Dear Work Track 5 members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today. These high-level notes are designed to help WT members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording or transcript. See the chat transcript and recording at: https://community.icann.org/x/Dw9yB Kind regards, Emily ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Notes/Action Items: 1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI) - No SOI updates 2. Agenda review and length of calls - No proposed updates to the agenda - This call is scheduled for 90 minutes - No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length 3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference - One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names - Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer? - Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection - In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections." From the chat: Liz Williams: @Kristina...you are absolutely right. We must not start with objections. We must start with positives and a very open funnel and work downwards to dealing with objections which may be a very very long way in the future. Robin Gross: What Kristina recommends makes sense. Better to start with defining geonames and then drilling down into the objection process for them. Sara Bockey: Agree with Robin and Kristina wafa Dahmani (AtLarge-ccNSO): +1 kristina - Note on the Terms of Reference Google Doc: the beginning of the document includes a framework for handling suggestions, including those that were included and not included in the current draft. This text will be omitted in the final text of the Terms of Reference. - The co-leads reviewed all comments and tried to work them in where possible, but if the comments were beyond that which is possible in the current context of a PDP WG frame, they were not incorporated into the current draft. From the chat: Liz Williams: @Martin...what I was saying was that we should be focusing on broader elements in this context as we know full well that Terms of Reference limitations we see issues raised time and time again outside of the PDP if people perceive their points are not heard. -Question - in Problem Statement paragraph 1, what do the " . . . " mean in the quoted text? Answer - this is a long quote that was cut down. - Comment regarding the introductory language about changes that may need to be made to 2007 policy. If there is not consensus recommendation, are we putting in the Terms of Reference that we are using the 2007 policy as the point of reference or as the AGB was implemented in 2012? From the chat: Paul McGrady: The GNSO Council Policy stands until it is replaced with new Policy. Intervening implementation that ignores Policy doesn't make the Policy go away. Robin Gross: Completely agree, Paul. Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul Alan Greenberg: I thought the basis, unless we explicitly change or revert to the original policy, is the Applicant Guidebook Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is my understanding @Alan Yes - We have policy in place that was approved in 2007. The AGB included some changes that did not go through a policy process. If the AGB elements are elements that the WT supports, this would need to be added to the policy for subsequent procedures. - Some WT members suggested adjusting the text quoted from the Subsequent Procedures WG Charter. One member suggested that "overriding expisting policy principles" should not be included. The Co-leaders clarified that the language quoted from the Charter in the Problem Statement are taken verbatim from the Charter, therefore it is not possible to adjust this text. However, some of the quoted text can be trimmed out if it is not relevant. - Input from a WT member -- the GNSO policy remains GNSO policy unless it is replaced with new GNSO policy, regardless of intervening implementation. From the chat: Liz Williams: @Paul & Robyn yes I agree however, we know that implementation substantially changed the way policy was actually used in the process. That is what we need to clean up; make more objective; ensure that all applicants know what they are doing; all evaluators are clear; ensure, particularly, when and how the Board and GAC get involved in any application evaluation. It is a grave error to repeat the confusion where the board becomes the evaluation panel. Liz Williams: It is double trouble that the GAC, in the context of the discussion here, becomes a quasi evaluation panel, even though we all know governments may have legitimate public policy interests Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Here's a proposed revision of Para. 1 (Scope) that addresses my concern. Explanatory note will follow: Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding geographic names at the top level, including both ASCII and IDN form. WT5 will (i) consider what constitutes a geographic name in the specific context of the New gTLD Program; (ii) analyze relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; and (iii) take into account previous work related to geographic names that the community may have completed. Alan Greenberg: Can we have a ruling from the PDP Co-Chairs, we have to irreconcilable positions being proposed here as to what the default it. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Explanatory note: : I intentionally used Geographic Names Review because it is the umbrella section within the AGB (2.2.1.4) within which a number of more specific sections – such as Geographic Names Requiring Government Support (2.2.1.4.2) and the Review Procedure for Geographic Names (2.2.1.4.4.). To address my concern about the previous “Potential Grounds for Objection,” I intentionally used Objection Procedures, which is the title of the AGB module that covers objections. Liz Williams: @Kristina...nice work. Tight language and allows for inevitable broader discussion. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Liz: Thanks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Kristina that helps us capture your point and post a possible solution Robin Gross: Avri was pretty clear in Abu Dhabi at our WT5 kick-off meeting that existing gtld policy stands unless and until this WT comes to consensus to change it. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): +1Alan Steve Chan: @Hadia, as noted by Greg, the language in quotes is direct text from the overall PDP WG's charter. Greg Shatan: Once again, this is the Charter you are objecting to. Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. I like the proposed language. Justine Chew: @Kristina, good writing. Robin Gross: I think Kristina's language proposal is a good way forward also. - One WT members suggested that if the implementation from the last round incorrectly implemented the policy, this is different from a case where we might want to make adjustments going forward in terms of policy or implementation. Do we want to spend additional time focusing on policy that did not end up being implemented? - In our deliberations, we could have a matrix with the 2007 policy, the implementation, the reason policy and implementation are different (to the extent they are different), and the recommendation going forward from the WG, which could be in line with the earlier policy, the implementation, or something different from either of these. Regardless of what the group recommends, the recommendation going forward needs to be clear. - One member suggested that for any issue, if we don't make an explicit decision to change anything, the AGB stands. It is much more detailed than the original policy. From the chat: Peter Van Roste - CENTR: +1 @Nick's comment. How have the other WTs defined their scope? Liz Williams: Can we ask the question, through the chair, if we can proceed with Kristina's language? Constant revisiting of the preparatory work is not getting us to where we need to be. Greg Shatan: We have to abide by the Charter whether or not it’s quoted in this document. Liz Williams: @Greg...good point but the charter is also like a map that we keep at our left hand whilst we make progress... Greg Shatan: Kristina’s language needs to be amended to include reference to the 2007 Policy. Marita Moll: That (such a matrix) sure would help those of us who have not seen the various versions Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Greg: I didn't intentionally exclude the charter language. I was working from the current scope para 1. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): (to Alan) Jeff Neuman: Liz, the charter is not supposed to be a map. That will be the work plan The charter is the umbrella under which a work plan will be created to act as that map Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): + 1 Alan Yrjö Länsipuro: +1 to Alan Jeff Neuman: Lets please try to make some progress on the language itself as opposed to trying to introduce a new philosophy about charters. Thanks :) Greg Shatan: Disagree with Alan. Greg Shatan: Agree with our Charter, which should be dispositive. -Review of Kristina's proposed text -- any feedback on this proposed text? From the chat: Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet, RySG): happy with that scope wording which Martin just read out Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: Thnank you Kristina - very helpful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Chat comments re @Kristina's draft text were by my reading all supportive - One member stated that the 2007 policy should be included in the scope statement to put the problem statement and scope section in harmony. Chat excerpt: Liz Williams: @ Nick W-S...agree with you which means we have some helpful scope and Kristina's language Paul McGrady: Disagree with Alan as well. While we should evaluate the Applicant Guidebook, it needs to be evaluated against the standing GNSO Policy and in light of the geo names issues that arose in Round 1. Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): good point Greg Liz Williams: @Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text Liz Williams: @Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Kristina....and there we have it :-) Justine Chew: +1 Kristina Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Kristina Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina Alan Greenberg: I didn't say we should not re-evaluate. I said if we do not make any change, the new "applicant guidebook" we keep the language of the old one. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): showing what is *out* of "scope" for our work Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Noted @Peter , but do we need to explain more clearly in the text then or not? Alfredo Calderon: @Susan, I agree with 'remit' to replace jurisdiction. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): okayyyy Greg Shatan: Must be that nasty American language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): @Susan "remit" could well work - Suggestion to change "leads" to "leaders" as the term for those in leadership positions for Work Track 5. Chat excerpt: Alan Greenberg: I think that we can safely change LEADS to LEADERS without major debate. Justine Chew: The Work Track Co-Leaders -- what was agreed to in structuring this WT5? Justine Chew: I ask because even in the Agenda pod the term "Co-Leads" is used. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): I object! I like “leads”!!! :) Steve Chan: @Justine, we have consistently used the term co-leads for the other four work tracks. I think using co-leads for WT5 was just considered a natural extension of that practice. Justine Chew: @Steve, thanks for reply on precedent. Janvier NGNOULAYE: But the WT5 can give its content to the word "co-lead" based on the scope we want to cover - Question - why is the text about jurisdiction of SO/ACs included in this document under Scope? - In previous discussions, there were issues raised around the distinction between a gTLD and a ccTLD and the remit of the GNSO and ccNSO. This text was included to make clear that these are not issues for this WG to address. - Feedback - in one perspective, the decision-making methodology is too closely tied to the GNSO PDP methodology and not influenced enough by the CCWG decision making methodology. From the chat: Jeff Neuman: [This is Christopher's PERSONAL opinion] Paul McGrady: My only comment is that this is, in fact, a PDP. Alan Greenberg: I'm a bit confused. This was billed as a second reading. What happens to the comments that were added to the GoogleDoc in the last day or two? Darcy Southwell: This WT is part of a PDP. I don't understand Christopher's comments on that. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Indeed that is *my* understanding @Darcy Robin Gross: We are required to follow the GNSO PDP process, or ICANN is in violation of it's bylaws, so while we can be sympathetic to desire to change the process, it isn't a practical reality that we can do. We have to follow the process laid out in GNSO PDP process. Darcy Southwell: +1 Robin Gross Griffin Barnett: +1 Susan Payne -GNSO: All PDPs are open to all participants. This one is different only insofar as significant extra effort was made to encourage wider participation. It's a PDP and has to follow the PDP process as set down Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): +1 RobinGross Sara Bockey: Agree, this is a GNSO PDP and we will be following that process Paul McGrady: +1 Robin. +1 Susan. Justine Chew: I understood that Christopher commented that there are some members who asked about the decision-making process of this WT5., not that he questioned it himself. Robin Gross: As I recall from the development of the GNSO policy in 2007, GAC was heavily involved in the GNSO PDP process at the time. It is the reason why the Rec on "morality and public order" was created in GNSO process: because GAC wanted it and created it via the GNSO process. Karen Day: +1 Greg, Susan, Sara, & Robin Liz Williams: Referring to rules of engagement...I would like us to focus on "speaking in a personal capacity"...we mustn't fall into the trap of "believing" that when someone says something that is the position of the group they would normally participate in. We need to focus on getting the best advice and input from participants. When the chance comes for public comments and other "consensus" voting, that is when we should be hearing submissions from named groups... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Correct @Martin we have made additional and proactive efforts for this topic, reflecting its importance to so many - Another perspective - the decision-making methodology reflects the reality that this a Work Track within a GNSO PDP, so the language is appropriate. The idea that this is a Cross-Community Working Group is a non-starter. This process can be run by anyone and is open to all, but must follow the rules for how gTLD policy is set. - This is intended to be an inclusive process and we have a substantial number of people coming into this process to participate. - Regarding rules of engagement - this is a GNSO PDP and needs to follow GNSO PDP rules. The GAC had requested that is be run under CCWG rules with balanced representation from different SO/ACs. This is not possible, but if the PDP recommendations are in conflict with GAC Advice, the Board will likely not accept the recommendations. We should work to build consensus across different parts of the community as we would in a CCWG so that we do not come up with conflicting outcomes. From the chat: Greg Shatan: Alan, every PDP faces the same issue. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): The strength of the process is extreemly important on this topic yes @Alan Alexander Schubert backup: GAC has to be consulted and OK with our results.... Liz Williams: @Robin...actually that wasn't quite what happened in 2007. We struggled consistently with getting early and cohesive inputs from the GAC which is why we ended up with the "morality and public order" language to try to capture public policy concerns. We didn't do as well as we perhaps could have...but we did the best we could at the time. Fortunately in this case, all ACs and SOs are involved from the beginning. Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: Let's summarise where we are with the ToR Alan Greenberg: @Greg, yes, every pdp faces this, but we are entering this with a very well know point of contention. ANd i for one would like to think that we may come out of it in a better place. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): @Liz and @Alan to that end then the strength, inclusiveness and trasparency of the WT5 processes is extreemly important Justine Chew: Yes Martin. How will the proposed new edits to the googledocs be managed? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): I **strongly** suggest a specific date for all final imput into the ToR's for a very soon date Alfredo Calderon: For the third draft reading I suggest a closing date, so we may discuss a document we have all read. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Exactly @ Alfredo - For the Terms of Reference, a lot of comments were submitted. Some alternative language was proposed under the Scope which has received quite a lot of comments previously. - Proposal is to circulate revised text for a final review as soon as possible. From the chat: Alan Greenberg: Only my concern with comments made on wiki Justine Chew: @Jeff, thank you, so long as there is adequate explanation on how they have been considered and dealt with so we don't have further questions. Alfredo Calderon: +1 @Jeff recommendation to have a final draft. Robin Gross: +1 Jeff Alan Greenberg: ok, I hadn't actually read te comments on GoogleDoc - There are some new comments on the latest version of the Terms of Reference, but most seem duplicative of comments that were incorporated or that were not incorporated because they are not compatible with a GNSO PDP. - One perspective -- change "minority view" to "dissenting view" in the decision-making methodology section. From the chat: Liz Williams: We must not have minority views now...that is for the end of the process not the beginning. Greg Shatan: Go back to the PDP Regs — we have to live by that regarding non-consensus views. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): if the WT changes the term, the PDP itself will not as we follow the GNSO PDP Guidelines Alan Greenberg: Minority View is the defined tewrm in the PDP WG Guidelines. We cannot change it Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yup @Alan indeed Greg Shatan: Aren’t co-leads supposed to operate neutrally? - Regarding approval of the TOR-The Chairs have responded to the GAC, ccNSO, ALAC about their request to formally approve the Terms of Reference. Official sign-off is not within the process that will be followed, but WT members are encouraged to share the draft TOR with the SO/ACs to gather comments and feedback for improving the text. Members should act as liaisons to their SO/ACs to gather concerns and share them with the WT as soon as possible. - Clarification - the ALAC did not request to formally approve the Terms of Reference. The ALAC only discussed approval of the outcomes. - New gTLD policy is within the remit of the GNSO. This group exists to do this work so it is not possible to soften this remit. - One Work Track member provided a reminder regarding Working Group Guidelines, including provisions regarding neutrality of the chairs/leaders. From the chat: Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): we have discussed this at lengh in the Leadership Team clls Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Yes @Greg I am sure they all do their best to do so Robin Gross: I'm not sure it is appropriate for one group to be told to back down by the neutral co-chair Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): <Comment> can Alan’s statement that beyond The undisputed fact that we must follow GNSO PPD Rules here, we must also all bind ourselves to “endeavor to also work as if we were a CCWG” in order to justly gauge views at all ACs & SOs so as to avoid future friction? Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): view of all (typo) Jeff Neuman: The GAC did Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): GAC onl I believe Alan Greenberg: The GAC set a lot of requirements that are not being met. We will hopefully survive that. Robin Gross: Completely agree with Greg. GTLD policy is the GNSO's raison d'etre. Jeff Neuman: All - Lets stick to the Terms of Reference please Sara Bockey: Again, agree with Greg. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Good progress on the ToR though *Thank You All* for that effort Liz Williams: Rules and Risks can be put together as a document for disucssion. @Martin...happy to help with that if you would like. Terri Agnew: The next meeting for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 5 – Geographic Names at the Top Level will take place on Wednesday, 17 January 2018 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes. AOB - Discussion about TOR will continue over email. "Homework" will be circulated over the mailing list to gather input regarding risks associated with geographic names Emily Barabas | Senior Policy Specialist ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas@icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976