Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Andrea Glandon
36:38
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Roger Carney
37:16
Congrats Donna!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:18
Congratulations Donna!
Paul McGrady
37:20
Congrats Donna!
Martin Sutton
37:21
Congrats Donna
Donna Austin
37:30
Thanks
Steve Chan
42:20
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
Paul McGrady
43:11
Can we have an omnibus email of everything Jeff wants us prepared to discuss on the next call? I'm concerned I won't see an email or an attachment.
Steve Chan
43:27
Good idea Paul, sure thing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:37
Beat me to it Steve
Paul McGrady
43:58
Thanks Steve and Jeff.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:47
my audio is choppy for @Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:51
is it just me?
Jim Prendergast
44:53
same her CLO
Maxim Alzoba
44:56
нуы
Maxim Alzoba
44:57
yes
Alexander Schubert
45:17
it's not too bad
Paul McGrady
45:29
choppy for me. I thought it was my connection. I'm in I-80 somewhere...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:33
better
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:04
Jeff are you moving again?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:12
still choppy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:21
Julie your sound is great!
Jeffrey Neuman
46:34
hmm...I will redial in while julie is going
Paul McGrady
49:58
If we are asking any questions of the public, when will we see a draft of those? Were those already in one of the emails that Jeff mentioned?
Jeffrey Neuman
50:30
@Paul - we will get to that
Paul McGrady
50:42
Thanks Jeff.
Jeffrey Neuman
50:47
but they are based one of the docs that was sent out
Maxim Alzoba
51:02
nice colours on the top
Paul McGrady
51:16
Thanks. Hopefully they will appear in the Omnibus email
Jim Prendergast
54:10
I have a few questions but will wait till Julie is done
Jeffrey Neuman
54:13
Again, the description of difference(s) is what maps to the document we previously displayed and which you have
Paul McGrady
54:17
1. What happens is a member of the public "can't live with" something? What affect does that have no our consensus call?
Martin Sutton
54:43
thank you Julie, I know staff have worked hard on this to make it effective and incorporate learnings from recent public comments.
Paul McGrady
54:43
2. How does a member of the public know whether or not their idea was not considered?
Jeffrey Neuman
55:17
They should read the report before filling out the survey
Jeffrey Neuman
55:32
Or, they can simultaneously go to the Final Report to read it
Jeffrey Neuman
55:56
Section b of every section we have been working on is for deliberations and that section lists what we have considered
Susan.Payne
56:43
can you submit comments on the first three options or does the text box not come up? some groups may wih to comment regardless
Julie Hedlund
57:49
This was just an example
Justine Chew
57:50
This is just a demo
Julie Hedlund
57:58
yep
Julie Hedlund
58:01
much longer
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:06
Ohh Yeah
Paul McGrady
58:20
+1 Susan. Otherwise, we will end up with confusing donuts and only negative comments. It will seem like the response to the report if more negative than it is,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:39
we can record a webinar
Justine Chew
59:02
Can we amend answers any time before closing date even if we have clicked "Submit"?
Jim Prendergast
59:09
deadline question..
Jim Prendergast
01:00:28
i think its best you have a plan to address because its likely to come. And communicate it so everyone is on same page
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:54
ANd that is also covered on the usual PC Page
Donna Austin
01:01:25
Can more than one person work on the doc at one time?
Julie Hedlund
01:01:49
@Justine: You can’t change your responses when you’ve finally submitted it, although we’ve found that people have sent revised responses.
Justine Chew
01:02:06
Not crucial but I noticed that the Topics are listed in normal sequence 1, 2, 3, 4 .... and not according to the topic numbers that we've gotten used to? Meaning 2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures, 2.2.2 Predictability etc etc
Julie Hedlund
01:02:21
That’s right Justine. That is deliberate.
Julie Hedlund
01:02:40
Yes, multiple people can work on the doc.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:41
Group work is best done in Woed from
Emily Barabas
01:02:45
@Justine, we’ve streamlined the numbering in the report
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:46
word
Emily Barabas
01:02:58
so the form will mirror the report
Susan.Payne
01:03:06
@Jeff, then you'll have to appreciate that the only feedback you will get will be negative, which does not necessarily mean it should carry the day when you haven't allowed other viewpoints to expand on their position
Paul McGrady
01:03:08
What does can't live with mean? Does that mean that they are going to start an ICANN competitor or does that mean that they are unhappy? Why not just say "Do not support" instead of can't live with?
Paul McGrady
01:03:30
@Jeff
Donna Austin
01:04:46
What Paul suggested makes sense. Can't live with is terminolog y we have used as the WG to try to get to consensus.
Alan Greenberg
01:05:07
@Paul, there is a connotation that "CAN'T LIVE WITH" implies you will object to the final outcome and but do not support simply means you don't like that item.
Justine Chew
01:05:15
If we support only part of the text in one topic, how do we answer?
Alexander Schubert
01:05:46
What about support that is tied to conditions - e.g. that another rule remains.
Paul McGrady
01:06:42
Then let's stick with "do not support"
Alexander Schubert
01:06:52
+1
Paul McGrady
01:07:45
The EPDP is a non-good example. Let's not adopt their language.
Julie Hedlund
01:08:09
That correct Allan
Julie Hedlund
01:08:58
We wouldn’t be able to integrate that with the data coming in from the form
Julie Hedlund
01:09:04
hand up
Alexander Schubert
01:09:48
Why not filling out the original form online and save the progress each time?
Alan Greenberg
01:10:53
@Alexander, that is fine if you are submitting YOUR answer. Not so much if there is a large group debating on the answers.
Alexander Schubert
01:11:22
I get you Alan!
Alexander Schubert
01:11:45
Question again: what about "conditional support"?
christopher wilkinson
01:11:48
With apologies for joining the call late, this evening CW
Paul McGrady
01:12:54
+1 Susan
Paul McGrady
01:13:56
Not allowing happy people to express their joy will make the public comment appear overly negative.
Justine Chew
01:14:05
+1 Susan, or even if answer sought to present an understanding of something
Justine Chew
01:14:10
when we get to viewing answers, please don't emphasize doughnut charts on radio button answers.
Paul McGrady
01:14:44
We run the risk of having 4 years of work be accidently shot down. Let's add the comment field for the happy folks too.
Julie Hedlund
01:14:50
@Justine: We aren’t expecting to use the donut charts.
Justine Chew
01:15:21
@Julie, thank goodness!
Susan.Payne
01:17:23
I don't think it's ambiguous to know someone hates something but is willing to live with
Alexander Schubert
01:17:32
What about rating support from "weak support" over "support" to "strong support"?
Alexander Schubert
01:18:13
This way if support is predominately weak plus lots of objections gives a better signal!
Justine Chew
01:18:34
too complicated I think @Alexander
Alexander Schubert
01:18:43
Hmmmm
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:18:47
@Alexander, I like that idea. Easier to compile level of acceptance/opposition.
Alexander Schubert
01:19:35
Especially if support is weak - but clear opposition exists we know we have to work on the aspect
Paul McGrady
01:21:01
Greg said what I was going to say. This is public comment not public poll with grievance-only section.
Alexander Schubert
01:21:32
"Conditional support" .
Julie Hedlund
01:21:40
@Greg: We won’t use donut charts
Justine Chew
01:21:52
Agreement could be based on a explicit understanding, so an answer could sought to present that understanding
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:55
We could use a term conditional Support SUre
Martin Sutton
01:22:05
definitely no donut charts!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:13
no donut charting
Paul McGrady
01:22:24
Positive AND negative narrative. Silencing people who like the report is a very odd approach.
Martin Sutton
01:22:45
but we also need to make it user friendly
Martin Sutton
01:22:56
it’s a huge document
Alexander Schubert
01:23:01
With "conditional support" people would have to have the possibility to explain what the condition is!
Susan.Payne
01:23:14
thanks Jeff - that was actually the question I asked
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:15
Adding a Conditional Support is an easy graduation to add IMO
Martin Sutton
01:23:24
and let of it has been discussed multiple times
Paul McGrady
01:23:27
Thanks for the clarity Jeff
Martin Sutton
01:23:32
be realistic!
Justine Chew
01:23:48
I would have like to play with the demo .... oh well
Paul McGrady
01:24:48
@Jeff - my hand went down because Greg channeled me.
Justine Chew
01:25:19
We will only eat donuts, not look at donuts :)
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:45
Some of us look at donuts and wish we could eat them
Paul McGrady
01:26:23
How in the world can we back that stuff out of someone's comment?
Paul McGrady
01:26:33
Do you have to disclose you like someone who proposed something?
Jim Prendergast
01:27:38
that document is still out for feedback, correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:55
yes
christopher wilkinson
01:28:14
Donuts have a hole in the middle. Yes?
Justine Chew
01:28:26
Also the preamble, yes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:34
yes
Steve Chan
01:29:02
Model 6 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit
Julie Hedlund
01:29:02
Model 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qdNbLO1-EfXdQosA7fK1ugQtaaMzwof2-viKCQlzvA/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
01:31:17
Contact footnote makes sense
Alexander Schubert
01:34:04
if you want a multiplier then go to ICANN last resort auction
Paul McGrady
01:34:28
No entity has to participate in a private auction.
Martin Sutton
01:36:40
+1 Paul no entity is forced into private auction, they can force it through to ICANN auction
Susan.Payne
01:37:00
strong disagreement elaine
Paul McGrady
01:37:05
No agreement to put this in the model. This is very invasive and could result in the disclosure of sensitive information.
Susan.Payne
01:37:53
I feel like I expressed my views extensively
Donna Austin
01:38:35
Also don't agree with the inclusion of this requirement.
Martin Sutton
01:38:56
+1’Paul
Marc Trachtenberg
01:39:02
+1 to Paul
Jim Prendergast
01:39:05
I believe they paid ICANN so its already been disclosed.
Justine Chew
01:39:46
What useful information might we be excluding by removing this requirement?
Paul McGrady
01:40:12
How much to pay someone in a private settlement is sensitive proprietary information.
Martin Sutton
01:40:12
what scenarios are we trying to resolve? . web? or others?
Jim Prendergast
01:41:35
important for the public to see what possible solutions were considered if there wasn't agreement in the group.
Elaine Pruis
01:41:36
@Martin several examples from 2012
Paul McGrady
01:41:50
Application only requir6es 15%
Paul McGrady
01:41:58
I believe
Paul McGrady
01:42:14
This is more restrictive than the AGB for everyone else.
Donna Austin
01:43:43
@Jim, I don't follow. If there is no agreement in the group isn't the probable outcome an ICANN auction of last resort?
Jim Prendergast
01:44:11
so how does what is proposed on screen address transparency requirement for this scenario which actually happened? https://www.thedomains.com/2013/05/16/straat-withdraws-application-for-book-in-favor-of-deal-with-another-applicant/?fb_source=pubv1
Jim Prendergast
01:44:57
@Donna - was referring to the deliberations of the WG. Not contention set.
Donna Austin
01:45:10
oh, thanks Jim
Paul McGrady
01:45:27
It literally says evaluate
Jim Prendergast
01:46:12
yes
Paul McGrady
01:47:22
That was going to be explicit in the terms and conditions.
Jim Prendergast
01:48:51
i think it does- just fine tuning may be needed
Paul McGrady
01:50:07
I don't know what non-good faith intent means. It also sounds in tort rather than contract. I hope Jeff reads my suggested changes.
Jim Prendergast
01:50:40
losing Paul audio
Paul McGrady
01:50:52
Yes
Steve Chan
01:51:04
I will have to grab them from a separate document
Steve Chan
01:51:28
Ahh, never mind
Paul McGrady
01:52:55
Not having the requisite bona fide good faith intent is a breach of the terms and conditions
Justine Chew
01:53:51
And look at action
Paul McGrady
01:56:55
make the factors examples rather than exclusive factors and tie them to the T&C rather than "non-good faith" (whatever that is).
Paul McGrady
01:58:17
How about "noncompliance with the bona fide intention" requirement instead of "non-good faith intent"?
Justine Chew
01:58:33
Shall we ban private resolutions altogether then?
Elaine Pruis
01:58:44
Seems reasonable
Paul McGrady
01:58:59
@Justine - nope. Let's make it work.
Elaine Pruis
01:59:42
can we put this out for comment—what would be the indicators of non-good faith?
Paul McGrady
02:00:03
There is no consensus to change the status quo which allows private auctions. Let's not backslide into oblivion. Let's keep trying to get to a compromise that gives those who are wary of them something instead of nothing.
Justine Chew
02:01:19
I don't hear a solution from Marc. Please can we have some suggestions to move forward?
Phil Buckingham
02:01:54
re Point 1. this is far too complex , too subjective . why not for all applicants involved in over 5 contention set , provide a Funds Flow Statement on completion of each contention set .
Elaine Pruis
02:01:58
We’re trying to ban people from participating to profit, without the intent to run a TLD. So if everyone had to disclose material information about deals that are made, we’re one step closer
Alexander Schubert
02:02:27
There are TLDs that have only nic.tld registered - and even that's not resolving - 8 years after application - how is there "intend to run a registry" detectable? They obviously have not the slightest intend to run their TLD. We will have those Zombi TLDs by the thousands in the next round.
Jim Prendergast
02:03:40
I also believe we need to run whatever proposal we come up with against some scenarios. We can use contention sets from 2012 since they were documented. .book is a good one. lots of deals on that one Im sure there are others. https://icannwiki.org/.book
Paul McGrady
02:03:54
We can't ban them because there is no consensus to ban them. The status quo is that they exist.
Alexander Schubert
02:05:36
The point is to prevent "speculative applications" in my mind. That's why we ask for "good faith intend".
Marc Trachtenberg
02:06:22
So why not just say that if there is reasonable evidence that the applicant does not have the good faith intent to operate the TLD the ___consequences occur
Paul McGrady
02:07:12
Marc's comment is important
Jim Prendergast
02:07:19
I think we also need to see the other language around model 6. The language that refers to deliberations
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:07:25
Lots of homework though between now and next Thur call
Steve Chan
02:08:09
It has closed generics
Steve Chan
02:08:13
Does not have predictability
Maxim Alzoba
02:08:25
bye all
Jim Prendergast
02:08:27
@CLO - looking forward ot the omnibus/syllabus email
Justine Chew
02:08:39
yes
Paul McGrady
02:08:42
Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO.
Greg Shatan
02:08:49
Bye all!
Paul McGrady
02:08:52
Thanks Steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:54
Yes @Jim it will be so... Thanks everyone.... Until Thur Bye for now!
Andrea Glandon
02:09:31
Thursday, 13 August 2020 at 20:00 UTC