Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit#
Cheryl, quick hand up
@CLO sound distorted and unstable.
Sounds loud and clear to me, Cheryl
I just made a quick typo fix in the doc where the new text was added on Opposition to Mandatory PICs
Good analogy, @Cheryl (checking the minutes)
Second point re CCT-RT seems to be missing something at the end?
THanks, Steve- I have one more question
I can't speak for the IPC, but I do think it's sensible to check
I can follow up for you
Good approach @Cheryl, although the word "lilkelihood" seems strange.
Sorry folks, it’s actually I think a typo in the original comment!
Page 8: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/attachments/20180927/1f16d49d/IPCCommentstoNewgTLDSubsequentProceduresPDPInitialReport092618-0001.pdf
It sure does, @Steve. I'll triple check via the IPC list.
For context, here is the full text where that quoted text from the BC comes from:
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:
Can staff please remind me if RySG elaborated on what was the "existing procedure" refers to? As in their own internal procedure?
"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."
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.
@Heather, now is actually the time for substantive discussion.
I understood Cheryl's comment about "correcting the minutes, then, or was that only in relation to 'High Level Agreements'?
@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.
it was in relation to changes made to this DOcumantation based on pervious discourse @Heather... Sorry for any confusion
Gg Levine (NABP)
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)
"su" = be
Thanks GG, added.
hello all..... :)
Is there a copy of the ALAC resolution or document to which John is referring to
For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2)?
sorry, I should have added - RPM PDP completed in entirety prior to next round commencing?
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
And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro.
@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?
Gremlins manage to effect us all at times Jeff and we managed just fine I believe (though I am biased)
Can staff please send me an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.
Jeff please rearticulate your request here so Justine can react formally as she should as our liaison
The main questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
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)
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.
(thanks, Jeff, for picking up my question re RPMs)
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Communit Comment 1 and 2
(Yes, sorry #4 is a personal question)
@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.
Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important.
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.
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., :-)
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"?
Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
+1 Greg - good comment
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)
@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.
Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC
@jeff, thanks for the update on the smaller groups.
Thanks, Cheryl - I have set the AI into motion, will update accordingly
Great! Absolutely CLO
Thanks Cheryl, all.
Thanks Cheryl & Jeff