Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
43:20
Could we have the link to the Google doc in chat please?
Steve Chan
43:29
yes, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit#
Maxim Alzoba
45:59
zoom scream
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:07
:-)
Alexander Schubert
49:59
Why should anybody believe that? last time we said 1 year!
Kathy Kleiman
50:46
hand up
Maxim Alzoba
50:50
is it safe to always say 1 year?
Maxim Alzoba
51:06
I do not think it is a good idea :)
Maxim Alzoba
51:53
Comment: applicants are non contracted parties , if not affiliated with registries or registrars
Kathy Kleiman
52:38
agreed - it did come from a number of groups.
Kathy Kleiman
52:51
it's also consistent with the original rules...
Kathy Kleiman
53:04
Tx!
Kathy Kleiman
53:50
may need to come off mute, Christopher
Maxim Alzoba
53:59
I do not hear Cristopher
Maxim Alzoba
54:13
?
Kathy Kleiman
54:14
*6 to unmute phone
Martin Sutton
55:11
Has anyone lost screen view?
Maxim Alzoba
55:14
me
Maxim Alzoba
55:24
I see white line across the screen
Martin Sutton
55:30
same
Steve Chan
55:35
sorry, one second. Zoom is not cooperating with me
Maxim Alzoba
55:59
view is back
Steve Chan
56:00
Fixed?
Martin Sutton
56:03
phew
Steve Chan
56:04
Thanks!
Maxim Alzoba
56:38
I am for rounds
Martin Sutton
57:00
I saw Staff circulated a Zoom webinar to help guide users - I think it’s for next week and will be helpful.
Maxim Alzoba
57:21
when GNSO council decides so
Maxim Alzoba
57:37
if it is a matter of policy decision
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:39
Indeed it was drafted that way
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:44
at that stage
Kathy Kleiman
58:57
Adding to Anne -- to the required reviews and the required comments/objections.
Phil Buckingham
59:06
Sorry Christopher I have to disagree . We need to have parallel application tracks ( .brand, geos , not for profit etc ) , without priority.
Kathy Kleiman
59:09
(also part of the Policy)
Maxim Alzoba
59:19
reviews are per bylaws .. frequency is regulated there
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:14
typically reviews are done in parallel with other activities (do not stop everything)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:18
and Specific Reviews like CCT-RTs are in themselves subject to ATRT review (which can recommend changes or dissolution of any Specific Review
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:02:12
@Cheryl, how does that work?
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:02:19
Right, the question still remains whether you need to stop everything to do reviews or whether reviews can be done in parallel with the results of the reviews being implemented when the next round begins
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:02:29
That is something we need to discuss
Susan Payne
01:02:59
agreed Maxim, we are permanently reviewing something
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:01
@Donna it is the role of ATRT
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:17
to review Reviews
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:27
Note: ICANN’s comments are not public comments (it is either ICANN staff, or management or the Board, but ICANN does not represent public)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:03:51
Reviews are required by the ByLaws. The ByLaws take precedent so it depends on the language of the ByLaw as to how that review affects subsequent procedures.
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:54
it is done in parallel
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:04:01
@Cheryl, I misread as the ATRT can recommend changes or dissolution to recommendations of any specific review.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:32
is it written anywhere?
Martin Sutton
01:04:40
I agree with Maxim, the reviews can take place in parallel. These should be considered as opportunities for continual improvement
Annebeth Lange
01:05:18
I agree with Maxim as well
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:32
there is a process for that
Martin Sutton
01:05:45
Depends what the output/recommendations are from each review
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:52
described in GNSO op procedures
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:21
what is intended is not equal to what is actual
Phil Buckingham
01:07:49
Agreed Jeff. Say there is an issue re .brand that requires a review . imo The review must start after the .brand round is completed . We cannot change the "rules " mid round . That was the problem in 2012 round .
Justine Chew
01:08:10
Ideally, CCT reviews should be incorporated "automatically" and done in parallel, also completed prior to opening of next round.
Susan Payne
01:09:25
But a CCT would not develop new policy would it? Wouldn't it make recommendations which would then need to be developed in a PDP
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:58
Reviews recommend correct @Susan
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:59
it was in bylaws, sorry
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:05
reviews
Martin Sutton
01:10:20
Policy/material changes during the application process (and prior to next) should be minimised to maintain predictability
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:10:41
In my mind this all becomes a timing issue. As a principle I would say that one work effort should not toll another unnecessarily. The CCT RT took at least 12 months longer than anticipated and similarly for this effort. The question for me is who decides if one effort will toll an effort.
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:31
if the recommendations are adopted at all
Christopher Wilkinson
01:11:31
@Martin, that only works if the PDP+WT5 agree strict and accepted rules. Not presently the case. CW
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:11:40
@ Susan - yes it appears that some recommendations go back to PDP phase. If you look at the most recent final report - the Board kicked a lot back to us as the Sub Pro PDP. However,I do think the Board actually does have authority to independently adopt a CCT-RT review recommendation if it does not involve Consensus Policy that affects the RA or the RAA.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:12:35
Although the Board DOES have the authority to enact a Temp Spec.
Martin Sutton
01:13:29
@CW understand that’s your view but many different views within the group/community
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:34
Temp spec lives for 12 months only
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:47
to be precise 360 days
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:14
the current PDP rules are not going to be the same forever (please check PDP3.0)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:16:05
We may have an Accountability issue here. The continuing reviews were part of the reassurances given in the IANA transition. So I am not sure what positions may be taken by various constituencies/stakeholders on whether or not subsequent rounds should proceed and not be held up by CCT-RT reviews. Seems like a good question to put out for public comment.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:16:53
No way can PDP policy result in reviews not taking place. ByLaws override that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:04
CCRT is in section 4.6. (d) (bylaws)
Susan Payne
01:17:26
Anne, there's not been any suggestion that the reviews not take place. we haven't even discussed that
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:18:28
Jeff just said that we would state as policy that the rounds shouldn't stop reviews. I was just pointing out that we don't have any authority to treat that as a policy determination.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:18:56
AGree
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:04
new
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:08
hand
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:21:11
IPC wanted to reserve on the question of FCFS
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:14
new hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:24
That is my recall on that @Jeff noting some notable objection to is from e.g. the ALAC
Jim Prendergast
01:21:33
I would agree with the bullett
Christopher Wilkinson
01:21:41
Support no FCFS - CW
Justine Chew
01:22:24
"...application procedures, along with review, objections etc..."
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:25:02
We can't say "ongoing rounds should not stop reviews" - we have no authority to say that. We can say we recommend that rounds continue unless and until new policy is developed - but ONLY if that is a consensus of the WG. It seems fairly important - and should be included in the limited number of questions for public comment. As Jamie has pointed out, it could be pretty confusing if you prepare and application and then policy changes.
Steve Chan
01:25:24
@Anne, agree - we will revise.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:26:17
Thanks Steve.
Martin Sutton
01:26:43
+1 Kristine
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:26:49
Agree with Kristine. Rounds should not be 10 years apart.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:51
we should be careful :) 11 is not ten
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:58
too
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:27:17
LOL Maxim
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:27:38
THanks Jeff.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:08
Nice phrasing, Jeff. Agreed!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:28:08
RE the policy goal, It's not just subject to being "operationally feasible". It should be "subject to any needed further policy development"
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:25
I think your phrasing of a new bullet works well.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:28:48
@Anne. tjat
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:29:06
@Anne, that really opens the door to another 10-12 years I think.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:32
Policy goal -- new bullet -- opportunity of the Community to react and respond (e.g, via comments and objections).
Justine Chew
01:29:52
ALAC is conscious of the notion of "application" versus "assessment" -- less concerned about FCFS versus rounds for applications, more concerned that assessment has to be done in rounds, otherwise how do we establish contentions? Although ALAC is against immediate FCFS overall.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:30:54
@Justine, that's right. It's tricky to discuss contention sets without at least "windows."
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:30:54
@Kristine - good point but if the Board determines more policy work is required or if the GNSO itself so determines based on CCT-RT results, then there has to be a mechanism for a pause. It's a hard nut to crack.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:59
@Christopher, and we also have experience from the 2012 round that is important for making improvements. Whether we intend to reapply in future rounds is moot at this point.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:31:08
+1 Donna.
Martin Sutton
01:32:12
Agree Donna - a lot of experiences which can help to improve future process/policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:33
@Ann, if the mechanism is not here, it does not exist and therefore not enforceable
Phil Buckingham
01:32:44
So if there is no FCFS , which I agree with , would a round be completed before all applicants proceed together at once ?
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:16
rules for the next round do not have to be the same as for the previous one
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:33:30
Ithink the question is who has the authority to say "stop". Cause we don't know what "regular and recurring" really means.
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:01
I believe that the reading is on GNSO Council (since it is a matter of policy)
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:51
I would recommend to replace 2023 with ‘a particular year’
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:34:53
But we would essentially be saying that GNSO has to launch a PDP or EPDP to study the question and develop policy as to whether any upcoming round should stop or not.
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:20
I think it is up to GNSO Council to decide the method
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:36:43
if this is a policy recommendation, even the Board would not be able to stop regular and recurring rounds without a Temp Spec or a 2/3 majority vote. But maybe that is what we want to say - it is just that this is quite important and we probably need public comment.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:00
50% of applications completed Initial Evaluation could mean that 100% still in contention or objection processes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:15
there is a tendency of using examples later in the implementation phase
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:57
fair point @Maxim
Phil Buckingham
01:38:26
Good point Kathy .
Justine Chew
01:38:29
But it's already in the Initial Report, isn't it? But we should correct that in the Final Report.
Justine Chew
01:38:56
ie reference to "January 1, 2023...."
Steve Chan
01:39:23
Indeed Justine, the text in bold is taken from the Initial Report
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:34
if a certain % of applications denied we might never reach the threshold
Justine Chew
01:40:20
That comes under Communications Plan @Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:21
we need to use some other definition other than ‘the applications’
Jim Prendergast
01:40:26
I like % delgeated because its definitive that they have cleared the round in which they applied and will not get hung up on anything else.
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:54
example - 90% of applications denied, and 10% will never reach 50%
Vanda Scartezini
01:40:57
yes Kathy, this is one thing we have talked some time ago and was missing and should be include
Jim Prendergast
01:41:24
There were plenty of applications that ICANN evaluated that never made it beyond that
Justine Chew
01:41:27
@Maxim, @Jim, maybe some % disposed off?
Phil Buckingham
01:41:46
maybe have a "problem application channel / track
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:18
there is no predictability in the 2012 round, so following it might lead to the same
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:42:30
Most of the work is during the Objection / Comment Period. If that period has ended and Initial Evaluation has ended, then I am not sure I understand why to wait for delegation? Just a question for me to understand
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:53
@Jeff , it depends on business plans e.t.c.
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:00
Delegation means that we are through contention sets, objections and comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:05
This aspect needs *very cautions* drafting to ensure predictability and that if our Policy Goals are to be achieved
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:23
should read *cautious*
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:27
Initial evaluation can only be a fraction of the time required for handling contention or objection.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:30
objection, delegation is after execution of RA
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:43:41
Yeah, delegation is way too far out.
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:48
and is a subject to business plans
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:43:48
signed RA maybe?
Vanda Scartezini
01:43:55
delegation… we still have TLd not yet delegated
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:19
some TLDs decided not to be delegated and to be terminated
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:22
exactly Vanda
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:59
thus my caution to draft with great *caution*
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:45:28
For predictability purposes, using signed agreements or delegations, it is too difficult because that is not under the control of just one party
Justine Chew
01:45:53
agreed, delegation is problematic
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:45:58
QUESTION: How would the new appeal mechanisms affect the "end" of the Evaluation and Objection periods? QUESTION
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:46:47
agree with Donna that anything beyond initial evaluation is going to lower predictability
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:47
there is a moment of time, when ICANN says - it is ok to execute the RA, but the other party, for example might need a paper originals e.t.c.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:34
for clarity - in AGB it was called ‘transition to delegation phase’ page 212 of AGB 2012-06-04
Katrin Ohlmer
01:49:39
some applicants were not in a hurry to proceed to delegation as they had "secured" their TLD fater passing initial evaluation - this might also happen in future rounds
Katrin Ohlmer
01:49:48
fater = after
Martin Sutton
01:49:50
If we can’t apply a fixed period/start dates, I would expect the % passed Initial Evaluation to be a reasonable way forward. Given the earlier discussions, there could also be specific and major reasons to halt the process at times (although should be exceptional)
Annebeth Lange
01:51:27
Agree with your reasoning here, Martin. Objective criteria is important. And if we do not want fixed periods or start dates, Initial Evaluation might be the best way.
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:31
General availability is a ongoing phase of a TLD
Martin Sutton
01:51:53
@Jim - not sure we are trying to define the “closure” of a round, just a point in time when the next can begin
Phil Buckingham
01:52:30
another problem/ bottelneck is finding enough qualified evaluators !
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:16
@Jim there is an icon for that
Steve Chan
01:54:41
Jeff, hand up for me
Justine Chew
01:54:57
Contention sets
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:48
name collisions?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:58:04
@Steve: makes sense
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:58:26
@Steve - But how does that help for predictability?
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:58:44
How is it predictable to know when staff is ready for more applications
Maxim Alzoba
01:59:01
payments are on recovery basis (hiring may occur)
Justine Chew
01:59:12
I thought staff have said they don't see an issue with resources?
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
01:59:27
@Justine - correct
Maxim Alzoba
01:59:29
@Justine, I heard the same
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:13
not much money left - next round???
Steve Chan
02:00:22
I can try and answer that
Justine Chew
02:00:25
@maxim :)
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:32
it is questionable approach
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:00:37
I have the same concerns as Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
02:01:42
I was under impression that ICANN staff is directed by the Board to perform such actions
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:01:43
Agree with STeve we should ask them now.
Justine Chew
02:01:53
ICANN Org comment summarized as "Support for a specific date or period of time" what does that mean?
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:07
I'm not sure this should a factor in our discussions.
Phil Buckingham
02:02:09
This is about the critical path analysis = = limiting factot
Christopher Wilkinson
02:03:17
Ask now. I have asked several times to know what resources are available for evaluation. Presumably the 2012 round yielded data as to how much $$+staff are necessary for evaluation etc.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:03:42
We need public comment on this issue - one of the limited issues on which we need further public comment.
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
02:04:12
@Anne - lets worry about coming up with recommendations now and then we will figure out what needs public comment and when
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
02:05:07
And we did seek public comment on this issue already.....
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:05:42
@Jeff - the process is so complex we need to flag issues that require public comment now. You can tell by the complexity of this discussion that this will require public comment.
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:45
if we try to wait for the readiness of the parts of the community which might be not happy with the rounds at all - we are stuck
Martin Sutton
02:07:11
Could we add caveats to the effect that if the #applicants exceeds xxx this may affect the next application window start date?
Steve Chan
02:07:52
If you look at the Applicant Guidebook, page 50, you can see a chart that references the Transition to Delegation: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
Kathy Kleiman
02:07:59
+1 Maxim to your idea of execution of contracts -- beyond initial evaluation and prior to delegration. This may give us a midpoint.
Steve Chan
02:08:20
I believe that is what Maxim may have mentioned here in the chat.
Susan Payne
02:08:33
To go to what Kathy was saying - but don't non-applicant members of the community also benefit from greater up-front certainty of when a round is going to open, so that they can allocate resource appropriately? Much better for planning purposes, surely?
Jim Prendergast
02:09:08
https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/jJkqOiXMlpT-Fvd_iSX10H6Ig3hfZT7ItWxFwhMwZ1KwIumekTziMw?startTime=1557287172000
Jim Prendergast
02:09:20
recording
Steve Chan
02:09:29
Haha
Steve Chan
02:09:41
Session recordings here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/gdd-summit-session-recordings-2019-05-08-en
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:10:13
Important discussion and progress on a critical issue today Team, Thanks everyone... Lots mpre to do, so please continue on list(s).... Bye for now.
Maxim Alzoba
02:10:14
good night
Julie Bisland
02:10:16
Next Subpro WG call: Tuesday, 21 May 2019 at 03:00 UTC.
Annebeth Lange
02:10:36
Thanks and goodbye.
Katrin Ohlmer
02:10:45
thanks, Jeff
Vanda Scartezini
02:10:58
nice week to you all