Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 17 January
Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 January 2017 1. Update from the full WG: -- Conclusions -- agreed to give a week's more comment on setting up a drafting team on setting up a matrix on categories. -- Also a second group on how we look at rounds. 2. Proposed WT3 work plan & discussion schedule going forward -- Work track 4 will meet this week. -- Next week is Namescon and Policy Retreat. -- Every working track is working on their timeline. 3. Review of all New GTLD Objections: Statistics of all Objections and New staff analysis (Steve) -- Note much conversation in the meetings, hope we can have more updates on the list. -- How can we make this more manageable. -- A lot of this work on objection is to get feedback from those indirectlly affected by the objections. -- Shall we go forward with this proposal? Action Item: Ask how those were involved how we can contribute:
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman: @Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: good point. Jeff Neuman: We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Objector Jeff Neuman: Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett: I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): evidence of consistency? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Jon Nevett: staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly. Steve Chan: @Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and b. 3.5.3 and needs with regards to future implementation -- Analysis on objections: Staff tried to do some ground work to do targeted research. We looked at applications that had requests for reconsiderations. We looked at similar objections. -- Saw the request for reconsiderations, of 22 out of 208 ended up in reconsiderations. -- We didn't have a clear idea of what we were looking for. Without frist-hand experiences we have a huge scope of work. From a staff perspective we are cautious about looking at each objections. -- Low numbers may suggest that issues aren't quite as rampant. -- We are looking of guidance: targeted outreach? Looking for issues without hypothesis? -- What kinds of issues should we be looking for and how far down should we go? Staff are looking for input from the community? -- Without having a hypothesis to test against. we are not legal experts we are leery of critiquing. -- Not sure about a hypothesis -- in trademark there is a confusingly similar standard. -- When ICANN drafted the AGB is there now a way to pull out certain common factors used by the evaluators --- to give guidance to future evaluators? -- Are there ways to pull out factors that would guide us? c. ALAC Standing Issue -- Remove standing from the ALARs or removing funding? -- The judgment presumed standing, but didn't go ahead. Discuss with the ALAC. -- Strongly in opposition giving ALAC any standing and funding. Accessible to outside lobbying. -- This will be discussed in the ALAC. Object to the term lobbying. Unless someone can cite a specific case we will not change what we did before. -- Not to change things without evidence. d. Does the Process Invite Lobbying From Third Parties? -- Filing was frivolous (personally). Question is what is the harm of the ALAC filing an objection? -- Filed on behalf of users if we thought there was potential user harm. -- Another issue where there is a diversity of viewpoints. -- Need to discuss and determine whether there is some kind of mechanism for accountability.
From the Chat:
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett: yep avri doria: any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman: Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg: The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria: money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman: The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2: finding the line Michael Flemming: Somewhat Jeff Neuman: Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg: @Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 a. Review of WIPO & INTA Reports on LRO -- Need Paul McGrady and some time to evaluate this proposal.
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal. Alan Greenberg: I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Paul is in China.
Dear WT3 Members, As discussed on the call, staff is circulating a document (also available on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/Vz2AAw) that was prepared to initiate some preliminary analysis on objections and their outcomes. The intention was to look at things that might be indicative of widespread issues with objections (e.g., inconsistencies amongst objections and inconsistencies with 2007 policy recommendations or AGB requirements); two elements that have been highlighted in discussions of this WT are the presence of Request for Reconsideration and multiple objections on the same grounds, for the same string/application, that resulted in different outcomes. By these measures, staff found the following statistics: ~10% of objections resulted in Requests for Reconsideration and a little over 1% resulted in divergent outcomes. Please see columns L and M in the attached document to see the specific objections identified. Staff and WT leadership look forward to your comments on these preliminary findings, specifically to help guide future research and analysis, such that it is needed. For instance, should there be continued review of a targeted set of objections (e.g., those with Requests for Reconsideration), is a broad review of all objections needed to help identify issues that may only be uncovered with extensive analysis, should the WT seek feedback specifically from participants in objections, or is another approach warranted? Best, Steve From: <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 6:57 AM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 3 Sub Team Meeting 17 January Dear Sub Team Members, Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 17 January. These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording. Please also see the recording on the meetings page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+3+Meetings. In addition, excerpts from the chat room are included below for ease of reference. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 January 2017 1. Update from the full WG: -- Conclusions -- agreed to give a week's more comment on setting up a drafting team on setting up a matrix on categories. -- Also a second group on how we look at rounds. 2. Proposed WT3 work plan & discussion schedule going forward -- Work track 4 will meet this week. -- Next week is Namescon and Policy Retreat. -- Every working track is working on their timeline. 3. Review of all New GTLD Objections: Statistics of all Objections and New staff analysis (Steve) -- Note much conversation in the meetings, hope we can have more updates on the list. -- How can we make this more manageable. -- A lot of this work on objection is to get feedback from those indirectlly affected by the objections. -- Shall we go forward with this proposal? Action Item: Ask how those were involved how we can contribute:
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: Should we create a small drafting team to work on the questions? Jeff Neuman: @Jon, not to put you on the spot, but if we asked you to participate in this, would you agree to such an interview? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: One option. Another option would be to hold an "open house" during Copenhagen during which folks with experience with objections could drop in and provide whatever input they want? Jeff Neuman: @Kristina - That is a great idea if they are willing to share experiences in an open environment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jeff: good point. Jeff Neuman: We would also have to develop questions and ask GDD to help facilitate questions we may have for the Independent Objector Jeff Neuman: Objector Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): another good opportunity yes Kristina Jon Nevett: I think that the registry group started pulling some of these issues together -- might make sense to wait for that input so we don't have to duplicate. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): evidence of consistency? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For those objections for which the fees were variable, do we know what the high and low fees were as well as the mean and the medium? Jon Nevett: staff should get that info from the 4 providers Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): The purpose of collecting this information would be to allow us to assess if fees were too high (or low) and make recommendations accordingly. Steve Chan: @Kristina, we can take the question back to the GDD. 4. Recap and positioning on Limited Public Interest Objections a. Content & function for purpose of policy stated in AGB 3.2.2.3 and b. 3.5.3 and needs with regards to future implementation -- Analysis on objections: Staff tried to do some ground work to do targeted research. We looked at applications that had requests for reconsiderations. We looked at similar objections. -- Saw the request for reconsiderations, of 22 out of 208 ended up in reconsiderations. -- We didn't have a clear idea of what we were looking for. Without frist-hand experiences we have a huge scope of work. From a staff perspective we are cautious about looking at each objections. -- Low numbers may suggest that issues aren't quite as rampant. -- We are looking of guidance: targeted outreach? Looking for issues without hypothesis? -- What kinds of issues should we be looking for and how far down should we go? Staff are looking for input from the community? -- Without having a hypothesis to test against. we are not legal experts we are leery of critiquing. -- Not sure about a hypothesis -- in trademark there is a confusingly similar standard. -- When ICANN drafted the AGB is there now a way to pull out certain common factors used by the evaluators --- to give guidance to future evaluators? -- Are there ways to pull out factors that would guide us? c. ALAC Standing Issue -- Remove standing from the ALARs or removing funding? -- The judgment presumed standing, but didn't go ahead. Discuss with the ALAC. -- Strongly in opposition giving ALAC any standing and funding. Accessible to outside lobbying. -- This will be discussed in the ALAC. Object to the term lobbying. Unless someone can cite a specific case we will not change what we did before. -- Not to change things without evidence. d. Does the Process Invite Lobbying From Third Parties? -- Filing was frivolous (personally). Question is what is the harm of the ALAC filing an objection? -- Filed on behalf of users if we thought there was potential user harm. -- Another issue where there is a diversity of viewpoints. -- Need to discuss and determine whether there is some kind of mechanism for accountability.
From the Chat:
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Jon: that assumes we recommend the IO remain . . . . Jon Nevett: yep avri doria: any discussion should also include a reference to the extensive feedback and mechansims that the ALAC did set up these sorts of mechanism are often used for accountabity.. Does ALAC accept the notion that they filed frivolously? Jeff Neuman: Giving a venue for feedback is not the same as accountability. Alan Greenberg: The AALC does not accept that. Moreover, we also considered very carefully whether filing such an objection implied and personal liability. In my mind it is clear we dod not do this frivolously. avri doria: money vs. amazing amounts of volunteer time? avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely avri doria: and can we say that all paid objections were filed accountably? avri doria: and people with vendettas and money spend it freely Jeff Neuman: The IO had a professional reputation for being an expert in international disputes Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: The IO may not have had a stake in the objection you're referencing, but he was found to have one in the .amazon objections. Terri Agnew 2: finding the line Michael Flemming: Somewhat Jeff Neuman: Yes Robin.... Alan Greenberg: @Kristine. I understand that. But it was not the design og the process that was at falt. If you are correct, then it was very much an extremely poor processthat allowed it to happen. That alone does not imply we shouldnot have an IO in the future. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Alan: We'll put a pin in that for now. 5. Legal Rights Objections – AGB 3.2.2.2 and 3.5.2 / Principal G – Recommendation 3 a. Review of WIPO & INTA Reports on LRO -- Need Paul McGrady and some time to evaluate this proposal.
From the chat:
Jeff Neuman: For Legal RIghts Objections, it would be good to have Paul McGrady to explain his proposal. Alan Greenberg: I have not heard anyone claim we had a personal stake in the results, other than caring about those whose interests we represent. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Paul is in China.
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Steve Chan