Dear Working Group members, Please see below the action items and notes from the meeting today, 18 June 2018. 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/x/-igFBQ Kind regards, Emily --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actions: 1.8.2 -- Section b: Factual correction for 1.8.2.b: Some applicants also filed DIDP requests (and DIDP is considered an accountability mechanism). To get documents. --Section e: Add a question: Ask what the impact if any this appeal mechanism would have on an applicant's ability to pursue other accountability mechanism and, if so, why. Relating to: "ICANN should create a new substantive appeal mechanism specific to the new gTLD Program. Such an appeals process will not only look into whether ICANN violated the Bylaws by making (or not making) a certain decision, but will also evaluate whether the original action or action was done in accordance with the Applicant Guidebook." 1.9.1 Section e: -- Add: "How can the CPE process be more transparent and predictable? What are the elements that make the process transparent and predictable? -- Questions could be answered as "yes" or "no" -- We need to add: "if, yes, please provide your reason." (change throughout the document, or in the preamble) -- At the beginning of section 1.9, consider whether it would it be appropriate to cross-reference other conversations about string contention that are not related to communities so it is clear where to find these sections within the document? -- Consider removing paragraph referencing .navajo or revising the text to omit this example. Notes: 1. Agenda Review 2. Roll Call/SOIs: 3. Review of the Initial Report (continued). * The purpose of this review is to ensure that preliminary outcomes and deliberations are accurately captured and written in an understandable manner. The WG Co-Chairs have sought to make clear that this exercise is not intended to re-open substantive discussions, which is better served by the submission of public comments and subsequently when reviewing public comments received. Please submit your comments about these sections to the Working Group mailing list (gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org) in advance of the meeting. Review of Section 1.8 (Accountability Mechanisms) 1.8.2: Accountabililty Mechanisms -- Don't see how this accountability mechanism would interplay with the Appeals mechanism. Ask what the impact if any this would have on an applicant's ability to pursue other accountability mechanism and, if so, why. -- The question we are asking the community if we should allow two types of appeal -- substantive or procedural grounds. -- Question of whether it is even possible to distinguish between what is substantive and what is procedural. From the chat: Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Factual correction for 1.8.2.b: Some applicants also filed DIDP requests (and DIDP is considered an accountability mechanism). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Noted Kristina ... Thx Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): To get documents. Considered an accountability mechanism. Christopher Wilkinson: Regarding costs, we could ask the community whether they would support the Panelists being pro-bono volunteers. ICANN would fund expenses and kperhaps a perdiem, not more. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: having continuation of a process challenge (ie Reconsideration Request) is not a change to the current policy. Adding an appeal for substance is what i think we are putting questions out for. 4. Review of other sections in the Initial Report (i.e., Preamble) -- Next steps: WT Leads have until close of business today PDT, and then all the sections with revisions will be sent out tomorrow to the WG. -- WG members should let us know if any questions or comments have been missed. -- Will pull out the recommendations, questions, and options and put them in an annex to the report. Discussion: -- Template is the standard format; does anyone object to combining annex B and C? -- These are not to collect additional input, it is to provide a historical record of input we sought. -- Question: Will there be a public comment period for this report, or is it being made available in Panama? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: On the subject of consensus, Leadership should not "lock down" the document on June 20 and post to the wiki per work plan since we only received the documents on Sunday and we have not seen several revisions yet. In addition, short Minority Statements should be permitted to outline issues for public comment so that the process is not entirely dependent on the version intended to be posted. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Is that not covered in the proposed preamble Anne? Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT Panama is a policy meeting. Feeback from constituencies should be taken before the Initial Report is posted for public comment. See list comments from Ken Stubbs, Vanda, and me prior to this call. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): the additional Statements part Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Minority views should also be reflected in the questions for public comment to outline the issue as discussed in our last call - you agreed to that. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: Jeff - you pointed out on IPC list that they had not provided much input (other than Greg and me). You were looking for more cmment from them prior to publication of the report. I feel the same way. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Anne we have been addding questions proposed from the plenary Anne Aikman-Scalese: Jeff - please give this WG more than one day to review those revisions before releasing to the Wiki. That is way too short for such a long report. Anne Aikman-Scalese: In the preamble, the word "different" should be "diffierently". Again, we need a chance to review as Jim mentioned. this is another reason we need more time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): an easy look up for the questions via Annex Anne Aikman-Scalese: Great idea to put Annexes listing the questions for public comment! Thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): we hope that will aid PC preparation 5. (Item 3 contined...): Review of Section 1.9 (Community Applications) -- Section e: Maybe needs to be an extension to the recommendation as to what they mean by transparency and predictability. Add: "How can the CPE process be more transparent and predictable? What are the elements that make the process transparent and predictable? -- Section e: Questions could be answered as "yes" or "no" -- We need to add: "if, yes, please provide your reason." (change throughout the document, or in the preamble) From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: We cannot review the substance of drafts received less than 48 hours ago on non-busines days. COMMENTS Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): award. it's a typo Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): For example, questions 23, and 5 could easily be answered with "yes" or "no." Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I will definitely be lookin for a question whether "community" should be defined more narrowly than in the 2012 round or not? ken stubbs: I am in agreement with anne's comments & concerns Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): BTW, in section f, the other strings we used in our discussion were .MAORI and .BANK. .MAORI is thematically similar to .NAVAJO, but .BANK is not and the use of only a nation/peoples name could be misleading or misunderstood. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): And by our discussion, I'm referring back to the 2006-07 PDP. Anne Aikman-Scalese: The Work Track summary seems to be proposing a policy change - to narrow the definition. It is not clear from Question 1 that this is what is happening. Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: I still need to look at what is said about .NAVAJO - please note our firm represents the Navajo Nation for various matters. NAVAJO is a registered trademark for numerous goods and sevices. I don't know whether it is appropriate to frame this example in this manner. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese: I certainly mentioned Indian Tribes in general in the Work Track 3 discussion. I doubt I would have specifically mentioned the Navajo Nation. -- Would it be appropriate to cross-reference other conversations about string contention that are not related to communities so it is clear where to find these sections within the document? -- Conversations in Panama may cover auctions. From the chat: Susan Payne: great, thanks so it sounds like we might end up with somethig on auctions going into this section - subject to discussion in Panama Christopher Wilkinson: Section 1.9.1, pae 6 para. 6: The reference to the European Commission and the GAC seems to be a non-sequitur. the CoE is a self sanding entity and thier positions are not delpendent on 'official endorsements by other entities. -- Consider asking a question about whether community needs to be further defined? The current questions seem to assume that the term should be further defined. -- Consider adding to question: Is the definition from the 2012 appropriate? Why or why not? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Sorry I am only on one screen at home. Could staff Just search the doc for "Navajo" please? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jamie's comment on question 1. -- Question: Is the problem with the paragraph referencing .navajo specific to the use of this word or are there other elements of the paragraph that are a problem? From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: Use of the name Navajo is problematic. Rubens Kuhl: "should an specific native American tribe receive priority if" , perhaps ? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Thank you! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): simple fix then remove the reference Christopher Wilkinson: There are many tribes in many countries and histories. It is a real generic, not North Admerica specific. Jamie Baxter | dotgay: Thanks Jeff .. i think it is important that the question not presume that current policy definition of "community" is insufficient. I would be uncomfortable if the record states that the reason CPE was controversial was becasue it lacked a clear definition of "community" and not for other reasons, such as the evaluators or the evaluation process. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Folks - dealing with Native American Tribes is very sensitive stuff. Please be culturally sensitve here. Tribal names are not generic. -- Paragraph in section F that references .navajo does not take into account that the original intention of the community category was much broader. It seems to presuppose an outcome of this discussion. Economic communities were also anticipated (for example .bank). -- Question: Is this paragraph needed, should it be removed? -- From Work Track discussions it became clear that there were many different ideas about what the term community should include. The text is not intended to exclude anything from the discussion, but is intended to provide some concrete examples to support common understanding. From the chat: From the chat: Karen Day (WT3): I believe we need to either drop it or go broader. I distinctly remember a discussion with the GAC about creating economic communities. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): Dropping the example would also avoid concerns as Anne raised Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree the overall draft in the current version presumes the answer to the question we SHOULD be asking and I raised this many times in the Work Track discussions. We need to acknowledge that the shared understanding in 2012 was much broader than this summary . So again this is a policy change being suggested. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): We ask for that in the questions Robin, so the example dosent seem to still enhance Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): I think it's cleaner to drop it, imo. Vanda Scartezini: totally agree Robin the concept of community varies a lot around the world 6. AOB -- WT leaders will finalize revisions today. -- Some of the comments were not suggested revisions but substantive input. The leadership team is tracking these. They are considering posting these comments on the public comment forum. -- This can be handled by WT members submitting the comments themselves or by staff posting the comments. From the chat: Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: The point is to raise issues for public comment. We should not be avoiding that. COMMENT -- Full document with revisions will be posted on Wednesday. Working Group members will have until a week from Friday for any final comments. -- The document will go out for public comment on 3 July. -- The leadership team is disussing whether to spend some of the time in Panama to discuss the content of the report and go over some of the revisions. -- The Panama sessions will also include people not involved in the WG. There is some concern that it will not be a productive use of the session to discuss the report because they have not been involved in this process. From the chat: Vanda Scartezini: we intend to put it to public even with some substantitve issues to be consider? Anne Aikman-Scalese: Yes - please - Do use the first session to discuss the report. It's a policy meeting. Then you will have everyone on board! Jim Prendergast: if not these revisions, then what will be on the agenda? Anne Aikman-Scalese: It's useful for the public to understand the report. If you go over it in the first session, the public will be able to better participate. Vanda Scartezini: nobody will read this complex docuemnt before Panama. they will be focusing on their own communities , local jobs and traveling Anne Aikman-Scalese: That's another reason the WG should review it in the first session. Vanda Scartezini: agree @ Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese: You could limit the first session to review of the Questions in the Annexes - then you would get public participation and interaction. Jim Prendergast: Ill repeat a concern I have with having a closed Generics discussion while we have an interim report with lots of questions to the community. It we spend time in Panama trying to advancing any of the less settled issues that at the same time are out for community input - we risk looking like we are not really interested in the community input - even thought we are. Rubens Kuhl: Jim, AFAIK the idea for Closed Generics is trying to build a resolution method, not to find the solution. Jim Prendergast: @Vanda - i would also argue that people wont have time to read it durign an ICANN meeting as well. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Or else pick some Questions from the Annexes where you believe this Policy Forum has its highest and best purpose. -- The last session will focus on recommendations from the CCT-RT. The other sessions will focus on areas that have not yet been discussed but need to be covered. For example, public and private auctions. The other area of focus will be how to make progress on topic areas where there is not yet agreement, for example, Closed Generics. -- Intention is to make the sessions interactive. -- The public comment period will last 60 days and end around 5 September. -- Notes will be sent out to the Board, the GAC and GDD staff to invite input on the report. From the chat: Jim Prendergast: Rubens - is that resolution specific to closed generics or for all issues where there currently is no consensus? Vanda Scartezini: @jim agree , sessions on FACE 2 FACE for community shall start with explanation about it.. Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Vanda and Jim- explain to public the issues around the questions you are focusing on. do this in first session. Vanda Scartezini: yes Jim, we need to consider that different expected by public Justine Chew: And the collation of feedback received on these set of drafts will be posted somewhere? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): we will be doing that as we currently plan the sessions Jim Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Jim. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO -PDP Co-Chair): but we also need to briefly reiterate things for each session Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 to Jim. Although given my circuitous flight plan to Panama, I may have enough time to read it on the plane. -- Participants will not necessarily show up at the beginning of the first session and stay through the end of the last sessions. People will come and go, so we need to have a clear objective at the beginning of each session and create opportunities for both intensive and more casual participation. -- The parts of the report will be ready by Wednesday, but the mechanics of moving the revisions from the Google Doc currently in use to the Word template is fairly complex. This may take more time. -- It may be helpful to use part of the session time in Panama to set the stage and set expectations for next steps.