Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Javier Rúa-Jovet
27:15
One day Ill tell you the trivia of where 'Tennis" comes from
Steve Chan
29:51
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9pIXkiu_d5zPVqTM09Z5BiJ1Y3-mhnwaZLPfDDcnI4/edit
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
34:56
plus more for Leadership Jum
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:01
Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:20
WT5 will hopefull come back to us however
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:32
it will be that for a while Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:55
NOPE @Jim this doc is not updated for WT5 as yet post ICANN 65
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:45
Yes Jim this is a risk we recognise but...
Justine Chew
38:05
Apologies for being late, just got back from another appointment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:07
people should be able to plan which sessions to join however (we hope)
Jim Prendergast
38:09
I am concerned that when you increase the hours per week like this, you lose people who dont do sub pro full time.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
39:23
a week
Kathy Kleiman
39:48
two a month would be fine!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
40:00
Ha! 2 a month!!
Kathy Kleiman
40:20
Lost far to many people already
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:24
It is a large commitment regardless of if your in an associated industry or not ... not many people would have PDP SubPro AS their Full time or even part time weekly job, *BUT* how do we proceed without picking up the pace or risk stifling healthy discussion
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:27
I'm not opposed to doing the time if we get a result, so my concern is more about our ability to deliver on a product.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:43
The timer you now see is an effort to reduce any fillabusting risk BTW
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
41:53
I havent got to the timer yet
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:01
that is another new feature we wish to introduce timed interventions
Javier Rúa-Jovet
43:47
+1 !
Justine Chew
44:38
And the drafting teams?
Jim Prendergast
45:17
We formed a Predictablity sub group 3-4 weeks ago yet nothing has happened so Im not sure how that process is goign to work.
Justine Chew
45:35
Exactly, @Jim.
Jim Prendergast
46:04
and those will be in addition to 2+ calls a week?
Kathy Kleiman
46:09
More time is not more efficiencies
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
46:22
My apologies for joining in late.
Justine Chew
47:42
And lives outside of ICANN!
christopher wilkinson
47:46
Folk with a FT job and family could not keep up with the proposed schedule.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:03
and we are happy to entertain what ever efficiiencies we can work with
Kathy Kleiman
48:22
It's not an efficiency, Cheryl, it's a way to reduce participation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:14
All I can do is assure you that is *not* the intent @Kathy and if it appears to be the outcome we would need to urgently address that.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
49:33
My employer tolerates my ICANN duties (and just barely!)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:01
I doubt that is a rare thing @Javier
Kathy Kleiman
50:21
@Cheryl, you have already heard from 3 active participants that doubling the commitment of their participation is too heavy a burden. Does that matter?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:26
Of course it does @Kathy I am sorry you feel you need to ask that considering my comments in chat... But let's see how we go shall we?
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:05
From Anne's comments on the list (agreeing with Jamie): I am however concerned when I hear pushback about obligations that may also be necessary for RSPs. If an RSP wants the benefit of marketing themselves as a pre-approved RSP to attract new applicants, then whatever is necessary to meet that standard is the price they should pay for holding such status.
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:37
The agreement was towards a baseline of agreement of what RSPs need to provide the Applicants.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:54
On the oucomes aspect though @Jim and @DOnna it is our intention to try to ensure that we at the end of each meeting we clearly state *ANY* agreed outcomes OR next steps to develop outcomes
Jim Prendergast
01:02:01
I also believe there is an operating principle from day one that because of the rotations of the calls, topics wouldnt only be covered on one call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:36
and that we wil in future start each call with a *short*e are u to recap
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:59
That is correct @Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:15
this the overlap style I am trying to list above
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:20
typos and all ;-)
Steve Chan
01:03:49
Jeff, a comment, not directly related to what you were speaking to
Steve Chan
01:04:03
*hand raised*
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:04:15
@Steve - ok.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:09:17
In my mind it was always intended to be the case that the pre-approval and application process would be the same, ie the technical element of the application.
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:02
Jamie
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:05
Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:06
Me
Christa Taylor
01:11:40
The initial intent was to have a list potential applicants could use in preparing their application and by having a list, applicants could rely on these gold star companies
Justine Chew
01:14:29
+1 Jamie. I agree that focus should be intended benefit to potential applicants. Therefore this list should be accurate for the period applications are open.
Steve Chan
01:14:53
Is it helpful to revisit the draft policy goals?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:56
@Justine and Christa - what happens if an RSP loses its approval?
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:10
That's the question on the floor...
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:34
@Justine, that's the important point--the list should be accurate for the period applications are open.
Jim Prendergast
01:15:45
Will ICANN designate an RSP as pre-approved if they have a track record for EBERO triggering incidents?
Steve Chan
01:16:04
There is a section later in this document that discusses periodic reassessment.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:35
Yes Steve best to not lose site of that
Christa Taylor
01:16:57
In the prior discussions the idea was that evaluations wre to be re-evaluated at certain thresholds or timelines (apologies can't remember the exact details on the triggers)
christopher wilkinson
01:17:01
So, we would have contracts between ICANN and the RSP, for compliance purposes. Correct?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:02
@Jim, it is the RO that is in breach and it is not always a problem of the RSP that triggers EBERO.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:18:00
@Christa, I believe you are correct.
Jim Prendergast
01:18:34
@Donna - I agree but the stats we saw for the first two years did have several tecnhical issues that were clearly on the RSP as the provider. Not all but many
christopher wilkinson
01:19:21
No contract with ICANN? Then how does the new gTLD applicant control compliance by the rS
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:30
Agreed Jim, but we need to know what the trend has been for the past two years. Was it teething problems or is it systemic.
christopher wilkinson
01:19:44
Compliance of their RSP
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:58
@Christoper, the registry operator is responsible to compliance.
christopher wilkinson
01:21:02
@Donna - that only works for existing internal RSP functions.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:50
The RSP is a third party contractor to the registry operator and has obligations to the registry operator, but not to ICANN.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:51
Then have no pre-approved list if it is a meaningless distinction.
Jim Prendergast
01:22:05
@Donna - agree - cant really close this off without more data
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:26
It is meaingful, it is different than Round 1, and it is a meaningful category for Applicants.
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:22:32
@kathy - who said that it is a meaningless distinction?
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:35
And it is designed to speed up processing...
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:22:55
@Kathy - We are looking to benefit applicants and this process does benefit applicants.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:22
Not one I am proposing (yet) but it *IS* an option
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:34
for this aspect and *any* of our work
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:24:35
Is it possible to park this as an 'issue to be resolved', once we have the rest of the principles in place. Some of the challenge here is that we are doing things piecemeal, rather than wholistically.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:38
If we don't progress in @Jeff's proposed small team approach Yes it should be @Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:26:29
It should be voluntary.
christopher wilkinson
01:28:51
If not mandatory then the RSP function will have to be evaluated by ICANN in each case, whether internal or eternal. Therefore mandatory e post facto.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:44
From NCSG Comments (earlier issue): With regard to the approvals,we believe that mechanisms should be put into place in order to enable a) regular reviews of RSPs,b)public cataloging of receipts against RSPs,and c)investigation and response taken to the complaints.There must be a process for rejecting approved RSPs as well as pre-approving RSPs. If Subpro WG undertakes one step, it must undertake both. Otherwise, the resultsareunfairandbiasedforthosenewgTLDApplicantswhoarerelyingon this pre-approval list – which may have become badly out-of-date.
christopher wilkinson
01:33:19
@RSP IRT - a prime target for incumbent already scaled RSPs. In the interests of competition and geographical balance, avoid fora which favour concentration.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:54
Nope
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:04
sensative keybard when I type
christopher wilkinson
01:35:35
There is no agreement to going towards FCFS at the present condition of the discussion.
Steve Chan
01:36:28
Hand from Donna
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:08
Jeff: I got dropped for a bit. I am happy to work with you on the discussion of the NCSG Comments.
Jim Prendergast
01:39:49
When there is an EBERO triggering incident, is there a reassessment or some other retest for the RSP?
Jeff Neuman (SubPro Co-Chair)
01:41:37
@kathy - thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:04
I amhaving a hard time hearing Jamie
Steve Chan
01:42:30
How about Recurring Pre-Approval as a new header instead of Periodic Reassessment?
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:36
@Jeff - but also the reliance of the applicants on the pre-approval...
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:57
What does "recurring pre-approval" mean?
Steve Chan
01:45:11
It’s intended to try and remove the word “reassessment”, which seems to be a problematic word. It’s the notion of RSPs being re-pre-approved.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:34
Imprtant point @Jim Thanks
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:49:18
Can't we just have a principle that a Pre-Approval would be required for future rounds.
Justine Chew
01:49:42
@Jim, to your question -- what happens to the RSP which is subject of EBERO and how one incident of EBERO with respect to one RO affects another RO which that RSP also services (if at all)?
Christa Taylor
01:50:37
In case it helps, Pre-approval of RSPs should be done in a way that takes into account the capacity of the RSP, the type of TLDs supported and services provided, and Applicants must have access to a list of Registry Service Providers and a list of functional areas for which they have been pre-approved through the RSP Program.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:19
It does, thank you Christa
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:29
Time check - need to briefly recap
Christa Taylor
01:55:18
fyi, way back when " there is general agreement for periodic reassessment of RSPs"
Steve Chan
01:55:24
Next call is: Monday, 17 June 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:25
so there is a difference bewteen a small RO and a pre-approved RSP -- scalability. Which seems quite an appropriate distinction.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:57
Lots of good progress today people Bye for now!
avri doria
01:56:02
thanks & bye