Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the AC Recording, MP3 recording, and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Attendance of the calls is also posted on the agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/uZlEB MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-28nov17-en.mp3 AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p8agq2s0lc5/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group-2Dactivities_calendar&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=8_WhWIPqsLT6TmF1Zmyci866vcPSFO4VShFqESGe_5iHWGlBLwwwehFBfjrsjWv9&m=aYk6QrJh412LRjnRffv9mWxjjI9BoFOdzsyKErv2wpM&s=ohcOQek3hJ_ucFKxxYxJY4glqg-UmZQuJj89lRnQ9AU&e=> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Tuesday, 28 November 2017 Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 28 November 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_u... Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):Hello All Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Hi all... Bruna Santos:hello All Annebeth Lange:Good morning! Jeff Neuman:Hello all! Jeff Neuman:5 minute warning! Vanda Scartezini:hi all ! good night, morning, evening to everyone. Martin Sutton:m, Martin Sutton:morning all Vanda Scartezini:hope thanksgiving to whom is a relevant date has been great! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair)::-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):early afterneen here in AU but Morning Martin:-) Vanda Scartezini: -12 hours here Cheryl! nice to hear from you! Karen Day:Good evening all Karen Day:Martin glad to see your alarm working at o'dark thirty! Jeff Neuman:1 minute warning Annebeth Lange:Early morning in Oslo, dark and snowy outside :-) Jeff Neuman:Light on attendance so far, huh Martin Sutton:thanks Karen... Michelle DeSmyter:I will have the operator redial you, Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Welcome all - we will start in 1 minute Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I sent a message to Emily asking for a dial-out. Is Emily the wrong person to ask? Michelle DeSmyter:Hi Anne, I will send you a private caht Michelle DeSmyter:chat Justine Chew:bad echo over Michael Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):more like background voice Vanda Scartezini:yes bad echo Jeff Neuman:Did we announce that Sophia was appinted officially as the new co-leader with Michael? Jeff Neuman:appointed Jeff Neuman:Congrats again to Sophia :) Justine Chew:uh oh, echo is back Michael Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):just live with it Vanda Scartezini:this is a relevant point for this region here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION Waht does "full integration" mean? QUESTION Michael Flemming:Hi Anne, thanks for the question. Full integration would be for Code of Conduct exempt TLDs and Spec 13 TLDs. It would essentially get rid of 2.9 of the RA so that they would not be required to use a Registrar to register domains. Michael Flemming:There is a lot of support for this based upon CC2 comments. We are asking for further feedback from the group in regards to this point. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - Michael did a lot of shorthand there Michael Flemming:Yes, I did. Jeff Neuman:It means being a registry and registrar for your own TLD without the need to structural separation Jeff Neuman:As set forth in the Code of Conduct. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):So Spec 13 would be modified to state no registrar required? Jeff Neuman:It also means the abolishment of parts of the Registry Agreement like Section 2.9 in the Code of Conduct and potentially one of the PICs in spec 11 which requires the use of only 2013 ICANN Accredited Registrars Jeff Neuman:@Anne - that is what will be discussed Vanda Scartezini:I have raised this alterntive to Board at the beginning of this year as the only solution fro new gTLD ind eveloping regions Michael Flemming:Jeff&s analysis is correct, but based upon the CC2 comments, the perception is that brands shouldn't have to use a registrar. Hadia Elminiawi:Good morning from Cairo, apologies for joining late Sophia Feng:We have seen quite some upports on this in the CC2 comments Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Greetings from Seattle - apologies for joining late. Michael Flemming:Martin, can't hear Christa Taylor:Really faint Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):quite low volume Vanda Scartezini:Not only brands IMO, other new gTLDs in developing regions will need this full integration solution Jeff Neuman:@Vanda - All still being discussed. Strongly recommend you attend WT 2 :) Martin Sutton:sorry, audio issue Vanda Scartezini:yes Michael Flemming:Vanda, that is some feedback I don't thnk we received yet. Would you mind feeding that into WT2? Martin Sutton:thank you Annebeth Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):PM your number to staff to get a dial out perhaps Martin Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Creates a bit of an issue as to RDS if brands can register all their distributors and suppliers and distributors can sell directly to consumers from that domain name registration. does the proposal result in no WhoIs information even under whatever happens with RDS? Vanda Scartezini:will do for sure. I am not following full WT 2 since I thought Tony Harris was following and we have had this discussion some time ago during some survey about new gtLDs in this region. But will do Michael Flemming:Thank you, Vanda. I will resend the question once you have joined so please let me know. Jeff Neuman:FYI - Letter response is still being worked on...so note sent out yet Vanda Scartezini:will do Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Also o WT4 (as I was distracted by static) I may not have reminded everyone that the next call is 30th Nov at 2000 UTC Jeff Neuman:sorry - not sent out yet :) Justine Chew:<Question>when would the draft terms of reference for wt5 be shared with the group</question> Sophia Feng:looking forwards to it Jeff:) Martin Sutton:Annebeth covered all we needed, thank you Michael Flemming:@Anne, that is a point we have not addressed yet. We will need to tweek this and other details as we move along but right now we are trying to get a feel for where we are at. Jeff Neuman:We are just converting from Work to Google Docs :) Justine Chew:okay, thanks! will need it for tomorrow ;-) Michelle DeSmyter:We are having the operator dial him now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):perfect Jeff Christa Taylor:Just right Christa Taylor:;-) Martin Sutton:had tried to use iPad but now dialled in, apologies for the lack of communication! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Reminder to mute yor lines if not speaking ;-) Hadia Elminiawi:will work track5 need to catch up with the presented tineline? Steve Chan:Sorry Jeff, do not have the WT5 timeline handy. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We can but try :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Of all the DT's this one is the one we are closest to drawing to some completion on, so be great to further it as far as we can today... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You all have scroll control on this document... When Jeff refers to any specific page material he will reference the page number for you of course ;-) Steve Chan:For those that are curious about the WT5 timeline, you can see in the slides shared from the 15 Nov meeting on page 18: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Excellent thank you Steve Hadia Elminiawi:@steve thanks Heather Forrest:Apologies for joining late! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):The Strawman Solution was nimble- but not exactly popular with some. Steve Chan:I think the link to the document in the agenda being shared got jumbled somewhere along the line. If you'd like to follow along with the Google document, please view here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen... Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry):Not Implementation Recommendation Team. ;-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):We need to replace IRT with the long form - agree Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Jeff is at the top of Page 3 now Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):well end of para 1 on p3 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: There are numerous references in this draft framework to staff "collaboration with the community" and mention of various options. unless it is clear that staff has to let the policy determination be made by a Standing IRT, there is too much discretion on the issue of whether or not policy is involved. This issue and various case studies of problems that arose in the 2012 round was studied very carefully in the Policy and implementation Working Group. It is not a good idea to be asking staff to make the determination as to whether or not policy is involved. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):if operations are seriously affected by the change Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):slight change in the rules might cause it Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: The issue is what is or is not a minor process update. COMMENT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):like small change to Letter of Credit Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I don't think it is needed , if ICANN .org oversteps or it is not minor then it fits with other parts of the framework Michael Flemming:Is there an option in Google Docs to see a post-suggested form of the document? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff - Exactly Michael Flemming:The link Steve provided has the suggestions on it. Michael Flemming:So a clean copy with the suggestions reflected is what I was inquiring about. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Moving to page 4 now Steve Chan:@Michael, one option is tp create a copy for yourself and accept all changes? Michael Flemming:Thanks, Steve. I wasn't sure if there was a view format for that like in Word. Jim Prendergast:Random Draw Steve Chan:If folks don't mind, I'd like to sync to document to make sure we are all in the same place. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Thanks Jim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Go ahead Steve save me telegraphing ages ;-)] Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Pages Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):The question then becomes what changes are "procedural" and what changes are "substantive". Once again it's about who makes that determination. The Policy and Implemtation WG decided it was impossible to determine in advance differences in policy versus implementation but now it appears we are attempting to override all that work. This is a failure to learn from past mistakes and a failure to accept the work done by the Policy and Implementation Working Group, which was very carefully done. "Collaborating with the community" and "staff will work with the community" and "communicate with the affected parties" is very vague stuff unless there is a formal standing IRT process that is required. COMMENT Steve Chan:@Jeff: Expedited PDP, GNSO Input Process, GNSO Guidance Process Jim Prendergast:or Unilateral Right to Amend contract by ICANN Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):+1 Jim , good example Jim Prendergast:yeah it was 2013 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):5 Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):I think it should be something like SSC where members represent the particular parts of community Justine Chew:yes, all good points requiring consideration and discussion -- roles and membership in IRT, that is. Steve Chan:New gTLD Program Implementation Review Report, mentioned by Jeff, here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_news_anno... Annebeth Lange:You are talking about staff making changes, but how about situations where ICANN Board make changes? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT : I support the Standing IRT - all issues encountered by staff in implementation should be raised with the Standing Panel so no one accuses staff of making policy. If it's actually pure implementation, it won't even arise as an issue for discussion. COMMENT Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):I thiink it is a good idea Hadia Elminiawi:I think it is a good idea Annebeth Lange:I agree, it seems like a good idea. Greg Shatan:I think it is a good idea. Sophia Feng:It is not okey Jeff Sara Bockey:Agree. Standing IRT is a good idea. Sophia Feng:It should be standardized and any changes should be communicated properly Christa Taylor:If a process/service/etc. isn’t meeting the requirements as expected than ICANN should be able to fix the issue without delay. Changes to policy/process that is outside of expectations or required due to circumstances than I think it could be helpful in expediting the situation Michael Flemming:A good idea. But, I want to understand what we are discussing here better. An IRT is a bit more restrictive but can be open as well. I don't know background of how IRTs are normally formed, but we are discussing the requirements for what that IRT would look like, right? Michael Flemming:After program launch. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You can use the green tick if you agree with the General Concept of a Standing IRT (if we do beleive it is worth considering further then we can go on to fine tune qualitites and qualifications for Membership etc., Sophia Feng:Yes it is good idea, Michael Flemming:That definitely provides better clarity. Standing means that it is functional past program launch. Michael Flemming:Thank you for the clarity and that is a very good idea. Justine Chew:agree with need for IRT -- membership should be relatively small to keep it manageable and comprise of both people who are well versed with operational and policy knowledge. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Requiring expertise in backend registry operations excludes numerous members of "the community". it would necessarily weight changes in favor of contracted parties. This does not recognize that issues that arise during implementation are far broader than operations issues - e.,g. the Strawman Solution, Specification 13 for brands, PICs to address GAC Advice as to safeguards, etc etc etc Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):it would effectivly be an "oncall group post launch Sophia Feng:What's the procedure of structuring and selecting the panel members to make it more efficient should be considered as well Justine Chew:people with policy knowledge could be drawn from members in PDP WG in order to remind IRT on background of policy where applicable Hadia Elminiawi:@cheryl why post launch? why not before? Quoc Pham:I remember - RDAP Quoc Pham:also changes to WHOIS output requirements Michael Flemming:I think if we looked at the next page as well, that might offer more clarity to at what point the standing IRT would be involved. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with hadia re pre-launch Standing IRT Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):fully constituted GNSO PDP would take years , durign which applicants bleed money till the bancrupcy stage Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):the term Implementation indicates post PDP but it could form pre launch I supose Hadia Justine Chew:don't see why it can't be pre-launch standing IRT, it would be great for ICANN to be able to say they have standing IRT to deal with implementational issues as they arise. Michael Flemming:Perhaps this should form after the PDP final report and for staff to use as a consulting resource for drafting the AGB? Michael Flemming:And functions post-launch as well. Quoc Pham:i guess we need to draw boundaries on what the standing panel covers. we should be careful that the standing panel themselves don't become a roadblock, it should be advisory but not necessarily be authorative Steve Chan:@Jeff, I think Alan had his hand up first. Jeff Neuman:@Quoc - Agree - So lets come up with those boundaries Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):You might all also refer to the General information here to assist your deliberations https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_draft... Greg Shatan:FWIW, I don’t think the strawman was “policy,” which just means its a bad example for these purposes.... Annebeth Lange:Perhaps looking to the way a lot of the ccTLDs do it? I use NORID, as registry for .no, as an example. Since the registry is acting on the behalf of the Local Internet Community, the registry cannot unilaterally change the terms & conditions for the registrants unless there is only a minor, procedural point. If of vital importance we have to have a public consultation. If important, but not vital, we ask our Advisosry Board, consisting of participants for the Local Internet Community. But if our Board instruct us to change something, we have to do it. Jeff Neuman:Action Item: Call this something different :) Alan Greenberg:@Greg, yes. There were a number of changes that were made that can easily be construed as policcy, since there wwa no other mechanism to handle such a channge at that point in time. Times have now changed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Standing Community Implementation Advisory Group/Panel? Michael Flemming:If these are appointed/elected members, I think Panel is more appropriate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@ Greg and Alan - I may agree with the observation that the Strawman Solution was implementation. Some on GNSO Council so strongly disagreed with that - that a letter was written to the Board objecting to it and stating that the Board absolutely had to consult again with GNSO when it made such changes. In fact, Jeff authored that letter so it should be obvious from this one example how easy it is for reasonable people to disagree as to what is policy and what is implementation. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):for appointed members there is a need for support process Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Yes Steve in the doc I referred to earlier the WG for that though log and hard on matters such as how to populate and constitute an IRT Greg Shatan:Standing Panel for Implementation Guidance, Oversight & Transparency (SPIGOT). Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):where the consistuancy expresses support to particular members / appoint them Justine Chew:just to clarify, in my previous comments re IRT, I was referring to this new panel (post IRT) which name has yet to be set. :-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):LOL Greg - go with the FLOW Christa Taylor:How about urgent or major types of changes in operations? A criteria list with points may be one method to determine where it sits w/in the categories i.e. costs, level of risk, timeline impact on applicants, etc. Annebeth Lange:This is how we do it when changes are done: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.norid.no_en_regelve... Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):numbers heavily depend on the model Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Re Composition - Alan's point is very relevant - IRT represents the community. Greg Shatan:The multi-non-stakeholder model doesn’t make much sense.... We can’t avoid Greg Shatan:interests; we do need to balance them out. Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):full transparency does not go well with confidentiality Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):There are always ways to try and manage those tensions I suspect though Maxim Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):we just need to look to and suggest some ;-) Hadia Elminiawi:Ok rhanks Jeff Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Focus on composition and requirements for Standing IRT makes sense. Again, consultation with this Standing Panel should not be optional where something that is characterized as an "issue" is concerned. Such consultation should be mandatory if there is an ISSUE that arises during implementation. Jeff Neuman:Thanks @Anne Jeff Neuman:I think we should put something like that in this proposal Maxim Alzoba(FAITID):bye all Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Ohh I amm often chastised for tlking too much (I can live with that of course) Greg Shatan:It may be a side effect of the time zones, that we are not talkative.... Michael Flemming:Yes Heather Forrest:Thank you Jeff and Cheryl - Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye all Justine Chew:cheers then! talk more on the mailing list. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair):Bye for now and thank you all for joining us today...Bye for now then... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you. Hadia Elminiawi:bye all thanks Christa Taylor:Thanks. Goodnight all! Annebeth Lange: Bye Aslam G Mohamed:bye all good night Greg Shatan:Other than Jeff and APAC. Greg Shatan:Good night.