Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Kathy
30:20
@Michael - agreed!!
steve.chan
32:08
Working doc link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Rubens Kuhl
34:37
Policy goals says "rounds" instead of "procedures".
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
34:52
To Staff - my phone was on mute. Were you hearing my voice? Does the phone line not mute unless the commands are entered?
Rubens Kuhl
35:17
The computer audio in zoom is on by default.
Michelle DeSmyter
35:17
Hello Anne, that is correct
steve.chan
35:39
@Anne, I do not believe it was your line that was open just a moment ago.
steve.chan
36:16
But Rubens is right, mics are live upon entering the room.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
37:07
I did not join audio. Just want to make sure I understand whether ZOOM operates differently when we are on the phone line.
Kathy
37:22
What is a demand component?
Kathy
39:40
@Anne, I had that problem in another call. My phone, separately dialed in, had to physically unmuted by me with *6 and then unmuted by ICANN Staff. It was confusing!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
39:49
I was just able to select a box that said "automatically mute microphone when joining meeting".
Jim Prendergast
40:40
I think a cost Benefit analysys is different than a demand analysis. Others have reaised questions regarding deman but I wouldnt characterize the GAC as that.
Justine Chew
41:14
+1 Jim
Rubens Kuhl
42:16
I'm looking at the GAC Communique responses as we speak.
Kathy
42:24
@Jim: what do you think would address the GAC concerns?
Jim Prendergast
42:52
@Rubens - its all buried in scorecards
Jeff Neuman
44:34
So we will take this as an action item....to look at scorecards
Jeff Neuman
44:49
Right now I want to get the thoughts of working group members
Jeff Neuman
44:59
Jim you are next
Rubens Kuhl
45:37
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/2016-12/review-gac-communique-19jul16-en.pdf
Rubens Kuhl
46:08
1. The GNSO Council encourages GACmembers to participate in the PDP examiningissues related to subsequent rounds of newgTLDs, and/or submit its feedback during thisgroup’s requests for input and/or publiccomments. The GNSO Council intends tosubmit the GAC’s Helsinki Communique to theleadership of this PDP, and highlight thisparticular section for their review.
Rubens Kuhl
46:24
(1)(I)(b) The CCT-RT is also underway, but atruly “independent analysis” would need tobe requested by the PDP WG, and approvedby the Council.
Rubens Kuhl
47:35
Analysis Group I believe as well, Jeff.
Arasteh
47:47
I do not recall any reaction from the Board in that regard.
Justine Chew
47:55
Yes, I also recall reference to an Economic Analysis, related to the CCTRT work.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
50:58
COMMENT GAC Advice that is not accepted must be overidden by a 60% vote of the Board. I think this is 11 directors. So if fhe GAC repeats advice (as they often do) where GNSO advice conflicts, it's a difficult spot since ByLaws provide Board needs 2/3 vote to override GNSO Consensus Advice, but 60% vote to override GAC Advice. Unless we work out the disagreements, we are looking at another bottleneck and more delay. COMMENT
Arasteh
51:41
I AGREE WITH christopher
Arasteh
51:58
sorry for cap
Kathy
52:25
Rights Protections Mechanisms WG is not rethinking everything from scratch, but reviewing our existing policies
Rubens Kuhl
52:37
Not only to change; if the PDP wants an analysis to be performed, the PDP needs to ask the Council for the resources and for its procurement.
Rubens Kuhl
53:40
And the Council might decline or approve it.
Arasteh
53:47
Jeff, Do you see my hand raised
Donna Austin, Neustar
56:57
its a valid point Kristine
Donna Austin, Neustar
57:48
sorry for joining late
Michelle DeSmyter
57:54
Kavouss has a question
Michelle DeSmyter
57:58
Welcome Donna
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:08
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-helsinki56-gac-advice-scorecard-13dec16-en.pdf
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:25
Response: Board accepts the advice, notingthat the Board is not in a position to managethe content and timeline of the ongoingcommunity reviews. Board recognizes thatthe CCT Review Team is concluding its workand understands that the Review Team islooking at the issues noted in the GAC’sadvice, and such recommendations from theReview Team could be incorporated into the
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:35
policy development work on subsequentrounds of the New gTLD Program.
Rubens Kuhl
01:01:12
So I took it as board punting it down to CCT-RT and GNSO.
Justine Chew
01:03:11
Just to be clear, the ALAC's "support" is qualified -- we did say, "While the ALAC and wider At-Large community continue to debate the actual benefits to communities in expanding the New gTLD Program, we acknowledge that the Program will likely continue to be expanded in one form or another.
Jeff Neuman
01:03:56
Justine - But that was the second comment.....the first comments submitted did not have that qualification
Arasteh
01:04:55
I tend to agree with Christopher
Justine Chew
01:06:04
Jeff - yes, we supported PR 2.2.1.c.1 in principle. It is predicated on the acknowledgement that the Program will likely continue to be expanded in one form or another.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:06:09
*-+-I think the CCT - RT report bears on this question. This is not an IPC position.
Arasteh
01:08:58
However, we need to take into account commernts made by GAC and others
Rubens Kuhl
01:09:00
ICANN could confirm every 50 years...
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:09:29
i have tried to raise my hand.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:09:57
will staff unmute
Michelle DeSmyter
01:10:10
One moment
Kathy
01:10:55
#6 to unmute phones...
Kathy
01:11:11
then Staff has to unmute the phone too.
Kathy
01:11:58
What does ALAC mean by Diversity?
Justine Chew
01:12:53
@Kathy, please refer to ALAC's full comment to as suggested by staff in googledoc.
Kathy
01:13:07
Let's ask Justine :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:11
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/metrics-gdd-2015-01-30-en
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:23
"Domain Name Marketplace Indicators"
steve.chan
01:13:30
@Kathy, Justine, the ALAC’s comment can found here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000035.html
Justine Chew
01:14:05
Yes, I was answering @Kathy.
Jim Prendergast
01:14:18
Marketplace indicators are a lot of numbers and no analysis.
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:39
GAC advice was accepted, but acceptance by the board is different from the garden variety usage of acceptance.
Justine Chew
01:18:46
@Anne, I agree with you. But I am also concerned about the Board's reaction to the CCTRT review. That's an ongoing "thing".
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:42
ICANN is not sued under Sherman Act for anti-competitive behaviour by restring access to the root zone - success.
Arasteh
01:20:36
Good luck to get something on the possible definition of "SUCCESS"?
Justine Chew
01:21:52
Speaking on my behalf, many of the metrics that the ALAC has suggested for subsequent procedures would have been nice to have to assess the 2012 rounds. Would have helped answer our question re benefits of expanding the program. Unfortunately, this is a case of "we should have known better then".
Justine Chew
01:24:28
@Donna, While I like your suggestion, I would appreciate indications of what this group can do any better than what the CCTRT tried to do?
Arasteh
01:24:30
Ido not see any possible way to come up with a general difinition of success.However, some description of relative satisfaction or dissatisfaction may be fomulated
steve.chan
01:25:55
Hi Jeff, hand up
Justine Chew
01:26:13
@Donna, but I am prepared to give it a try anyhow.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:27:44
@Justine, maybe it's just a fresh set of heads looking at the problem through a different lense.
Justine Chew
01:27:45
@Steve, thanks for the reminder.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:27:51
Has anyone already registered zoom.sucks? Sorry but it's very frustrating to have to have staff controlling my phone and Steve not able to raise his hand and having to monkey with the video and audio controls when we are trying to discuss substantive issues.
steve.chan
01:28:56
Donna, is that a new hand?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:29:20
Sorry Steve, same old tired one.
steve.chan
01:30:10
@Anne, in Zoom, using the VOIP audio is actually the preferred way to connect. It’s actually clearer and more stable.
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:30
Anne, zoom.sucks is unavailable, but zoomsucks.com is available.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:31:17
I have not had a chance to review the summary page related to the Predictability Framework.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:32:32
@Rubens - thank you. Maybe next time. It's rough on those who have to be on mobile phone.
Kathy
01:33:56
That indeed was a crazy process!
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:04
Make Digital Archery Great Again.
Kathy
01:34:49
This list could run from policy to non-policy.
Kathy
01:35:31
Can I ask a follow-up?
Justine Chew
01:37:01
Another 20 mins
Kathy
01:37:27
Hand up
Kathy
01:37:51
hand down...
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:38:38
hand up
Kathy
01:38:48
hand up
Justine Chew
01:46:57
@Anne, I think there is a fixed life for an IRT.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:47:24
@Justine - we said in the Initial Report we were recommending a Standing IRT
Justine Chew
01:47:51
I understand it to be exactly what Jeff is explaning now.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:48:52
@Justine - which is what exactly? Just a new convening of a new IRT after launch?
Justine Chew
01:49:12
@Jeff, my understanding of SIRT from the Initial Report to be consistent what you just have explained.
Jeff Neuman
01:49:19
We use the term "affected parties"
Jeff Neuman
01:49:36
Thanks Justine.....
Kathy
01:50:17
"affected parties" is basically everyone -- applicants, current and potential registrants, GAC and community monitoring to file comments and concerns, everyone!
Rubens Kuhl
01:50:31
I don't think we should relitigate WT5 here.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:50:48
Why do you want 2 different IRTs when issues clearly arise after the Applicant Guidebook is issued?
Justine Chew
01:51:30
Because of the understanding that any IRT has a limited life span.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:51:47
@Justnie - not if we recommend a Stadning IRT
Justine Chew
01:52:18
That's just a name, and that's the part that's causing confusion.
Kathy
01:53:37
The Gateway :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:51
Oracle
Justine Chew
01:54:36
There were questions asked as to what should fall within the purview of thus SIRT (or whatever it's going be renamed to) versus what should go to regular GNSO processes.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:54:56
I thnk we all need to recognize that issues arise both before and after the Applicant Guidebook is published. Drafting of the AGB raises issues. then the application process raises issues. One person's policy is another person's implementation. The Policy and Implementation Working Group studied all the issues that arose in the 2012 round and detrmined it was useless to try to characterize these as "policy" OR "implementation" because reasonable minds can differ on that topic.
Kathy
01:54:58
Gateway -> Team
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:04
Post Application Advisory Team
Kathy
01:55:07
Good night, good morning All!
Justine Chew
01:55:21
PAAT? Hmmm no. LOL
Kathy
01:55:28
lots of gray areas...
Kathy
01:55:39
Let's think about the gateway issues too!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:58
@Justine, why not, I don't think its taken.
christopher wilkinson
01:56:06
@Rubens - WT5 has expressly referred ISO 4217 up to the PDP. It should go on our agenda now.
steve.chan
01:56:37
Monday, 06 May 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Michelle DeSmyter
01:56:55
Monday, 06 May at 15:00 UTC