Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 19 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-19dec16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-08sep16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/a5-DAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 19 December 2016 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Monday, 19 December 2016 at 20:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_a... Katrin Ohlmer:@avri: all fine! Vanda Scartezini:hy everyone!! Greg Shatan:Hello, all. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):hi all! Kavouss Arasteh:HI EVERY BODY Vanda Scartezini:hi kavouss Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Hi all Vanda Scartezini:hi Annebeth! Vanda Scartezini:thnaks Christa! Karen Day:WT3 at 20:00 12/20 Steve Coates:Apologies for being late. Alan Greenberg:Meeting tomorrow is not entire PDP group but WT3 - correct?? Emily Barabas:Correct, Alan Robin Gross:The WT3 materials to read for tomorrow's discussion on Legal Rights Objections is on the wiki https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... Jeff Neuman:Some discussion started on the list, but we need to keep it coming Steve Coates:No grinches in this group. Rubens Kuhl:Exactly Avri. The mailing list message described more of such details, but that went only to WT4 members. Phil Buckingham:Re WT2 . Sorry Michael is not on the call yet, but 1 we are considering changing the time of the call in the New Year - still every other Thursday . 2 Our first call in the new year willl be on the COI / LOC issues . Any applicant with prior experiences/ problems re Round 1 on this Q50 - feedback would be much appreciated - 3 WT2 received a really excellent email from Kurt Pritz re categories / registry agreement . Your feedback / responses on this would be much appreciated Rubens Kuhl:A truism: a longer process will be less predictable than a shorter process. So if we make it shorter, it gets more predictable. Klaus Stoll:We did learning by doing the first time round and should learn valuable lessons and implement them. Maybe we should create a list of lessons learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes we should have less radical changes to make after process starts this time Kavouss Arasteh 2:WHICH PARAGRAPH IS NOW DISCUSSED? Vanda Scartezini:@ cheryl - hope so. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed Donna Julie Hedlund:@Kavouss: We are discussion the responses to Subject 4 Predictability -- 4aR1, R2, and R3. Klaus Stoll:We need a document with three columns: 1) changes made, 2. Reason why?, 3) lesson learned Kurt Pritz:I think the question for this group might be, "Is there consensus that the application / evaluation / delegation procedure should be more predictable than the last round and aspire to be predictable and consistent with the Guidebook?" Kurt Pritz:That would be a policy statement for us to make. Vanda Scartezini:@Kurt, answer shall be yes. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Alan Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, the policy statement could also include whether predictability is or is not to be achieved at the expense of speed or cost efficiency. Klaus Stoll:My audio does not connect Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):GAC Advice was (from our point of viwe, of course) something that was also due to the fact that we were engaging in the very first exercise of this kind. And some of the issues raised by the GAC after the start of the round had already been reaised before, but perhaps there had been not a full agreement on how to factor it in Kurt Pritz:@ Rubens: The policy could say that there is a pretty high bar for amending the process after launch, i.e., a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest Klaus Stoll:Sorry my audio does not connect. Robin Gross:What is ICANN required to do with the GAC advice, especially if it comes late? Rubens Kuhl:Kurt, I would like to see the same thresholds existing today in the RA... like the board can issue emergency security policies, so they could intervene in the application process in case of risk to DNS stability. But for public interest issues, there would be either (a) something community-wide as a consensus policy or (b) full voted agreement between applicants and ICANN consenst. Rubens Kuhl:(consent) Donna Austin, Neustar:@Robin - i think that's an important question - what does late mean and what's the consequence. Robin Gross:Especially when GAC was involved in the working groups that created the GNSO policy, and subsequently wants to provide possibly different advice? Donna Austin, Neustar:@Kavouss - i was using it as an example and providing views of an SG other than the GAC. Christa Taylor:Depends on the substance of the change.. Kurt Pritz:Two thoughts that are not thought through: (1) If the GAC provides advice, the Board should be required to deal with it on a timely basis, with the timing to be spelt out in the procedure. (2) Maybe post-launch comments can only be based on new information that was not available before the launch Klaus Stoll:We should not loose the lessons learned and make a list of Changes and issues,and lessons learned. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the merit is probably The question and the Test Robin Gross:We should look at what ICANN's bylaws require for GNSO policy development. Robin Gross:And specifically the process by which the board is to resolve differences between GNSO developed policy and GAC advice. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I think it is in place to remind of the GAC Principles on new gTLDs: ICANN should avoid country, territory or place names, and country, territory or regional language or people descriptions, unless in agreement with the relevant governments or public authorities. Mathieu Weill:No, Accountability WS2 is not addressing this Donna Austin, Neustar:@Annebeth, those principles existed prior to the 2012 round and were taken into account at that time. On what basis do you propose that agreements made for the 2012 round be re-opened? Tom Dale (ACIG GAC Secretariat):WS2 sub-group on transparency is looking at ICANN-government relations, but not the role of the GAC. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:What I mean, Donna, is that in 2012 round country & territory names based on ISO 3166 were taken out - for this round. If they are taken in again in the next round, these principles should be taken into account, so that a support/non-objection should be necessary to make it a gTLD Rubens Kuhl:I think the question is whether advice that amounts to the deferrence required to deal with GAC Consensus Advice can occur after date X. GAC can always issue advice, governments can issue them, I can issue advice by writing a letter to the board... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:In my view it does not make sense that a capitol needs support/non-objection, but a country/territory should not need it. This includes 3-letter codes on the ISO-3166 list representing countries. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):we should also recognise that the GAC now is, more proactivly engaged now Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Annebeth Martin Sutton:It appears all are in agreement that there was lack of predictability in the last round. Based on this, should we simply list the specific issues that have been raised, check where there has been a change since, and whether the changes have improved predictability? Where no change has occurred against a specific issue, review and consider if a change is needed. As we channel specifics through the WTs, we should also use this as a checkpoint to see if we have sufficiently improved predictability. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):the merits are again the issue yes as Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Alan said Mathieu Weill:Agree with Alan, ICANN Bylaws are clear on the importance of security, stability and public interest, predictability will never prevail over these factors Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:And public interest also includes politics Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:On the other hand, the more uncertainties we can get rid of before launching, the better. That will, in my view, give us a faster next round than last time. Steve Coates:Mute your phones, please! avri doria:Could the cougher please mute? Steve Coates:To Jeff's point, this is why launch times need to be more predictable. Christa Taylor:perhaps categories Kurt Pritz:Combining two of my earlier comments: (1) a risk to DNS stability or clear violation of some public interest; (2) a change based on information that was unknowable when the process was developed Donna Austin, Neustar:Agree with Kurt, particularly on 2). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yup Martin Sutton:@Kurt - we could test your formula on the changes that were made during the last application phase. avri doria:all of the contentful comments seem to end up in the notes. Kavouss Arasteh 2:Cheryl, what is the meaning of yup in standard communication standar Vanda Scartezini:Agree with Kurt too Christa Taylor:+1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):We have to be aware that the role of GAC early warning and GAC consensus advice was part of the AGB of 2012 and therefore part of the rules of the game Vanda Scartezini:we can put our green to give you a better view Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree with KuRT Phil Buckingham:+1 to Kurt 's comment Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kurt: Is there a reason you didn't include security in #1 or was it presumed? Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):@Kurt: To be clear, the "security" in "security and stability"? Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):what is being asked? Kurt Pritz:@ Kristine: DNS security, stability, resiliency Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I assumed presumed Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):Politics, and policy are difficult to be reduced to a formula Phil Buckingham:+ 1 CLO presumed and overriding Mathieu Weill:Would this test apply to changes introduced by staff into the process ? It is my impression that there is an area for larger improvements in predictability Donna Austin, Neustar:what question are we on Steve Chan:4.b Jeff Neuman:I went back to 4b.....sorry Philip Corwin:Regrets must I must leave now for a client call. Ciao Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):I know I was late (because of another cal), but now have to jump (for another call). Happy holidays everyone! Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):+ 1 Mathieu on staff/Board changes Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:+1 Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):I feel the GAC answer on 4 b) also answers some points made before on the GAC role Donna Austin, Neustar:Who would make the deterimination on what is 'severe' avri doria:chair hat off: every running around yelling the sky is falling!! hat back on. avri doria:and the Board deciding it was so? avri doria:without the EC objecting. Donna Austin, Neustar:Some could say we experienced that in 2012 with Names Collision. avri doria:True, Donna. avri doria:exccept no EC and no coming back to the community. Vanda Scartezini:i beleive limit is not realistic at all. I am for free competition and oepen opportunity to all who wants to apply Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:But is it fair, Vanda, that those companies with a lot of money can affort to apply for many, but "newcomers" have problems doing that? Wasn't one of the reasons behind opening up that there should be fair competition? Vanda Scartezini:this time, less money had a problem to apply more for lack of timely information than really lack of money Vanda Scartezini:at least in our region Kurt Pritz:@ Annebeth: I think interfering with markets in a way to abet less financial applicants is not workable; I think your concern is best address by the Applicant Support question Rubens Kuhl:I think the competitive angle is per-string, so those who apply for many are diluting their strength (low or high) among many strings and making it actually easier for the focused applicants. .club and .cloud registries are examples of that from the 2012-round. Jorge Cancio (GAC Switzerland):The key is again to have an effective outreach, that interested stakeholders have a fair say v-a-v strings that may interest them, that community based applications work, and that the applicant support program really works Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I think this is especially important for new markets, like Africe Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):agree Jorge Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Agree, Jorge Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Annebeth Vanda Scartezini:agree with Rubens. Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Good point, Kurt Donna Austin, Neustar:Outreach and awareness raising are important principles, and in order to be timely, it's important to be working towards a date. Vanda Scartezini:Happy Holidays to you all and whole families ! Steve Coates:I always prefer a Monday night to a Sunday night. Vanda Scartezini:avri- better - good idea Sunday night normally difficult during summer time here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone... bye for now and Seasons Greetings to all... Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Happy holidays to all. Christa Taylor:Happy Holidays!!! Karen Day:Hope to see LOTS of you at WT3 tomorrow :) Rubens Kuhl:Happy Holidays! Donna Austin, Neustar:thanks Avri and Jeff Vanda Scartezini:happy holidays again! Katrin Ohlmer:happy holidays, all! cu you next year! Vanda Scartezini:see you in 2017! Phil Buckingham:thanks