "Do we need to follow a public interest goal"?
Justine Chew
01:15:20
@Marc, sure, it was more a suggestion to Leadership/staff on how to frame one question.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:16:00
@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?
Alexander Schubert
01:16:30
Well: then lets ask these questions...
George Sadowsky
01:16:48
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.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:17:29
@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?
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:58
What the public should focus on...
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:08
How do we put that in this report?
Alan Greenberg
01:19:56
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.
Steve Chan
01:21:17
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit
Justine Chew
01:21:45
@Jeff, when might we be asked to review the new paragraph in d (Closed Generics)? thanks,
Justine Chew
01:22:57
Sure, just wanted to know, thanks
Steve Chan
01:23:01
Thanks for not saying tomorrow Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:52
Agree with Jeff and Justine.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:26:07
What does "partnership" mean?
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:18
Could be just a sub-set.
Alexander Schubert
01:26:46
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.
Jim Prendergast
01:27:22
agree with Alexander ^^^
Jim Prendergast
01:28:57
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.
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:58
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.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:33:07
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
Paul McGrady
01:33:11
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.
Justine Chew
01:33:19
On the 1st bullet the trigger for the Application Change is the private resolution, not whether that resolution resolves the entire contention set.
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:28
For me the text covers but partial and full resolution.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:38
Some language on this would be appreciated @Jim
Justine Chew
01:35:05
I'm with Paul on this, but open to added language to clarify if needed.
Jim Prendergast
01:35:28
assuming I have power tomorrow - will circulate
Alexander Schubert
01:36:19
"Trade Secrets"?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:36:58
MIssed the last call - did we establish what the criteria is for good faith?
Paul McGrady
01:37:03
@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.
Paul McGrady
01:37:21
Leaving this out inherently harms innovative applicants.
Paul McGrady
01:38:11
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).
Marc Trachtenberg
01:38:54
+1 to Paul. Also, good faith is the new CPE. People will be arguing about that for years
Alexander Schubert
01:39:18
Paul: you can innovate - and be very open about it. especially as public interest, non-profit, community priority applicant.
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:33
Perhaps an overarching text on need to know, confidentiality etc. ? Not specific to contention set resolution.
Justine Chew
01:39:35
+1 Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:39:51
Now we cannot even keep sensitive information in a need-to-know box within ICANN...
Jim Prendergast
01:40:00
and ICANN needs to also be comfortable with the information. If its not - it wont approve. See .org as an example
Marc Trachtenberg
01:40:04
Any RFP is subject to an NDA
Marc Trachtenberg
01:40:37
And how is that confidentialoity enforced?
Alexander Schubert
01:40:42
Paul: why do you want to publish your trade secrets on the APPLICATION?
Alexander Schubert
01:40:52
on = in
Marc Trachtenberg
01:41:00
@ Alex - taht's the point - he doesn;t
Paul McGrady
01:41:08
@Alexander - I don't. That is the point.
Alexander Schubert
01:41:11
Good.
Alexander Schubert
01:41:23
You shouldn't have to
Alexander Schubert
01:41:41
Jeff says that you don't have to
Marc Trachtenberg
01:42:06
@ Alex - the fear is that you can't pass good faith without disclosing all aspects of how you are operating the TLD
Alexander Schubert
01:42:21
Hmmmmm
Paul McGrady
01:43:21
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.
Steve Chan
01:43:31
Nope :)
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:05
@Paul, what about an overarching text on need to know, confidentiality etc. ?
Justine Chew
01:44:35
I added a question in the older googledoc -- how does losing in CPE shrink a contention set?
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:44
Choose among instead of choose between; could be more than 2.
Paul McGrady
01:44:44
@Rubens, that would be great and we could make it apply to the entire AGB.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:44:58
@ Rubens - but how would that be enforceable? Once the trade secret or confidential information is disclosed it is destroyed
Jim Prendergast
01:45:06
I too am lost on what are Paul's edits and Jeff's edits. tough to tell
Paul McGrady
01:45:21
I thought all my edits were taken out by Staff?
Paul McGrady
01:45:28
That is what the email that went around said...
Justine Chew
01:45:48
@Jamie, that's exactly my question
Paul McGrady
01:46:09
Agree,
Terri Agnew
01:47:38
Next call: The New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call is scheduled on Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Alexander Schubert
01:48:58
+1
Jim Prendergast
01:49:04
thanks
Paul McGrady
01:49:41
@Jeff - 15 second question
Paul McGrady
01:49:43
please
Rubens Kuhl
01:50:00
Jamie, Jim: Old hands ?
Alexander Schubert
01:50:01
We don't have to agree: Jim has a good proposal and we could put it out for comment
Jamie Baxter
01:50:14
@Jeff .. i guess it would be possible to reduce a contention set by losing CPE if there were multiple community appicants
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:01
@Jamie, I said that in my comment. But removing "Losing CPE" solved that issue as well, CPE is just part of "etc." now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:12
Bye for now more on all this on Thur
Paul McGrady
01:51:17
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!
Justine Chew
01:52:56
Needs more explanation. If one prevails in CPE that one will win outright!
Paul McGrady
01:53:28
Unless another member of the contention set were trying to knock out the community application on other grounds.
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:34
We could have 2 CPE prevailing applications and not resolve the contention set.
Alexander Schubert
01:53:37
bye