Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019
Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6 Verified TLDs: -- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG. -- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment. -- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic. CCT-RT Recommendations: -- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing? -- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBShe.... And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro. -- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded? ------------------------ ALAC statement: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Cc: 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members@icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy ---------------------- -- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks. Questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. --- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time. -- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important. -- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. -- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements? -- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y) -- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask. Freedom of Expression: -- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech. -- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done. -- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights. -- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.
Hi Julie, tx for the notes! To Jeff, Cheryl, Julie and Steve, In the interest of helping those who cannot participate in the double meetings per week, it would help to have a few more information bites in the notes to a) better understand what was covered, b) know where discussion stopped and c) ideas where the is likely to continue on the next call. In particular for last night's call, could you share some basic (and hopefully non-controversial) information: -/Is the 2.3.2 discussion of Verified gTLDs completed -- or is it likely to continue on Monday's meeting?/ /- Was any part of the 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression section started? (it looks like no) / /- Were any issues of 2.3.2 other than Verified gTLDs discussed -- and will we be returning to other sections of 2.3.2 in the next session? / /- How many people attended and where can we find a list of participants (we agreed to monitor participation in light of concerns that many could not participate twice a week and had already scheduled their Thursdays for the summer). we would all monitor closely in light of real concerns about participation in these Thursday calls./ Quick note: some participants missed the call last night because they marked it in their calendars for Thursday night (Eastern time). It was actually scheduled for Wednesday night (Eastern time) -- and that in itself is a problem because Wednesdays are RPM WG days. We should at least move the SubPro WG second call to Thursdays nights/Friday AM to ensure the calls to do not come on the same day. Asking for 3.0+ hours /on the same calendar day for /participants in both WGs seems extraordinarily difficult for those who are truly volunteers in this ICANN process. Recommend changing it -- likely to increase participation and decrease burdens during these hot days of summer (for some hemispheres). Best, Kathy On 7/11/2019 11:44 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro....
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Notes and Action Items:*
**
*Action Items:*
ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew:
1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
*Notes:*
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.
2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6
Verified TLDs:
-- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG.
-- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment.
-- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic.
CCT-RT Recommendations:
-- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing?
-- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBShe.... And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro.
-- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded?
------------------------
ALAC statement:
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <_gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org_> on behalf of John Laprise <_jlaprise@gmail.com_>
*Date: *Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20
*To: *"_gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org_" <_gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org_>
*Cc: *'ALAC Members' <_ALAC-members@icann.org_>, ICANN At-Large Staff <_staff@atlarge.icann.org_>
*Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
Hi everyone,
Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65:
ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
NARALO ALAC Representative
ALAC Vice Chair-Policy
----------------------
-- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.
Questions:
1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
--- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time.
-- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important.
-- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption.
-- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements?
-- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
-- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y)
-- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask.
Freedom of Expression:
-- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech.
-- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done.
-- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights.
-- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Kathy, As staff always emphasizes when we send the action items and brief notes, these are not a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. Those all are posted on the wiki, as is noted after each call by the GNSO Secretariat, and are the WG’s primary source of information. For the meeting earlier today the post call message was sent by Julie Bisland that states: “All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LaSjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...> . These include: · Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list) · Audio recording · Zoom chat archive · Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript) · Transcript” That being said, staff did try to make it clear in the brief notes that Verified TLDs was covered, as was CCT-RT, and that Applicant Freedom of Expression was started (each is called out in the notes below with brief discussion points following). Nonetheless, the other sources noted above should be the primary references as the brief notes and action items are necessarily incomplete. As will be noted in the agenda for the next call and is marked in the summary document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc... the WG will continue with the discussion of Applicant Freedom of Expression, beginning with Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10. As to the question about the timing of the Thursday meetings, these are on a rotation and will not occur at the same time each week. As to whether they should be moved, staff will defer to the WG Co-Chairs. Kind regards, Julie From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:02 PM To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019 Hi Julie, tx for the notes! To Jeff, Cheryl, Julie and Steve, In the interest of helping those who cannot participate in the double meetings per week, it would help to have a few more information bites in the notes to a) better understand what was covered, b) know where discussion stopped and c) ideas where the is likely to continue on the next call. In particular for last night's call, could you share some basic (and hopefully non-controversial) information: - Is the 2.3.2 discussion of Verified gTLDs completed -- or is it likely to continue on Monday's meeting? - Was any part of the 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression section started? (it looks like no) - Were any issues of 2.3.2 other than Verified gTLDs discussed -- and will we be returning to other sections of 2.3.2 in the next session? - How many people attended and where can we find a list of participants (we agreed to monitor participation in light of concerns that many could not participate twice a week and had already scheduled their Thursdays for the summer). we would all monitor closely in light of real concerns about participation in these Thursday calls. Quick note: some participants missed the call last night because they marked it in their calendars for Thursday night (Eastern time). It was actually scheduled for Wednesday night (Eastern time) -- and that in itself is a problem because Wednesdays are RPM WG days. We should at least move the SubPro WG second call to Thursdays nights/Friday AM to ensure the calls to do not come on the same day. Asking for 3.0+ hours on the same calendar day for participants in both WGs seems extraordinarily difficult for those who are truly volunteers in this ICANN process. Recommend changing it -- likely to increase participation and decrease burdens during these hot days of summer (for some hemispheres). Best, Kathy On 7/11/2019 11:44 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote: Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro.... Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Action Items: ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided. 2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest (https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6 Verified TLDs: -- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG. -- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment. -- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic. CCT-RT Recommendations: -- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing? -- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBShe.... And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro. -- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded? ------------------------ ALAC statement: From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of John Laprise <jlaprise@gmail.com<mailto:jlaprise@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>> Cc: 'ALAC Members' <ALAC-members@icann.org<mailto:ALAC-members@icann.org>>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro Hi everyone, Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65: ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. NARALO ALAC Representative ALAC Vice Chair-Policy ---------------------- -- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks. Questions: 1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere? 2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team) 3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2. 4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2. --- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time. -- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important. -- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. -- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements? -- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. -- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y) -- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask. Freedom of Expression: -- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech. -- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done. -- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights. -- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks so much for responding to Kathy's email Julie, as usual your professionalism and efficiency is deeply appreciated by me... I hope Kathy, that you have had all your specific questions relating to our last call, that I Chaired BTW, answered/responded to, leaving only I think this matter for Jeff and I..."As to whether they should be moved, staff will defer to the WG Co-Chairs. my view is (and believe me I though in the mid winter season in the antipodes, I understand the issue of lots of ICANN meetings and calls in over 40c temperature) that as the rotation times are also choose to avoid (mostly) clashes with other ICANN meetings as well, we should not change the schedule at this time, but rather let it run for a while and review again as needs be but after August. On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 04:35 Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Hi Kathy,
As staff always emphasizes when we send the action items and brief notes, these are not a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. Those all are posted on the wiki, as is noted after each call by the GNSO Secretariat, and are the WG’s primary source of information. For the meeting earlier today the post call message was sent by Julie Bisland that states:
“All recordings for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Thursday, 11 July 2019 at 03:00 UTC can be found on the agenda wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/LaSjBg> (attendance included) and the GNSO Master calendar <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-...>. These include:
· Attendance (please let me know if your name has been left off the attendance list)
· Audio recording
· Zoom chat archive
· Zoom recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript)
· Transcript”
That being said, staff did try to make it clear in the brief notes that Verified TLDs was covered, as was CCT-RT, and that Applicant Freedom of Expression was started (each is called out in the notes below with brief discussion points following). Nonetheless, the other sources noted above should be the primary references as the brief notes and action items are necessarily incomplete.
As will be noted in the agenda for the next call and is marked in the summary document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc... the WG will continue with the discussion of Applicant Freedom of Expression, beginning with Input on Implementation Guidelines – General, top of page 10.
As to the question about the timing of the Thursday meetings, these are on a rotation and will not occur at the same time each week. As to whether they should be moved, staff will defer to the WG Co-Chairs.
Kind regards,
Julie
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Thursday, July 11, 2019 at 2:02 PM *To: *"gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Notes and Action Items - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - 11 July 2019
Hi Julie, tx for the notes!
To Jeff, Cheryl, Julie and Steve,
In the interest of helping those who cannot participate in the double meetings per week, it would help to have a few more information bites in the notes to a) better understand what was covered, b) know where discussion stopped and c) ideas where the is likely to continue on the next call.
In particular for last night's call, could you share some basic (and hopefully non-controversial) information:
-* Is the 2.3.2 discussion of Verified gTLDs completed -- or is it likely to continue on Monday's meeting?*
*- Was any part of the 2.3.3 Applicant Freedom of Expression section started? (it looks like no)*
*- Were any issues of 2.3.2 other than Verified gTLDs discussed -- and will we be returning to other sections of 2.3.2 in the next session? *
*- How many people attended and where can we find a list of participants (we agreed to monitor participation in light of concerns that many could not participate twice a week and had already scheduled their Thursdays for the summer). we would all monitor closely in light of real concerns about participation in these Thursday calls.*
Quick note: some participants missed the call last night because they marked it in their calendars for Thursday night (Eastern time). It was actually scheduled for Wednesday night (Eastern time) -- and that in itself is a problem because Wednesdays are RPM WG days. We should at least move the SubPro WG second call to Thursdays nights/Friday AM to ensure the calls to do not come on the same day. Asking for 3.0+ hours *on the same calendar day for *participants in both WGs seems extraordinarily difficult for those who are truly volunteers in this ICANN process. Recommend changing it -- likely to increase participation and decrease burdens during these hot days of summer (for some hemispheres).
Best, Kathy
On 7/11/2019 11:44 AM, Julie Hedlund wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Please see below the notes from the meeting today, 11 July 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2019-07-11+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Pro....
Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
*Notes and Action Items:*
*Action Items:*
ACTION ITEM re: CCT-RT Recommendations and ALAC Statement -- Questions for Justine Chew:
1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
*Notes:*
1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): None provided.
2. Review of summary document: (continued) -- Global Public Interest ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc...) – start at Verified TLDs, Page 6
Verified TLDs:
-- Updated the sections on mandatory and voluntary PICs to include divergence from the Public Interest Community and the NCSG.
-- The word “likelihood” should be fixed. Edit and check with IPC re: IPC comment and the word “likelihood”. Typo in the original comment.
-- As as it's been applied a verified TLD is one that verifies the potential registrants meets registry standards prior to registering a domain. So for instance, the registry operator might require registrants to be appropriately credentialed to practice where they do business. And that's where that implied trust comes in, I think, so that end users can trust that domains in that TLD are going to be authentic.
CCT-RT Recommendations:
-- For absolute clarity, is the ALAC position that the RPM PDP must be completed in its entirety (ie, Phase 1 and Phase 2) prior to next round commencing?
-- As a reminder, this WG has a tracking sheet for all of the CCT-RT recommendations aimed at SubPro: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBShe.... And it has been updated to take into account what the Board has passed through to SubPro.
-- John Laprise - to answer Jeff's question, could you add to your email earlier today to the SubPro list re ALAC position the document in which this position is recorded?
------------------------
ALAC statement:
*From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <*gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>*> on behalf of John Laprise <*jlaprise@gmail.com <jlaprise@gmail.com>*>
*Date: *Wednesday, July 10, 2019 at 22:20
*To: *"*gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>*" <*gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>*>
*Cc: *'ALAC Members' <*ALAC-members@icann.org <ALAC-members@icann.org>*>, ICANN At-Large Staff <*staff@atlarge.icann.org <staff@atlarge.icann.org>*>
*Subject: *[Gnso-newgtld-wg] ALAC position on newgTLD subpro
Hi everyone,
Just a useful reminder of ALAC’s position as asserted to ICANN GDD at ICANN65:
ALAC will not support a new gTLD round until full implementation of CCT and RPM recommendations are fully implemented.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D.
NARALO ALAC Representative
ALAC Vice Chair-Policy
----------------------
-- Can staff please send me [Justine] an AI on the questions being posed with respect to John Laprise's comment? Thanks.
Questions:
1. Is ALAC's position documented anywhere?
2. On the CCT Review - Does John's comment refer to ALL CCT Recommendations or to just those prerequisites (as labeled by the CCT Review Team)
3. With respect to the RPM PDP, does John's comment relate to just Phase 1 of the PDP or to both Phase 1 and 2.
4. The value of precedent within the ALAC...I will flush this one out further by comparing answers from Community Comment 1 and 2.
--- @jeff, in respect of your #4 my immediate answer is what you term as a “precedent”; is not precedent in the actual sense of the word, but ALAC positions are not immune to change with developments over time.
-- Thanks Justine - This is why seeing the rationale and not just the final position/resolution/outcome is important.
-- Jeff, your question #4 seems to assume that, if there is a difference in position between Comment 1 and 2, that somehow this indicates that ALAC has disregarded or “devalued” “precedent.” I don’t think that’s a fair assumption.
-- Given that we have only one very high-level articulation of a high-level agreement and many divergent points under outstanding items;, it's not clear to me what our overall objective is in this section. Are we hoping to distill from outstanding items more points as high-level agreements?
-- Thanks, Jeff - looking for commonalites makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
-- One thing to consider is that the policy goal may not be achievable, insofar as we are not able to work out some explicit implementation matrix (ie, X weighs heavier than Y)
-- @Greg- and therein lies the problem. Reaching agreement on a definition has not yet been achieved at the level of international law, so us achieving that here is a big ask.
Freedom of Expression:
-- High-level agreement -- Support: May not be accurate. May need a more neutral phrase. Need to provide specific implementation guidance. Need to better define what is meant by “applicant freedom of expression”. Broader term than freedom of speech.
-- Difficult for the WG to develop a definition since it hasn’t yet been done.
-- High level agreement is that there are freedom of expression rights.
-- Start with Implementation Guidelines section on the next call.
_______________________________________________
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (3)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Julie Hedlund -
Kathy Kleiman