Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Marita Moll
30:39
Thank you for reading that statement!
Vrikson Acosta
31:03
hello
Paul McGrady
33:51
Note: as one of the authors of the Proposal, I want it on the record that the proposal was never meant to be voted on in a straw poll in a vacuum, but was meant as a means to try to find consensus on something we could all get behind not as a means to establish a new baseline for others to tack things onto later. So, the proposal in the straw poll should be considered one put forward by the 3 co-chairs and not one put forward by Susan as refined by me. It isn't the same thing at all.
Emily Barabas
37:09
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/115639426/WT5%20Straw%20Poll%20Responses%2011%20Sep%202019.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1568209969658&api=v2
Emily Barabas
37:27
available on the wiki page for today’s meeting: https://community.icann.org/x/goTkBg
Katrin Ohlmer
40:52
Sorry for being late.
John Rodriguez
46:46
Thank you for confirming, in the first bullet point, that all input (i.e., emails, chat room, etc.), not just the straw poll result, will be analyzed, reviewed and considered.
Paul McGrady
48:10
@Annabeth - so what is the outcome? Do the co-chairs intend to claim consensus based on the straw poll even thuogh no one spoke up to support it?
Marita Moll
48:57
@ Paul-- people supported it when they voted for it.
Paul McGrady
49:21
@Martin, et al - what was the outcome of the last discussion?
Colin O'Brien
49:41
How many people voted in the poll?
Emily Barabas
50:28
@Colin — 30
Colin O'Brien
50:52
Thanks Emily what was the breakdown of the votes?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:25
@Colin as previously state the full details of the Poll will now be sent to the list
Paul McGrady
52:37
You can see it here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/115639426/WT5%20Straw%20Poll%20Responses%2011%20Sep%202019.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1568209969658&api=v2
julie.hedlund
52:48
Per the slides: 22 responses indicated acceptance of the proposal on adjectival forms. 8 responses indicated that the respondents could not accept the recommendation.
Paul McGrady
56:11
30 of 197? Not a strong showing...
Paul McGrady
59:57
Annabeth asked for folks to speak, but no one did. So it really does go nack to the WT5 Leadership to decide what value the poll has. Can we at least have a clue what the WT leadership intends to do here? It won't be fun to find out in a draft report that there is alleged consensus on thie proposal put out in a vacuum for a poll vote.
Paul McGrady
01:00:15
go back [sic]
Marita Moll
01:02:02
It seems to me that one opponent is seeking addons -- no one else is doing this
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:02:17
We should be looking at what percent of 197 has been regular at calls
Paul McGrady
01:02:51
One problem is that two of those who were pushing hardest for "even more" (Christopher and Jorge) aren't on this call and so we cannot ask them Martin's question and the poll didn't ask it.
Marita Moll
01:05:30
The poll is not suggesting add-ons. The 22 people who voted voted for what was in the question -- not for addons.
Paul McGrady
01:07:10
@Martita, hopefully,. But the "add ons" crowd isn't on this call, so we have zero assurance that adding on isn't the plan. Thus, the downside of these staw polls put out in a vacuum.
Marita Moll
01:08:02
Greg -- we were asked for affiliation and asked whether we were responding personally. I think we have to take people at their word
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:08:45
@Cheryl Thanks
Greg Shatan
01:09:29
@Marita, it’s not a question of anybody’s world. It’s a question of how to interpret the results.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:11:18
@Greg - Official Consensus will be measured at the Full Working Group stage. This was a straw poll on whether to move the proposal to the full group.
Greg Shatan
01:12:45
But anything we move to the full group will be seen as a recommendation of WT5.
Paul McGrady
01:15:53
@Jeff - but people have been asking for even more. It isn't theoretical.
Nkem Nweke (DigitalSENSE Africa)
01:16:29
@Greg, I didn't quite understand your last comments.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:16:49
People will always ask for more or for less
Greg Shatan
01:16:57
@Nkem, do you have a more specific question?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:17:01
We cannot control that
Marita Moll
01:17:14
Thank you @ Jeff.
Marita Moll
01:17:32
Great comments
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:18:38
@Paul - this is true of all policy development and compromise. No one would ever agree to never argue for anything more or less
Greg Shatan
01:19:25
@Jeff, I think you are missing Paul
Greg Shatan
01:19:34
Paul’s point.
Paul McGrady
01:20:13
@Jeff - then why would anyone ever pre-agree on anything in a WT? This undercuts the whole idea of a WT.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:21:30
@Paul - That is not what I am saying.
Justine Chew
01:21:30
+1 Jeff. Exactly, just as people will continue to object to new things. It works both ways.
Paul McGrady
01:21:32
@Annabeth - same question then. What is the outcome here?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:21:47
+1 Justine
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:21:56
@Paul - How can we ever agree on any compromise if we are afraid of people that will ask for more (or less)
Paul McGrady
01:22:40
@Jeff - how is it a compromise if the people reacing the compromise don't intend to honor it?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:23:13
The only one that has to honor the compromise is the GNSO and then the Board
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:23:26
Sorry, GNSO Council and the Board
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:23:46
The full Working Group presents the recommendations (and context) to the GNSO Council.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:23:58
The GNSO Council then presents the recommendations (and context) to the Board
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:24:07
The Board then approves.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:24:16
(Hopefully)
Justine Chew
01:24:22
Alexander's 2nd suggestion can be noted as something for implementation.
Marita Moll
01:24:49
Yes, a good idea to have both letters -- support and non-objection available -- wherever that needs to fit into this process
Paul McGrady
01:25:06
@Jeff, but you know that isn't how it works. The WT5 members who want more, who aren't on this call by the way, will say the compromise was only to get this one more building block and they never agreed to not ask for more. In other words, there was no copmromise, only a concession by one side. That is not consensus and I don't think how the straw poll resurrection process was used to revive this ddead topic is fair.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:25:51
And the Working Group Co-Chairs and Leadership will represent to the Council and then to the Board what actually took place.
Alexander Schubert
01:26:01
Thanks Justine! If WT5 is not sugegsting it - how should it find way into implementation? Is the community participating in the implementation? The overwhelming majority of geo applications wll be fo cities - so we need a "letter of non-objection" draft tailormade for cities.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:29:08
@Paul - would you like to draft some language that would address your concerns going forward? We can take a stab to capture it, but it may be better for you to do so.
Paul McGrady
01:30:07
@Jeff - happy to review your draft. Don't want to over promise oni what I can do. I have an India trip coming up next week
Paul McGrady
01:30:27
Thanks Annabeth!
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:31:14
I may be mis-remembering, but didnt ICANN have a template for the last round?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:31:24
We can do some research on that
Katrin Ohlmer
01:31:30
@Jeff: Yes, there has been one.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:31:57
@Katrin - thanks. We will dig it up
Justine Chew
01:32:05
@Jeff, I recall a letter of support template. Not sure about letter of no objection -- I think that's what Alexander may be referring to.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:32:36
The template said "support or non-objection".
Steve Chan
01:33:06
The template is on page 93 in the 2012 AGB - https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:33:43
or just reference and make the recommendation for the implementation team
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:33:48
No further comments
Justine Chew
01:34:41
Just clarifying ..... per slide 17, leadership is drafting the output for WT5 members to look at and comment?
Michelle DeSmyter
01:34:42
Next meeting: Wednesday, 18 September 2019 at 05:00 UTC
Alexander Schubert
01:34:44
THANKS!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:34:50
Thanks Annebeth!
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:34:53
@Justine - yes
Marita Moll
01:34:53
bye and thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:56
Thanks bye for now
Jaap Akkerhuis
01:34:56
bye all