Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
38:05
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
Steve Chan
41:47
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit#
Heather Forrest
42:43
Thanks, Steve
Steve Chan
44:55
Cheryl, quick hand up
Christopher Wilkinson
45:44
@CLO sound distorted and unstable.
Julie Bisland
46:07
Sounds loud and clear to me, Cheryl
Steve Chan
48:17
Sounds perfect
Heather Forrest
48:38
I just made a quick typo fix in the doc where the new text was added on Opposition to Mandatory PICs
Heather Forrest
49:19
Good analogy, @Cheryl (checking the minutes)
Heather Forrest
51:00
Second point re CCT-RT seems to be missing something at the end?
Heather Forrest
52:09
THanks, Steve- I have one more question
Heather Forrest
53:38
I can't speak for the IPC, but I do think it's sensible to check
Heather Forrest
53:59
I can follow up for you
Justine Chew
54:00
Good approach @Cheryl, although the word "lilkelihood" seems strange.
Steve Chan
54:31
Sorry folks, it’s actually I think a typo in the original comment!
Steve Chan
54:52
Page 8: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/attachments/20180927/1f16d49d/IPCCommentstoNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPDPInitialReport092618-0001.pdf
Heather Forrest
57:24
It sure does, @Steve. I'll triple check via the IPC list.
Steve Chan
58:25
For context, here is the full text where that quoted text from the BC comes from:
Steve Chan
58:28
2.3.2.e.6: The Work Track seeks to solicit input in regards to comments raised by the Verified TLD Consortium and National Association of Boards of Pharmacy that recommended a registry should be required to operate as a verified TLD if it 1) is linked to regulated or professional sectors; 2) is likely to invoke a level of implied trust from consumers; or 3) has implications for consumer safety and well-being. In order to fully consider the impact and nature of this recommendation, the WG is asking the following questions:
Justine Chew
01:00:41
Can staff please remind me if RySG elaborated on what was the "existing procedure" refers to? As in their own internal procedure?
Steve Chan
01:02:48
"Does not support requiring registries to operate as verified TLDs if they meet certain criteria: The RySG does not support requiring registries to operate as verified TLDs if they meet certain criteria. Further categories of TLDs are not necessary, and the existing procedure already provides sufficient opportunities to address concerns associated with TLDs related to highly regulated or professional sectors. Moreover, the suggested criteria for identifying TLDs for mandatory verified status is unworkably broad and too subjective to reliably identify the types of TLDs it purports to address."
Heather Forrest
01:04:12
My understanding is that the purpose of this discussion is not to raise substantive views, but to verify the comments captured here as an accurate record. I ask because Crhistopher seems to be raising substantive views.
Steve Chan
01:05:12
@Heather, now is actually the time for substantive discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:40
Yup
Heather Forrest
01:06:53
I understood Cheryl's comment about "correcting the minutes, then, or was that only in relation to 'High Level Agreements'?
Justine Chew
01:07:53
@Steve, thanks, although their comment doesn't pinpoint the source of "existing procedure". Taking Cheryl's earlier feedback, I wonder if they already take into account the relevant GAC Category 1 safeguards.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:57
it was in relation to changes made to this DOcumantation based on pervious discourse @Heather... Sorry for any confusion
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:11:09
A verified TLD is one that verifies a potential registrant meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. For instance, the registry operator might require registrants to su appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. End users therefore can trust domains in that TLd to be authentic.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:11:37
"su" = be
Steve Chan
01:12:32
Thanks GG, added.
Steve Chan
01:12:37
Gg
Jeff Neuman
01:18:31
hello all..... :)
Jeff Neuman
01:20:43
Is there a copy of the ALAC resolution or document to which John is referring to
Heather Forrest
01:23:45
For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2)?
Heather Forrest
01:24:08
sorry, I should have added - RPM PDP completed in entirety prior to next round commencing?
Steve Chan
01:25:20
As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit?usp=sharing
Steve Chan
01:25:43
And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro.
Heather Forrest
01:26:04
@John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:44
Gremlins manage to effect us all at times Jeff and we managed just fine I believe (though I am biased)
Justine Chew
01:29:30
Can staff please send me an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:09
Jeff please rearticulate your request here so Justine can react formally as she should as our liaison
Jeff Neuman
01:32:55
The main questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
Jeff Neuman
01:33:34
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those pre-requisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
Jeff Neuman
01:34:11
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
Heather Forrest
01:34:41
(thanks, Jeff, for picking up my question re RPMs)
Jeff Neuman
01:35:14
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Communit Comment 1 and 2
Jeff Neuman
01:35:39
Community
Jeff Neuman
01:36:22
(Yes, sorry #4 is a personal question)
Justine Chew
01:38:05
@jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a "precedent" is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time.
Jeff Neuman
01:39:45
Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important.
Greg Shatan
01:40:34
Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:06
Yes pleased to have gotten so far with all this... Thanks to the excellent work of the WG attendees today (you will see this more @Jeff when you go over the earlier call details, recording, chat high oevel notes etc., :-)
Heather Forrest
01:45:50
Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a "high-level agreement", and many divergent points under "outstanding items", it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from "outstanding items" more points as "High-level agreements"?
Heather Forrest
01:50:43
Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
Heather Forrest
01:52:40
+1 Greg - good comment
Heather Forrest
01:54:07
One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y)
Heather Forrest
01:55:02
@Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask.
Julie Bisland
02:00:26
Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
Justine Chew
02:01:07
@jeff, thanks for the update on the smaller groups.
Heather Forrest
02:01:56
Thanks, Cheryl - I have set the AI into motion, will update accordingly
Jeff Neuman
02:02:53
Great! Absolutely CLO
Justine Chew
02:02:54
Thanks Cheryl, all.
Heather Forrest
02:02:58
Thanks Cheryl & Jeff