Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
29:54
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC.
Kathy Kleiman
30:27
I have an opening question
Kathy Kleiman
32:09
follow-up
Sonigitu Ekpe
32:49
Good day all.
Kathy Kleiman
34:21
Tx!@
Julie Hedlund
34:54
@Kathy: Note that the best source of reference is the recording and transcript, which are available quite quickly after the meeting.
Julie Hedlund
35:11
The brief notes that staff captures are necessarily not as accurate.
Greg Shatan
35:20
Some groups do DAIRs - Decisions, Action Items, Responsibilities — quickly after each meeting. Just bulletpoints.
Kathy Kleiman
35:32
@Julie - that's why I am asking for something more. +1 Greg
Sonigitu Ekpe
36:20
@Greg, an excellent approach indeed.
Julie Hedlund
37:30
@Greg: But for that to happen those items would need to be called out during the meeting, ideally by leadership.
Julie Hedlund
37:44
So that they could be accurately isolated and captured.
Greg Shatan
41:04
@Julie - Understood — but if the process exists, the leadership would be aware of their role — and staff can gently query leadership to see if there are any DAIRs there.
Susan Payne
46:53
Correct Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
48:52
They should be called "GAC interest commitments".
Martin Sutton
49:16
@Kathy - wouldn’t those concerns be raised in the public comment when PICs are proposed?
Rubens Kuhl
50:54
We could rename them "Registry Commitments".
Kathy Kleiman
52:20
Every objection mechanism I know is asking for fundamental changes -- the application and therefore the contract itself is at stake.
Kathy Kleiman
53:02
Can we call it CPE Objections?
Justine Chew
54:07
We should not confuse Community Objections with Commmunity Priority Evaluations.
Susan Payne
54:29
@Kathy CPE isn't an objection at all
Justine Chew
54:37
+1 Susan
Rubens Kuhl
54:44
E in CPE stands for Evaluation
Susan Payne
54:45
I think this is a confusion caused by Jamie's examples last week
Susan Payne
55:45
to be clear, Jamie did say he was extrapolating from CPE examples
Susan Payne
55:54
but I think it has caused confusion
Katrin Ohlmer
56:06
@Kathy: Community Objections come from affected community members, the CPE aims if a community applicant fulfills the community criteria.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
56:59
OK, lets keep the Opposition / Objection separate.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
57:18
The Opposition component of CPE we will tackle when we discuss CPE (2 topics from now)
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
57:42
For today, lets focus ONLY on Community-based objections
Kathy Kleiman
57:58
what?
Susan Payne
58:29
@Jamie, thanks yes, that's what I meant in my comment above
Justine Chew
58:35
@Jamie, I understand you. Thanks for that.
Kathy Kleiman
59:47
CPE Opposition - Community Objection
Justine Chew
01:01:27
Objections filed by under Community Objections should be time-limited just as with other objections - String Confusion, Legal Rights, Limited Public Interest. CPE should not be used to "submit" opposition akin to an objection.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:02:17
+1 Justine
Justine Chew
01:02:22
In theory makes sense, but practically difficult.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:03:12
+1 Justine
Katrin Ohlmer
01:03:27
This has been an issue during the last application round.
Justine Chew
01:05:32
Meaning there shouldn't be 2 bites of the cherry for anyone to "object" to community applications.
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:32
@Jamie - is this CPE Opposition that you are referencing?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:22
I do apologise for being here so late
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:09:12
@Kathy .. Community Objections. We had an objection against our application that refused to engage with us in dialogue so that we could a) confirm they were not simply gaming & b) clarify the points of our application in order to avoid the objection because it was clear they misunderstood it
Justine Chew
01:11:20
Please go ahead Jeff
Justine Chew
01:12:37
@Jeff, spot on. On "Standing IRT" which is why I put in extra comment in googledoc.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:05
OK thanks
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:27
@Steve, could you post the link to this doc? Tx!
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:02
@Jamie - were Community Objections allowed to CPE applications? Are you trying to ban that?
Julie Hedlund
01:14:10
Here’s the link @Kathy: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
01:14:16
It’s also in the agenda
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:14:44
@Kathy .. there is no such thing as a community objection to CPE
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:05
Who would do the "quick look" -- presumably the third party dispute provider?
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:54
@Jamie - per your comments: "Community Objections. We had an objection against our application that refused to engage with us in dialogue so.."
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:16:32
@Kathy .. the Community Objection occurred during the Objection period, not during CPE
Justine Chew
01:17:15
I thought "quick look" was done by ICANN Org? But I could be wrong.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:18
@Jamie, right!
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:35
ICANN Org is much more likely to outsource this than to do internally.
Justine Chew
01:18:43
Okay!
Justine Chew
01:18:48
Thanks!
Steve Chan
01:18:49
From the AGB regarding the Limited Public Interest: The quick look is the Panel’s first task, after its appointment by the DRSP and is a review on the merits of the objection. The dismissal of an objection that is manifestly unfounded and/or an abuse of the right to object would be an Expert Determination, rendered in accordance with Article 21 of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:58
Can we embody this agreement?
Jim Prendergast
01:19:32
did that happen?
Jim Prendergast
01:19:50
which string again?
Jim Prendergast
01:20:03
health - ok - thanks
Alexander Schubert
01:20:21
Good idea: This free of cost objection for ALAC should remain.
Justine Chew
01:20:34
I think it was 3 objections against .heath because they were multiple applicants for the same string.
Jim Prendergast
01:20:50
well is it free - or paid for by ICANN (in essence - not free)
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:08
While the string was always .health, it was actually 3 different objections, and the .health contention set had 4 applicants.
Alexander Schubert
01:21:12
What about objection-bundling?
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:17
(3 different ALAC objections)
Justine Chew
01:21:47
@Rubens, yup, that's what I recalled as well. Thanks.
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:00
Could Council of Europe have meant "clarify ALAC's tasks in the Applicant Guidebook?"
Justine Chew
01:22:26
+1 Jeff
Justine Chew
01:22:38
re: standing issue
Alexander Schubert
01:22:42
Without standing nobody can object; right?
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:51
@Alexander - no
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:00
ALAC can object without "standing"
Rubens Kuhl
01:23:10
Standing was required for string confusion objections.
Alexander Schubert
01:23:12
Ieeecks
Justine Chew
01:23:42
@Alexander, re: objection-bundling, that's one of the recommendations in this section.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:51
How do we find out?
Alexander Schubert
01:23:55
Tnx
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:02
Do others agree ALAC should have "standing"?
Alexander Schubert
01:25:22
If the application impacts the AtLarge community - they have standing. If not; why would they object in the first place?
Rubens Kuhl
01:27:29
The panelist in the ALAC objection said he was unable to differentiate between standing and merits of the matter in community objections, so he seemed to indicate that he wouldn't rule just on the standing.
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:00
Determination: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-1-1489-82287-en.pdf
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:53
I have additional comments on DotTrademark TLD... and ALAC.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:06
Notice should come from the DRP.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:09
@Jeff -- it's more than standing.
Justine Chew
01:33:18
@Kathy, I don't know what else you want to "clarify" with ALAC's ability to file objections.
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:55
3 objections on 1 string
Justine Chew
01:35:43
Yes, ALAC filed 3 objections against .health. We have a stringent process within ALAC to get to filing an objection.
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:58
I was thinking the same thing -- some type of ratio for ALAC filing...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:36:20
Personally, I don't agree that there should be a limit on the number of Objections ALAC can file. If there is significant interest in this idea, I can check with IPC. It seems arbitrary to specify a ratio or a number.
Rubens Kuhl
01:36:23
Note that a reasonable limit for ALAC could be 5 (if for each region), and they used less than that. So while there were no limits, they used that ability carefully.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:25
Indeed Justine I am concerned re @Jeff's comment about the entity 'getting its ducks in a row
Justine Chew
01:36:35
@Kathy, I would objection to that.
Justine Chew
01:36:44
I would OBJECT to that.
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:52
@Justine - I'm just reflecting the comments.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:00
They're pretty clear...
Katrin Ohlmer
01:37:07
+1 Rubens
Greg Shatan
01:37:42
Limits should be qualitative not quantitative.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:06
the High bar is I would think a limitation is it not?
Justine Chew
01:38:23
I think so, Cheryl.
Justine Chew
01:38:56
@Greg, as I said ALAC has a stringent process for deciding on whether to file an objection or not.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:21
Would Qualitative limits go back to the virtually impossible task of defining Global Public Interest? If the Board defines it, then you might have a good reference point.
Susan Payne
01:40:51
wouldn't a quick look address that?
Justine Chew
01:42:49
I don't think ALAC exercises its access to "funding" for objection very lightly.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:56
Perhaps setting a target instead of a hard limit ?
Jim Prendergast
01:43:30
especially under the new ICANN budget pressures that were not in focuse back in 2011
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:46
Tend to agree with Justine. (personal hat) If ICANN Board defines Global Public Interest, then okay maybe use that standard but you are adding a determination to be made by the Panelist.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:54
ALAC like GAC is also required to act in the GPI however
Justine Chew
01:45:00
@Jim, the ALAC is well aware of budgetary constraints. Again, as I said, I don't think ALAC exercises its access to "funding" for objection lightly.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:21
Maybe reference ALAC Charter - they should determine that role
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:49
its Yes part of the "Acting in the best interests of theend User" role
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:06
The ByLaws say that the Board must have a 60% vote to override GAC Advice. The question is what "presumption" means because at the point of the Advice, the issue will not have reached a Board vote - it's maybe just a "warning" in the AGB.
Susan Payne
01:50:54
Presumably we cannot tell the GAC to change it's processes but we can make recommendations?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:02
Language should say OR rather than "and" between the "(i) and the (ii).
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:04
Perhaps it being a SHOULD instead of MUST ?
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:26
Yeap
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:53:01
Susan is correct. And I don't think GAC Advice has to be based on law so language would be "and/or" between (i) and (ii))
Julie Bisland
01:55:31
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:15
Bye for now...
Rubens Kuhl
01:56:26
Bye alll!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:30
Thanks, Jeff.
Vaibhav Aggarwal(Tiger), IN
01:56:33
Thanks
Susan Payne
01:56:34
my comment was meant to refer to issues like providing a contact for the GAC advice.
Vaibhav Aggarwal(Tiger), IN
01:56:35
Bye Now
Vaibhav Aggarwal(Tiger), IN
01:56:38
Ciao