Please find the MP3 recording for the GNSO New gTLDs Subsequent Rounds Discussion Group call held on Monday 02 March 2015 at 15:00 UTC at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-02mar15-en.mp3
On page:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#mar
The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/
Attendees:
Brett Fausett - RySG
Stephanie Duchesneau - RySG
Jeff Neuman-RySG
Christopher Niemi- no soi
Michele Neylon-RrSG
Tijani Ben Jemaa - ALAC
Liz Williams - RySG
Dietmer Lenden – RySG
Will Ellis – RrSG
Christa Taylor – Individual
Susan Payne – IPC
Steven Coates – BC (no SOI)
Christopher Niemi,
Carlos Raul Gutierrez – GNSO Councilor
Rubens Kuhl- RySG
Evan Leibovitch – ALAC
Apologies:
none
ICANN staff:
Steve Chan
Lars Hoffmann
Nathalie Peregrine
Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 02 March 2015:
Nathalie Peregrine:Dear all, Welcome to the Discussion Group on New gTLD Subsequent Rounds on 02 March 2015
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Let's give this two more minutes for people to join and then we will begin.
Carlos Raul:good morning
Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC):Hi there
Tijani BEN JEMAA (ALAC):I need a dial out
Nathalie Peregrine:Please send me your number Tojani
Nathalie Peregrine:Tijai
Nathalie Peregrine:Michele Neylon has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:Rubens Kuhl has joined the call
Nathalie Peregrine:Please mute your AC mics when not talking by clicking on the microphone icon at the top of the AC room
LizW:the charter will presuppose that there is no question that there will be the fourth round of new tld applications?
Rubens Kuhl:Actually I'm only in Adobe and have no mic capabilities, but otherwise I've joined. No updates to my SOI.
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I would be happy to help out
Michele Neylon:+1 to Jeff
Susan Payne - Valideus:Volunteer basis is good
LizW:I think it would be really useful to map out the parallel processes that are taking place which ought not hold up the PDP process...that is likely to take a century (not!) anyway
LizW:i can volunteer too...we don't need elections I think...
LizW:fine for me...
Stephanie Duchesneau:fully support Jeff and Liz
LizW:I wonder if it's not useful to separate out "best practice implementation" suggestions from questions about policy (for example, competition, trademark protection, consumer safeguards?)
Michele Neylon:did the audio die?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Is there any guidance from the Policy/Implementation group that we can use here to determine what needs to be in a PdP?
Nathalie Peregrine:@ Michele, do you need a dial out? My audio is fine
LizW:just a thought...from Bret's conversation...let's also identify things which are fixed from previous policy discussions. It may be possible to identify a very small number of really serious policy issues which need examination.
LizW:not second round...fourth round...remember 2000 and 2004 and 2012
Michele Neylon:Nathalie - no it came back
Nathalie Peregrine:ok
LizW:I was on the P & I Working Group...much of the issues are implementation and I think we need to foucs on policy and contracting issues (for example, IDN issues, international jurisdiction, protection of escrow arrangements)
LizW:someone really clever can work on some schematics about the intersections of policy/implementation
Nathalie Peregrine:Arnaud Wittersheim has joined the call
Susan Payne - Valideus:Not sure if I am understanding you correctly Liz, but i think if there were serious failures which were implementation as opposed to policy then these should also be a priority
LizW:yes agree
Rubens Kuhl:It's very likely that staff also reckons some serious failures, but they probably can't say it out loud... and we don't have to make them to, if the issues are fixed, we don't have to expose them for it, only for those that are not fixed.
Michele Neylon:GDD portal is down as per https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-03-01-en
Michele Neylon:FYI it's only an initial report
Michele Neylon:so it's nowhere near being adapted
Michele Neylon:re: policy + implementation ..
Rubens Kuhl:We can use all the output of the policy and implementation group we want to. We are not (yet) mandated to, but for now it's WG discretion to use those.
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I understand..which is why I just asked for us to be given some guidance into their discussions
Michele Neylon:Rubens - it's only draft / interim so possibly useful but it may be tootally useless
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):There are certain clear areas of implementation (things ike Letters of Credit, digital archery, etc.)
Rubens Kuhl:First change to AGB would be for it to be really procedural, instead of trying to justify decisions, which would be the role of papers and reports.
Michele Neylon:the application guidebook was opened to multiple comment periods
Bret Fausett, Uniregistry:Just to be clear, I think a redlined version of the guidebook isn't our job. That will be something that the PDP process may wish to look at. We are just framing the issues.
LizW:Jeff has just reminded me of a really important issue around separation of registry registrar arrangmeents. there is no doubt that this issue could do with another go through given the changes to the competitive landscape.
LizW:so the redline should be a "let's get this absolutely perfect" thing.
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I dont think we should talk about "redlining" at this point. Sends wrong message. Lets call it a review for issue sportting for future work
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):sorry issue spotting
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):not sporting
LizW:agree Jeff..how should we pull out really relevant good things and things which didn't work so well?
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Do we know when the AoC review will begin and how that will feed in to all of this?
LizW:And will any GNSO review have an impact?
LizW:And will any GNSO review have an impact?
LizW:just a dopey thought...shouldn't we ask the RySG for its ideal scenario? they are the main customers?
Rubens Kuhl:Some people might see current registries, either g's or cc's, as incumbent operators, while main customers would be the organisations that are not yet registries.
Susan Payne - Valideus:I don't think the RySG are the main customers. Some existing ROs may apply in future. Other applicants may not be existing ROs. There is something quite uiuncomforttable about having present incumbents make the rules for their future competitors
Michele Neylon:I don't agree with any request to the RySG only
Michele Neylon:they are NOT the only impacted parties
Susan Payne - Valideus:apols for the spelling!
Michele Neylon:and suggesting they are is crazy
LizW:@susan..it certainly helps to frame issues...
LizW:@michele...that is why I suggested a review of the arrangements between registries and registrars is helpful...not crazy...
Rubens Kuhl:It's not only about current registries, or current registrars...
Michele Neylon:No you suggested asking the RySG
Michele Neylon:which is not the same thing
Michele Neylon:Rubens - agreed
Michele Neylon:What about the companies that didn't complete their applications in this round?
LizW:so -- just ask everyone for input...which is what I was suggesting in my question...
Michele Neylon:or the companies that never applied?
Stephanie Duchesneau:short of just asking the registries what they would want as an output, i think it would be very useful to look back through NTAG correspondence through this process, to see problem areas that affected applicants across the board in this round, and make sure that those issues are at least being considered
LizW:I wonder how we deal with Michele's point about "those that didn't complete" their applications...the best outcome is more applicants not fewer but I am sure interested in hearing what put people off applying?
Michele Neylon:why did they pull out?
Michele Neylon:was it because the "asks" / "demands" were unreasonable
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Agreed Michele, but the community needs to prioritize and decide which ones are more important
Rubens Kuhl:Michele, some dropped out due to unreasonable demands, others due to uncertainty (rules keep changing), others due to scaremonging that made them apply, others due to "free puppy" effect... but it's an interesting research to be done, indeed.
Michele Neylon:Jeff - I don't disagree
Nathalie Peregrine:Evan Leibovitch has joined the call
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):i do think that the accountability and IANA groups have brought in a lot of new people
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):the fact that the "old" people believe they need to participate in everything is a problem for them
Jeff Neuman (Valideus)::)
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):I am one of them
Evan Leibovitch:Is it in scope whether a next round might be soley a remedial one. I know that concept might not be popular in this group but it is important elsewhere.
Rubens Kuhl:Evan, what lines would be drawn to such a remedial round ? Regions, brands ?
Evan Leibovitch:at very least revisiting the community vetting process
Jeff Neuman (Valideus):Evan ... nothing is out of scope initially
LizW:@steve and what are you concerned about from a staff point of view? Knowing that is very valuable.
Rubens Kuhl:The community vetting process as in community objections, CPEs or Applicant Support ?
LizW:Outreach is a different process all together.
LizW:@evan what does catch up mean? The isuses that you've raised a legitimate implementation issues which should definately be raised. Were there policy issues too?
LizW:a "solely devoted to "this" is really really difficult and I would recommend against it because it a) chills innovation b) is very subjective c) can be perceived as failures...read back to the 2004 round...
Evan Leibovitch:As I said, I did not expec that PoV to be popular here ;-)
Rubens Kuhl:The thing is: can a remedial round occur sooner than a full round ? If it this, than it's of value... but I believe it's not, so it doesn't generate a better outcome for the wronged ones.
LizW:just set a time that works for you and jeff... i will fit in on UTC time.
Carlos Raul:thank you
Michele Neylon:ciao all
