Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
19:54
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 16 December 2019 at 20:00 UTC.And HAPPY BIRTHDAY (still) TO CHERYL LANDGDON-ORR!
Jim Prendergast
20:02
if you are not 3 minutes early, you are late
Maxim Alzoba
20:12
Happy Birthday, Cheryl!
Tom Dale
20:22
Timing issue is one for Einstein.
Julie Hedlund
20:55
Yes, last call
Maxim Alzoba
20:57
hopefully
Tom Dale
21:07
And Happy Birthday CLO!
Julie Hedlund
21:48
Predictability Framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit#heading=h.7kd5yr7uelh2
Steve Chan
23:45
It’s Steve for the record :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
26:21
Sorry - where exactly are we in the document?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
26:45
Ok thank you.
Maxim Alzoba
27:38
it is quite easy - it was not applicable
Anne Aikman-Scalese
28:42
agree with Jim - too loosey goosey - as to who determines whether or not the rules and guidelines apply. SPIRT should review and recommend.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
29:02
So some other suggestions for 'tighter'language then??
Rubens Kuhl
29:32
HI all
Steve Chan
30:13
For your reference, the IRT Guidelines are here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf
Paul McGrady
30:19
To whom is the Spirit accountable to?
Rubens Kuhl
30:31
Holy Ghost ?
Paul McGrady
30:36
(strike the extra "to")
Donna Austin, Neustar
32:06
So the IRT decides the rules, not the SPIRT.
Annebeth Lange
32:48
Could it mean that SPIRT can recommend a change to be decided by the GNSO Council without the other stakeholder groups being involved?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:04
apologies for joining late
Rubens Kuhl
33:28
At the end of the day, this is GNSO Policy.
Paul McGrady
34:11
THanks Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
35:54
My experience in the RegData Policy IRT makes me suggest the WG to work hard towards not leaving too much to IRT.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:05
If the IRT rules are not applied, to the greatest extent possible, then I don't know what to tell the IPC that we are recommending in relation to this team's role.
Jim Prendergast
36:22
^^^^^^^^ What Rubens said.
Paul McGrady
37:14
#Jeff, that sentence is an example of why I am afraid that the Spirit will just be another group to be lobbied to create non-predictability
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:18
We definitely should NOT have the IRT define the SPIRT role.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:25
Agreed @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:04
IRT should not be filing in "holes". No way can we or the IRT anticipate all situations. If situations arise that don't fit the IRT rules as applied to SPIRT, the GNSO Council must weight in. Too many layers +delay.
Jeff Neuman
42:00
after the Applicant Guidebook is finalized
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:32
It should be 'settled" in role etc., after it is constituted is what I am hearing @Anne say
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:53
trying to @Jeff ;-)
Jeff Neuman
44:31
Right...the standing nature of the SPIRT is in itself not in accordance with the guidelines
Jeff Neuman
44:32
:)
Rubens Kuhl
44:46
IRTs might too much biased towards ICANN Org, while SPIRT might be more community-oriented.
Greg Shatan
46:18
I think the SPIRT should be cloud-based. So it can be The Spirt in the Sky.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:25
It's easier to just say that if SPIRT wants to deviate from IRT rules (other than its standing status) , it must review that with GNSO Council as Greg proposed.
Maxim Alzoba
47:22
Vatican style, no food in, until resolved
Paul McGrady
47:29
Accepted unless rejected within a certain period of time is pretty scary. We would be inviting filibuster at the Council table.
Rubens Kuhl
48:32
All voting can be done by e-mail, but requires both discussion and prior notice. So it's not as quick.
Paul McGrady
48:49
Limit Council deliberation to 2 meetings
Maxim Alzoba
51:34
in other industries it might be called “bait and switch” and is punishable
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:18
Paul - do you mean 2 meetings WITH the deferred motion discretion of the Chair or one more deferred motion at the Chair's discretion?
Paul McGrady
54:45
1 Councilor - just like a PDP
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:36
Noted @Paul
Paul McGrady
55:49
@Anne - 2 months total, including deferrals
Paul McGrady
57:00
@Jeff - that sounds right to me. Seems to provide at least a layer of accountability
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:11
There could be an issue if this rule is introduced as to which process is being followed because it only takes one Councilor to raise an issue under the Input, Guidance, and EPDP process.
Maxim Alzoba
58:54
Are we suggesting edits to the Bylaws?
Jim Prendergast
01:00:26
phone a friend
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:59
currently changes to PDT is an internal business of the testing org
Julie Bisland
01:01:10
zoom won’t let me unmute Anne
Annebeth Lange
01:01:37
I think the community organisations should have members on the SPIRT
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:01:50
Just note that CPIF already has a provision re technical expertise on IRT and IRT rules apply. Are you saying that a technical expert may not be a standing member and may need to be added?
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:52
it has material impact (time and money at least)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:44
OK Jeff - Then just say that you add an expert - doesn't change the fact that the SPIRT should be representative of the communtiiy.
Janvier Ngnoulaye (University of Yaounde 1)
01:03:48
I support Annebeth view saying that " the community organisations should have members on the SPIRT"
Paul McGrady
01:04:22
Why not kick this part to the Council and have them decide how they want to fill the seats?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:22
OK to ADD an expert
Paul McGrady
01:05:44
Or to the Nom Com?
Steve Chan
01:05:54
Jeff, I can try
Justine Chew
01:06:20
NomCom will be impractical I think
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:28
Annabeth "are" represented or 'able to be" to allow for AC/SO commitment to engage (or otherwise?
Paul McGrady
01:07:05
@Justine, probably, but its membership is representative of the entire community and not just GNSO
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:04
See for an ordinary IRT the limitation to topic expertise makes sense (to me at least) but for SPIRIT the engagement should be pehaps wide, inclusive and specific in design (yet allow flexibility for the AC/SOs)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:15
Yes! we can hear you now
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:24
anyone joins SPIRIT in the heat of the applications being processed - indefinite chances to stop things
Jeff Neuman
01:09:36
Yes, this section will be going out for public comment
Elaine Pruis
01:09:41
I think we should look to the Customer Standing Committee composition for a good example— four “expert” members and liaisons from all AC/SOs. 2 year appointment so that there is consistency and corporate memory
Jeff Neuman
01:09:42
but we should make a recommendation
Annebeth Lange
01:09:43
So the question could then be if the participation should be “obligatory”?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:09:48
Agreed Maxim
Paul McGrady
01:10:31
@Elaine - good idea
Annebeth Lange
01:10:58
@Elaine - agree
Justine Chew
01:11:41
Like CSC, that could work
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:48
The narrow scope of the CSC is also testament to its success, so clearly articulating the scope of the SPIRT is also important.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:08
Yes SPIRIT needs balance and/or the ability for inclusion of all interested parties but still limited in size as such
Greg Shatan
01:13:23
hand
Annebeth Lange
01:13:26
@Cheryl, agree
Jeff Neuman
01:13:42
Thanks Greg....that helps
Justine Chew
01:14:33
which is the same with SPIRT @, Greg, no policy
Elaine Pruis
01:14:35
We must define a narrow focus for SPIRT
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:14:42
SPIRT must include participants who have history on this PDP WG and preferably also on the IRT.
Jeff Neuman
01:14:47
@Greg - I don't think we are saying that the group should be the same composition. I think we are saying it should be a closed group (whatever the composition), and one where people are appointed for a good period of time (for continuity).
Justine Chew
01:15:10
I agree with Anne
Annebeth Lange
01:15:28
@Greg, on the other hand, we have to look at the balance between not taking too long time to get a result and properly represented. I agree with Anne here,.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:29
I think staff should also be members of the SPIRT, as they are also potential experts for changes being requested from other parts of the community. I think you can draw parallels from the CSC.
Annebeth Lange
01:15:45
@Donna, agree
Jim Prendergast
01:16:07
are there reguirements for IRT participants to have participated in the PDP or other policy processes?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:16:14
The CSC is still multi-stakeholder that has a minimum number of members and liaisons.
Annebeth Lange
01:16:33
Exactly, Donna
Greg Shatan
01:16:36
I also did not think it would be the same composition as for CSC. CSC is fit for a very particular purpose.
Justine Chew
01:16:50
@Donna, not sure about staff being members, I imagine them having a supporting role
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:02
Indeed @DOnna
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:12
@Justine, staff lead IRTs so I don't see any concern with the SPIRT.
Greg Shatan
01:17:17
Are we getting confused between those who implement and those who review implementation?
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:28
bye all, have to drop
Greg Shatan
01:18:36
I didn’t mean that the CSC was not multistakeholder, but it is not broadly multistakeholder.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:45
Jeff - you missed 3 chat comments saying SPIRT should have members with new gTLD pdp wg experience and preferably irt experience.
Elaine Pruis
01:19:53
members could be appointed, and those in this group can point to this experience as an example of their expertise.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:19:56
It's not self-serving - it's about policy knowledge. it's a preference - not a requirement anyway.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:57
Agree on the scope and then we can argue about the membership of the SPIRT. Because this will be a standing panel, its realistic to think that members will swap in and out depending on the change under discussion.
Jeff Neuman
01:20:11
Right, but this SPIRT is a group removed from the PDP
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:01
Indeed @Greg, that type of background is important, desirable , but a skill set and experience not *the* skill set and experience
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:15
You need more than one person with the PDP WG background. If there is only ONE member, there are no checks and balances on that one member's interpretation of what happened in the policy-making process.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:28
+1 Anne
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:51
We would want more than one member of the original PDP, from multiple SGs and backgrounds...
Greg Shatan
01:22:15
Given that timeline, the SPIRT should certainly have members of the IRT, even if somehow the WG members all fade away by that time....
Greg Shatan
01:23:01
The original IRT is a no-brainer, it’s the PDP>SPIRT linkage that is in doubt
Justine Chew
01:23:56
yes
Paul McGrady
01:24:02
Lifetime position unless removed for high crimes. Also, a pension and a company car.
Justine Chew
01:24:32
yes, leave to appointing group
Greg Shatan
01:24:38
and vs. or?
Paul McGrady
01:24:45
+1 Justine
Greg Shatan
01:25:35
Inside joke
Greg Shatan
01:25:46
RPM thing
Justine Chew
01:26:35
@greg what happened to use of your banter tags in chat? ;-)
Annebeth Lange
01:26:36
If we are thinking about “quick treatment”, there should be individuals
Paul McGrady
01:27:22
ha!
Justine Chew
01:27:38
Awww @paul
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:19
I want to go back t othe prior point, please
Greg Shatan
01:28:40
🤪
Justine Chew
01:31:07
that's up to appointing group @kathy
Justine Chew
01:31:20
+1 Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:36
Some appointing bodies may have specific rules or requirements already I suspect
Annebeth Lange
01:31:55
I think we talked about the appointing groups are the SO and ACs
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:48
Great, tx
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:43
More detailed SOI tailored to SPIRT team
Annebeth Lange
01:33:59
@Anne, agree
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:16
Makes sense @Anne
Justine Chew
01:35:58
yes, declaration as applicant is good, perhaps just to also mention inclusion of relevant (PDP) experience
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:04
Just has to be a KNown as opposed to Unknown set of issues IMO @Donna
Steve Chan
01:38:16
Jeff, did you skip Confidentiality obligations?
Steve Chan
01:38:42
And a comment about the staff role
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:38:45
Perhaps, there should be a restriction on participation that there should only be one person representing an organisation, for example Neustar could only have one employee on the SPIRT.
Jeff Neuman
01:40:11
I did not say that
Jeff Neuman
01:40:13
sorry
Jeff Neuman
01:40:17
I skipped the question
Jeff Neuman
01:40:20
by accident
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:50
Yes we have notg yet discussed that issue
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:26
is someone talking?
Greg Shatan
01:41:27
+1 Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:45
@SteveChan -- can comments reflect concerns about Majority here?
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:31
new hand
Martin Sutton
01:43:37
process should be in a “timely manner”
Martin Sutton
01:43:59
rather than anyone thinking it is “speedy”
Greg Shatan
01:44:46
I am concerned about the proposal for “majority.”
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:12
Set a time limit
Annebeth Lange
01:45:20
@Martin, I agree, “timely manner” is the right expression
Justine Chew
01:45:29
But SPIRT makes recommendations not decisions necessarily, right?
Annebeth Lange
01:45:44
Sorry, I have to leave.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:04
I assume there will be a Chair of this group, would the Chair have the discretion to call it?
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:21
Agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:29
Thanks Greg. How does IRT make decisions? SPIRT is supposed to operate as a sTANDING irt AND THAT IS WHAT WAS PUT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
Steve Chan
01:48:01
Jeff, now I’ll put my hand up, although i note the time
Jeff Neuman
01:48:02
IRTs in general do not have chairs.
Jeff Neuman
01:48:14
IRTs are "chaired" if at all by GDD
Jeff Neuman
01:48:25
Is this another area where normal IRT rules would not apply
Greg Shatan
01:49:00
AFAIK IRTs operate on the consensus model. The ones I’ve been on have done so, even without a formal chair. The IRP IOT has a chair... though it is an IOT and not an IRT FWTW.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:12
How does IRT make a decision (or recommendation)? Why would that not apply to SPIRT?
Justine Chew
01:49:13
Exactly @Cheryl, SPIRT makes recommendations not decisions necessarily, plus there's oversight by GNSO Council
Paul McGrady
01:49:20
This all underscores the importance of 1 Councilor being able to brnig the outcomes to Council. It really takes the fear out an an abuse by a Chair or an obstinate member of the Spirit
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:41
Agree with Paul.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:46
Because it is *advice* and or *recommendations* :-)
Paul McGrady
01:50:29
Happy Holidays to all of you!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:00
Why shouldn't STAFF chair the SPRIT? what's wrong with that?
Justine Chew
01:52:06
thanks @steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:07
Good progress though Team,... thanks for your time today, and please do progress the discussions on list (in the break) Best of the Seasons Wishes to you all, safe travels for those who are doing so... Bye for now...Remember to put the next meeting in Jan in your 2020 calendars ;-)
Martin Sutton
01:52:22
co-chair, one staff, one community
Jim Prendergast
01:52:49
i havent seen an calendar items..
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:49
Happy holidays all!
Martin Sutton
01:52:52
happy hols
Justine Chew
01:52:54
and one Internet! happy hols
Alberto Soto
01:52:56
Thanks, bye bye!!!