Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
16:32
Decorative plate would be awesome.
Jeffrey Neuman
17:01
I want an honorary TLD .subpro
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
18:52
Just a few issues to discuss :-)
Emily Barabas
18:59
It went out midnight UTC
Jim Prendergast
19:00
@Jeff in case you really do want that number....https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Attendance+Log+-+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+Working+Group
Emily Barabas
19:11
A little less than 24 hours
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
20:08
VERY late at night for me ;-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
20:54
there a=was certainly some concerns expressed
Julie Hedlund
21:52
Also see the work plan at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ftMpOLkeLaJAHrUZ6dy1vTR6Ja_VGTKQ5KnPfMttbkE/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
22:05
SO we have managed to squeeze out a little more time in response to the requests made to us...
Julie Hedlund
22:08
Column B has the revised dates
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:15
Column C are your new reference dates the "Modified Work Plan"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
24:40
LONG meeting indeed :-)
Elaine Pruis
28:05
Thank you for the modified work plan. It is more palatable.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
28:44
we have allowed 7 days *just in case* a challenge occurs though Anne, I suspect Flip will expedite anything however...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
29:17
Thank you Jeff and Cherl
Anne Aikman-Scalese
29:26
*Cherryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:20
The LT have been an enormous support and assistance
Kathy Kleiman
31:53
Sorry Jeff, did you include PICs?
Maxim Alzoba
34:33
hello all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:52
Hi Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
35:35
sorry for being late, driving
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:08
Correct @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:19
we would highlight those issues
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
36:31
Is it possible to know how the topics are 'clumped' together?
Paul McGrady
37:18
Follow up question
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:32
at this stage everything other than Auctions, Community Names and Closed Generics @Donna we are trying to minimise the carve outs
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:30
Maybe now show the levels of consensus/ reaching decisions reference staff
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
39:14
Thanks Cheryl, but I seem to be missing something about the process. It would be helpful if I could see a diagram.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:29
That is why Jeff and I have a L O N G meeting booked to discuss the designations
Paul McGrady
39:37
I've never seen that happen, so, I guess we have to live with the ambiguity.
Annebeth Lange
39:48
Do we have a timeline for the treatment in the Council?
Paul McGrady
39:49
Thanks Jeff
Paul McGrady
39:57
Thanks Kathy!
Paul McGrady
40:05
hahahhaha
Maxim Alzoba
40:33
no consensus - not part of policy
Marc Trachtenberg
41:07
+1 to Maxim
Paul McGrady
41:14
+1 Maxim
Marc Trachtenberg
41:47
no consensus then should not be included
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:00
+1 Kahty
Anne Aikman-Scalese
42:09
*Kathy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:45
I do actually own a Crystal ball best dust it off
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
45:21
If you'd done that four years ago Cheryl you could have saved us a lot of time and angst!
Kathy Kleiman
45:51
Can you take a picture with it and post it Cheryl? :-)
Maxim Alzoba
46:29
red Cross is backed by GAC
Paul McGrady
46:31
@Alan - how can this requirement in the Bylaws be met if there is no consensus? "That are developed through a bottom-up consensus-based multistakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique names systems."?
Maxim Alzoba
46:41
we should ask staff
Maxim Alzoba
47:20
no, it will not ;)
Annebeth Lange
48:01
So the Council will be informed of all the different positions so that they know
Maxim Alzoba
48:13
for registries and registrars only consensus policies are obligatory
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:19
Correct @Anne
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
48:24
Will we have visibility into how the leadership team will decide the level of consensus?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:44
Sure I am open to having observers join us
Maxim Alzoba
49:09
the same for new contracts
Kurt Pritz
49:38
It is my understanding that in the recent EPDP, the Council decided the recommendations were so inter-related, that the ones that did not receive full consensus could not be “picked off.” So, my understanding is that there is some thought process behind those decisions.
Maxim Alzoba
51:14
not necessary
Julie Hedlund
51:37
See also the Working Group Guidelines Section 3.6 at: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf
Paul McGrady
52:05
The Council has recently undergone personnel changes too, so who knows?
Susan Payne
52:31
@Alan, the makeup of Council is different now to that which voted on the EPDP. I'm not saying you're wrong but I don't think you can make assumptions
Steve Chan
52:46
@Kurt, all, here is part of the resolution for EPDP Phase 2: “The EPDP Team has indicated that it considers all SSAD-related recommendations interdependent, and, as a result, recommends SSAD-related recommendations (Recommendations #1 – 18) be considered as one package by the GNSO Council and subsequently the ICANN Board.”
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:53
certainly *not* @Jeff or I @Paul
Paul McGrady
53:28
I think we need a 5th bullet - Full Consensus, Consensus, Strong Support but significant opposition, Divergence, and Heck No.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:31
No Polling at all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:39
responses to the LIST
Paul McGrady
55:29
So, if I say "I do not support X, Y, and Z" the presumption is that I do support A through R.
Greg Shatan
55:32
@Paul, there is also the designation “Consensus Against.” Not as colorful as “Heck No.”
Paul McGrady
57:17
I am "divergent" a bit with Jeff here. I learn an enormous amount from my IPC colleagues, so I am going to reserve the right to take it back to the mothership. :-)
Alan Greenberg
57:29
@Susan, you are correct, but there is now a recent precedent on how it may proceed.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:32
@Paul that you **do not object to** is might be more specific terminology
Paul McGrady
57:32
And get input from my very smart friends
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:07
Yes specifically call it out preferably with a rationale
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:25
that was to @Donna
Marc Trachtenberg
58:33
+1 to Paul. I don't think its right to dissuade people from discussing recommendations with the groups they represent or work for. The WG member can be trusted to explain to the group the background
Kurt Pritz
58:59
Whether to onsultant with other groups could be based on past practice - have you been doing so? Then makes sense to do so.
Alan Greenberg
59:56
A single (or even a few) submitting a minority position) does not mean it needs to be separated.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:50
Exactly @Alan
Marc Trachtenberg
01:00:58
@Kurt - either way WG members should feel free to consult with whoever they want to. They might get access to ideas or views not discussed inside the WG which in some cases can be a sort of echo chamber for the entrenched supporters of established positions
Greg Shatan
01:01:24
No Collusion!!
Phil Buckingham
01:01:59
my question too @ Jeff
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:02:12
It's a great question Jim.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:12
We will be considering Active participation if I get my way however but the C Call is open to ALL Members
Marc Trachtenberg
01:02:31
Active participation can not be measured by attendance on calls alone. Sometimes you just can't make it and review the transcript. So what is the calculation for that?
Jim Prendergast
01:03:05
ok thanks - just want everyone to know which way you are headed. Thanks
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:03:29
Given this has been a five year effort, pretty hard to measure active participation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:55
But it does need to go into the mix @Donna
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:17
but you certainly do not *HAVE* to consult so we do not see it as a basis for extension to the process...
Martin Sutton
01:05:41
+1 Jeff otherwise it just ends up as another public comment
Elaine Pruis
01:05:44
it will be a subjective analysis but since all have to designate support via the list it won’t be a mystery how the input is weighted
Paul McGrady
01:06:06
Fair enough CLO
Annebeth Lange
01:06:15
+1 Jeff.
Paul McGrady
01:08:59
Now I am confused
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:29
We only document in the report the designations of consensus
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:59
not all the details You will as the WG have access to those details of course
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:10:31
That comment confused me too Paul
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:11:56
That's a subjective assessment and I'm not understanding the relevance.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:12:34
So if likeminded people all support a recommendation then their support counts less???
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:45
this sounds weird and not so objective
Paul McGrady
01:13:08
+1 Marc.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:13:22
Very wiggly and subjective in terms of how Minority Views might be presented (OR NOT) in the ultimate transmittal to Council
Marc Trachtenberg
01:13:27
So the guidelines say that the number of people who are for or against is not important?
Paul McGrady
01:13:43
+1 Donna. Which is it?
Paul McGrady
01:14:02
Are we individuals or are we part of groups whose voices can be discounted?
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:10
we either individuals or from groups, not both the same time
Marc Trachtenberg
01:14:20
+1 Maxim
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:39
You are all individuals and you all have backgrounds
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:54
if the leadership is to chery pick destinations, we are in trouble
Paul McGrady
01:15:07
I don't like the cake and eat it too approach.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:15:13
So what?
Marc Trachtenberg
01:15:31
Since people for all different parts of the community seem uncomfortable with what Jeff is saying then that is more important than the number of people that are uncomfortable with what Jeff is saying?
Paul McGrady
01:16:21
I don't think the mechanism to keep it from becoming a vote is to discount voices that happen to belong to a group (that Leadership doesn't want us to consult).
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:16:26
+1 Donna and Paul - too subjective and too easy to not assign Divergence where it exists. Both Council and the Board should understand divergent views.
Kurt Pritz
01:16:52
Obviously, there is a risk here that if Jeff and Cheryl are perceived to have improperly discounted the comments, that the whole work would be denigrated. It might be helpful to publish a well-thought-through one-page written description of how the comment will be weighted and measured.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:16:52
So what's the significance of 'divergence' if it comes from a cross-section of the community rather than one element of the community?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:31
Did I not basically say that we would do a transparent process and give the WG the details of our deliberations @Kurt further up in chat... but the Report is only going to list the designations
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:22
@Jeff and Cheryl, will we be holding another meeting *later* to talk about consensus calls?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:46
We are holding a meetng on 12 Jan
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:57
Tx
Annebeth Lange
01:21:35
We are a multistakeholder organisation that tries to arrive at a policy that we can agree on, even if we have to compromise on some issues
Greg Shatan
01:21:39
Can we take the actual physical weight of a member into account in increasing the weight of their position?
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:08
can you post it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:53
I would have considerable advantages in that system @Greg ;-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:07
link?
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:00
Can we see 9.12 recommendation?
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:20
To Recommendation 9.12, consistent with weeks, months years of discussion, we need to add a few basic (large) limits: RVCs will not address the contents of websites or apps that use domain names, they will be consistent with ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value, they will not allow the registry arbitrary discretion to suspend a domain name and they will not be used to create new policies that did not come through ICANN processes.
Paul McGrady
01:26:17
Coordinated media blitzes don't create more time at the end of a 5 year PDP. These "guardrails" are very late ideas.
Emily Barabas
01:26:25
@kathy, the redline being displayed is here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/2020-December/003744.html
Susan Payne
01:27:45
Re spec 12, so what Kathy? Spec 12 is still part of the contract and indeed because they aren't PICs the enforcement is ONLY by ICANN
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:09
so what to do with the local laws, like prohibition of foul language?
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:54
also, formally PICs with malware are formally about content
Susan Payne
01:28:55
and just to correct the record, on the example of .GAY, RA was signed 2019. Clearly there were numerous voluntary PICs well before that date, despite your assertion
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:20
But it in the Registry-Registrant Agreement, Maxim, it's not really an ICANN enforcement issue.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:37
it might be in PICs
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:59
like a TLD for kids, should not contain foul language
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:53
@Kathy , there can not be Registry-Registrant agreement, I think you meant Registry-Registrar agreement
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:40
Right, tx Maxim!
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:37
PICs are part of the icann registry contract and IS enforceable
Susan Payne
01:32:48
@Alan, the contract is enforceable by ICANN outside of the PICDRP. But I think that's not your concern?
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:13
like any other bit of the RA contract
Susan Payne
01:33:33
no, the cointract does not say that Alan
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:42
PICDRPs never designed by a PDP
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:55
any violation of RA is punishable
Paul McGrady
01:35:20
@Kathy - the URS wasn't designed by a PDP either and yet, there it is. When some in that PDP suggested we make it consensus policy, you resisted that. So, I guess I'll ask, why have one standard for URS but insist on another for PICDRP?
Susan Payne
01:35:22
see section 2.17 Alan
Susan Payne
01:36:28
and 4.3(a)
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:22
"A funnel" - George Sadowsky
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:43
Dear Paul, we will never agree on the "EPDP" that we called the STI. I sat on an STI set up by the Council with a fixed number of participants - under the Council's oversight and reporting to the Council.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:51
And I sat across from you at that table :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:13
To Recommendation 9.12: RVCs will not address the contents of websites or apps that use domain names, they will be consistent with ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value, they will not allow the registry arbitrary discretion to suspend a domain name and they will not be used to create new policies that did not come through ICANN processes.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:39:32
+1 to Paul
Susan Payne
01:39:35
+1 Paul
Paul McGrady
01:40:00
Why, we aren't going to solve this in 10 more minutes
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:45
Motherhood and apple pie: (adding to Recommendation 9.12) RVCs will not address the contents of websites or apps that use domain names (ICANN Bylaws 1.1) and they will be consistent with ICANN’s Human Rights Core Value (Bylaws 1.2)
Susan Payne
01:42:25
Motherhood and apple pie?? what does that even mean? Could we avoid vernacular please
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:52
I might need translation here :(
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:12
I don't agree with the "guardrails" proposal but think it's clear that the" proposal may be put forward as a Minority View and those who agree may join in that view when filing a response to the Consensus designation. This assures that both Council and the Board would read these concerns. Minority Views should be encouraged in the summary of the Consensus Call.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:59
it is nothing bad about the minority views, it shows the picture better
Paul McGrady
01:44:05
I hope I didn't vernacular. If I did, apologies.
Paul McGrady
01:46:00
+1 Jeff.
avri doria
01:46:32
that is correct Jeff. we made no judgement just expressed concern that we shouldn't
Greg Shatan
01:46:50
Jeff, sounds like you are saying these have been surfaced before and failed to gain traction.
Martin Sutton
01:47:10
@ Maxim - материнство и яблочный пирог
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:47:35
Apologies all, I have to drop.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:51
Thans for sticking till now @Donna
Greg Shatan
01:48:31
“A Modest Proposal”....
Susan Payne
01:48:50
No - this is not a small or simple issue
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:07
thanks all
Martin Sutton
01:49:14
Jeff/Cheryl, not sure we need to separate this out for consensus call. members can extract that particular item if needed in their responses.
Paul McGrady
01:49:24
+1 Susan. Not small, not simple, and no time.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:46
@Martin, I though it was some kind of a reference to something
Annebeth Lange
01:49:47
+1 Susan
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:12
THanks Cheryl - wise decision
Greg Shatan
01:50:20
@Susan, neither was Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal”.....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:50
'Anne it is only a brief issue for the Board Letter response
Paul McGrady
01:51:03
"...yes it goes on and on my friends..." :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:30
@Jeff and I will appreciate the input in early 2021
Paul McGrady
01:51:52
@Staff - I would like to be a part of the group Jeff is suggesting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:04
Noted @Paul
Jim Prendergast
01:52:05
but wont the response be from the WG?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:09
@Jeff and Cheryl - I am going to guess that the IPC will discuss possible participation in that response based on the statement of position previously delivered to the list by Paul McGrady.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:12
and this *will* go to the list as well
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:28
Tx Cheryl, Jeff, All for this discussion today - and wishing everyone Happy Holidays!!!
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:53:00
+1 Paul
avri doria
01:53:02
let me know if you want us liasons at this mtg
Jamie Baxter
01:53:06
Thank you so much Jeff and Cheryl. Thanks for your leadership and effort
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:10
Applause, applause, applause
Susan Payne
01:53:11
absolutely Paul
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:13
thanks all
Christa Taylor
01:53:20
And to the ICANN Staff who have supported the WG!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:53:24
Thanks to Leadership and Staff all around!
Jim Prendergast
01:53:34
You're not done yet Paul!!!
Paul McGrady
01:53:35
ha!!!
Julie Hedlund
01:53:39
WG meeting 12 January at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes on consensus designation
Julie Hedlund
01:53:45
Staff will send an invite shortl
Julie Hedlund
01:53:48
shortly
Paul McGrady
01:54:02
Let's plan for 2 hours
Martin Sutton
01:54:04
indeed Paul, thanks Jeff and Cheryl and staff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:08
Seasons Greetings to all of you and yours Be SAFE People!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:29
Yup I am in for the duration @Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:54:36
Thanks all, very interesting discussion. Happy Holidays to all. Stay safe!
Susan Payne
01:54:41
12 jan is Tuesday?
Elaine Pruis
01:54:44
thanks Jeff and Cheryl
Julie Hedlund
01:54:46
Happy Holidays to all and Happy New Year!
Paul McGrady
01:54:46
Happy Holidays!
Greg Shatan
01:54:49
Thank you Chairs!!!
Luisa Paez
01:55:05
thanks everyone
Susan Payne
01:55:06
ok. I may have a clash then
Greg Shatan
01:55:08
12 sided dice?
Christa Taylor
01:55:15
Happy Holidays! Be Safe!
Paul McGrady
01:55:20
Magic 8 ball