Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Hedlund
21:10
@Paul — are you hearing Terri?
Terri Agnew
21:41
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Julie Hedlund
25:07
Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vBckhFQCCQ-zyvfGGcDB3NWQhodVsffdqbyb6kTwXL4/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
31:19
Thanks Jeff. Will do.
Justine Chew
33:15
SPIRT only gets constituted once the Program is launched!
Justine Chew
33:33
Sorry after the AGB is published
Alexander Schubert
33:54
Last time: Prioritization for example
Justine Chew
34:42
Plus SPIRT makes recommendations.
Annebeth Lange
34:47
Hi all, sorry, I had problems with the connection.
Paul McGrady
35:22
@Jeff - really worried about specific applications being targeted because SPIRIT is lobbied
Paul McGrady
37:13
@Alan/Jeff - all fine and good, but as we know processes are not always bias free, especially if third parties can speak into the process
Paul McGrady
37:59
@Jeff, can we go back up? We skipped an entire paragraph
Paul McGrady
38:03
And its an important one
Paul McGrady
42:31
Because if its not "only" then we need to identify who else.
Martin Sutton
42:38
+1 Paul, clarity is good
Paul McGrady
43:43
Yes. If we don't say that, then the SPIRIT team will be the first stop for lobbying.
Martin Sutton
44:12
@Anne - I think the need for the funnel is important, so anyone inside or outside of SPIRT can raise an issue
Martin Sutton
44:50
but they need to pass them through the entities outlined
Justine Chew
46:19
It says earlier, " ...formation of a SPIRT to serve as the body responsible for reviewing potential issues related to the Program, to conduct analysis utilizing the framework, and to recommend the process/mechanism that should be followed to address the issue..." GNSO Council shall be responsible for oversight over the SPIRT ...."
Justine Chew
47:06
Correct
Paul McGrady
47:14
Any member of the SPIRIT team can lobby Council, Board and Staff if they want. This is why we need "Only" at the top of this funnel.
Justine Chew
48:49
"receive submission of"?
Greg Shatan
48:49
Regretfully I must drop off. I will rejoin if possible.
Elaine Pruis
48:58
“Take action” infers that the SPIRIT team will do something aside from discuss if it needs to be acted upon
Elaine Pruis
49:02
+1 Paul
Phil Buckingham
49:07
trigger an event / action .....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:11
Makes sense to me
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:14
agree on "initiate action"
Justine Chew
49:43
consider and address?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:19
I agree with Paul.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:33
and thanks to Alan
Paul McGrady
51:08
I think that helps us establish the top of the funnel. Thanks Alan and Anne.
Paul McGrady
52:19
@Jeff - for 1.a. should we spell out that these would not trigger the SPIRIT?
Paul McGrady
53:06
Same for 1.b.
Justine Chew
54:50
Or at the very least, 1a and 1b should be reported publicly.
Martin Sutton
55:39
“Not referred to the Framework” could be used for 1a -b
christopher wilkinson
55:44
Perhaps we need to start with what we DO want SPIRIT to do, not what we don’t want.
Paul McGrady
56:49
@Jeff - OK, let's see how it works when the drafting is done. The more important part of my comment is about the guardrails around "non-minor"? Can the Staff suspend a Round indefinitely? more than 60 days? I'm not for the Staff being able to suspend a round or introduce big delays.
Paul McGrady
58:55
Some flexibility does not equal shutting down a round. The way this is written would allow the shutdown of a round. Need guardrails.
Justine Chew
01:03:17
What is the recourse of impacted applicant or community members to appeal against a 1b issue?
Paul McGrady
01:03:28
Blank checks don't make good guardrails
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:30
The SPIRT forms the guardrails = they are involved in making recommendations to counsel
Alan Greenberg
01:03:32
Isn't it really an issue of whether the change will have substantive impact on applicants?
Paul McGrady
01:04:04
@ALan - but non-minor changes will have substantive impact on applicants.
Paul McGrady
01:04:29
This language says that they will have a material effect
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:35
*council - But one man's substantive impact is another woman's "implementation. that's why we need the SPIRT
Paul McGrady
01:04:48
Blank check
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:10
+1 Anne -- one person's implementation is another person's policy. Our theme since the beginning of this discussion.
Paul McGrady
01:05:10
"a material effect" is what the current language says.
Paul McGrady
01:06:04
1. Cannot suspend round 2. Cannot delay more than 30 days 3. cannot target specific application types
Paul McGrady
01:06:53
Why not put these guardrails into this section? Why not give the WG time to thing what other guardrails are needed?
Paul McGrady
01:07:05
4. Cannot delay future rounds
Justine Chew
01:07:21
So the recourse for an impacted applicant or community members against a 1b issue is to appeal to GNSO Council, ICANN Board or ICANN Org on classififcation of the issue as a 1b issue?
Justine Chew
01:08:32
If that is the intent, then there has to be a statement to that effect.
Paul McGrady
01:09:40
@Justine or an accountability complaint - all at great expense and delay -
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:09:59
@Paul - those are major policy issues - not the hard case
Justine Chew
01:10:18
@Paul, I'm not saying I agree. I asked the question and the consequence thereof.
Justine Chew
01:12:01
@Paul, couldn't some of those clearly fall under "policy changes" category. Versus if the change affects only 1 applicant.
Alan Greenberg
01:13:22
I have to leave now. Bye all.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:25
Could you clarify?
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:37
Repeat a, b and c with titles?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:40
Operation minor and non-minor => new processes?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:50
Operational
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:09
REMEMBER the plan was to read through all this overarching and category text then look at specificity re SPIRIT and come back to make and changes or modifications to the earlier text... But that ship has well and truly sailed in todays discussion...
Paul McGrady
01:16:36
@Cheryl, that is why I asked if Jeff wanted to read through the whole thing first before questions...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:39
And he said read through Section by Section then find our rabbit holes ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:06
the rabbit holes is my term NOT anything @Jeff stated of course :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:46
Thanks Anne that is my (personal) take on it well articulated
Paul McGrady
01:19:33
Agree Jeff. Looking for a funneled, non-lobbied process with guardrails
Justine Chew
01:19:39
Can we add "but shall nevertheless be reported on subsequent to their implementation" to the "Process" for 1a and 1b?
Paul McGrady
01:20:13
Can my guardrails go in the text somewhere so that the WG can well and truly discuss them on the List in between calls?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:18
Let's note that as [ ] text then @Jistine
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
01:20:44
Sorry to join late. I had another call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:59
Welcoem @Donna
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:03
@Justine: a special more detailed report than currently envisioned?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:07
ergh typos
Justine Chew
01:21:17
Need to update language re "identify an issue" to synchronize with 1st para of section.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:39
Paul - no reason not to insert your examples in the right categories. The guardrails are the checks and balances we are building into the system. SPIRT cannot make determinations. They can only make recommendations.
Paul McGrady
01:22:02
The guardrails should be put in for Staff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:34
Agree staff should be consulting with SPIRT every step of the way.
Paul McGrady
01:22:35
We can worry about guardrails for SPIRIT too when the time comes
Justine Chew
01:24:11
@Kathy, what report is currently envisioned?
Paul McGrady
01:24:14
@Jeff, can the policy development process be used to suggest a halt to a round, target types of applications, or shut down future rounds? If so, I don't think those are appropriate delegations from the Council to the SPIRIT.
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:30
I think that is what is written... SPIRT is not one of the options listed.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:37
the Framework will be used to conduct an assessment and recommend the mechanism by which the solution will be developed. => Spirt should not be assessing beyond finding of "policy"
Paul McGrady
01:28:42
I think new contract Specifications being included as Policy is a misplacement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:39
I disagree with Paul
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
01:31:01
The development of Spec 13 was a workaround of the policy, but there was special dispensation by Council that allowed that. I'm not confident that this should be replicated in the future.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:02
Creation of new categories of applications is a huge new issue.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:22
And Specification 13 actually went through very quickly.
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:27
Perhaps removing all examples might please everybody ?
Justine Chew
01:31:49
@Rubens - not helping.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:30
@Donna: Agree
Paul McGrady
01:32:34
"Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under international principles of law.Examples of such principles of law include, but are not limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS)."
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:39
I think Anne's hand is up for a long time.
Paul McGrady
01:32:41
This was the policy
Paul McGrady
01:33:28
@Kathy - I suppose how quick or slow it went through might be a perception based on if you were pushing against it or pushing for it.
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
01:33:47
@Paul, what about the fact that Spec 13 created a new category of TLD?
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:02
@Paul - or just trying to follow it!
Donna Austin, RySG Chair
01:34:19
A category that we are confirming through this policy.
Paul McGrady
01:34:43
@Donna - the AGB created that category and it was well discussed as an outcome leading up to application day. Spec. 13 just protected the category from encroachment by the then-ICANN Staff's "one size fits all" approach to contracting.
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:48
New hand
Paul McGrady
01:35:54
New hand too
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:35
IT's not for items already identified by the Board or Council as policy. it's for grey areas
Martin Sutton
01:37:50
@Donna - Spec 13 defined a brand TLD but it’s ultimate purpose was to save ICANN having to individually negotiate 600 contracts for similar (but potentially with differences) - in effect, streamlining a process
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:56
Then let's go out to all SGs.
Paul McGrady
01:38:20
@Jeff - really, the Council wouldn't shortcut the PDP and send this down to the SPIRIT?
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:58
A new category of applications is policy. There seems to be agreement above.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:22
Spirt is getting too much input.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:38
Remember our metaphor: everything is a hammer.
Paul McGrady
01:39:38
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:57
If you are on the SPIRT team, everything is an implementation of policy
christopher wilkinson
01:41:03
@Paul: “… under principles of international law and applicable local law.”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:29
THe purpose is for SPIRT to raise possible policy issues that need GNSO Council to address them.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:49
Indeed @Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:26
I agree with Paul!
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:52
I also agree with Donna's chat statement above: "The development of Spec 13 was a workaround of the policy, but there was special dispensation by Council that allowed that. I'm not confident that this should be replicated in the future.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:07
Time Check @Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:45
Question about AOB.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:46:13
­+1 Kathy, +1 Donna
Paul McGrady
01:46:39
Drafting issues here, but I think we can keep at it until everyone gets comfortable.
Paul McGrady
01:48:30
Too bad. We were developing a pretty good train of thought on this.
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:41
Tx Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:54
Is the draft out?
Terri Agnew
01:49:13
Next meeting: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 14 May 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:16
Thanks for the input from everyone today. please keep up some discussion on this subject on the list until we come back to it next week... Bye for now...
Paul McGrady
01:49:16
Thanks Jeff!
christopher wilkinson
01:49:17
@Paul: Re guardrails - you nº 3 goes too far: “3. cannot target specific application types”
Katrin Ohlmer
01:49:19
Thank you!
Annebeth Lange
01:49:39
Thanks and bye!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:47
thanks!