Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM: 2.8.1.e.4. ALAC comment - ALAC also agreed that there should be no limit to the number of objections that the IO can file. ACTION: Change to green (Line 123).

-- #7 NCSG -- divergence; refer to full WG re: role of IO should be eliminated or at least significantly reduced.

Notes:

1. Agenda review/SOIs: No updates

2. Continued: Discussion of Public Comments:

2.8.1: Objections (starting with 2.8.1.d.3) 

For agenda item 3, please find the relevant public comment review document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MQmo1B6zBqGXYFRF2pKZXPhGmz0JfZhIaMxKIdVsT1g/edit#gid=0

2.8.1.d.3:

-- #7 GAC -- divergence, agreement; WG will refer the divergence to the full WG; does not support that the PDP should make recommendations on GAC activities

2.8.1.d.4:

-- #4 INTA -- agreement, new idea; refer new idea to the full WG.

-- #10 NCSG -- agreement, concern (additional consideration caveat); refer the concerns to the full WG.

-- #9 NCSG -- concerns (additional consideration raised with respect to PICs in response to Early Warning); refer concerns to the full WG.

-- #10 GAC -- divergence, agreement; refer divergence to the full WG.

-- #11 Govt of India -- General comment about Early Warning that does not directly address this option.

Discussion:

-- Council of Europe: Seems that the general comments seems to be lost -- could these be added to this table?

From the chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): General Comments are not the purview of this Sub group however

Emily Barabas: Thanks for the comment. Note that general statements are included in the "general comments" tab considered by Sub Group A

Emily Barabas: And some of these have been referred to the full Working Group for further discussion

Susan Payne: @Jim, re GAC EW there was just a general email address gacearlywarning@gac.icann.org not a specific contact identified

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): No need to hold up our work today to deal with this Sub Group A can be allerted to the concern

Jim Prendergast: @Susan -ok thanks.  I guess I knew the GAC reps already so it was easy

Emily Barabas: @Matgorzata, that would be helpful. Please feel free to send these suggestions to the mailing list.

Emily Barabas: Thank you

2.8.1.e.1: All commenters agree that there is an issue plus suggestions for a path forward.

2.8.1.e.2:

-- #6 IPC -- concerns; refer to full WG re: It is difficult to presume how the current changes will weigh in with GAC Advice against a string.

-- #7 GAC -- divergence; refer to full WG re: However, the GAC does not consider that the PDP should make recommendations on GAC activities, which are carried out in accordance with the Bylaws and GAC’s internal procedures.

From the chat:

Justine Chew: 2.8.1.e.1 ALAC comment - may want to highlight consideration whether the GAC Advice procedure should remain captured under AGB Module Objection Procedure

Justine Chew: Which sort of leads to "presumption" that it is an objection procedure when it is not.

Justine Chew: Line 101

Justine Chew: 1st bullet in line 101

Justine Chew: Just to clarify: does putting GAC Advice under Module 3 lead to misleading presumption that is an objection procedure?

Jim Prendergast: I’m assuming all the GAC objections are going to be dealt with at the plenary level as we simply can’t ignore them?

Jim Prendergast: objections meaning dissenting opinion on the language in the report as opposed for the Formal GAC objection

Michael Flemming: Yes*

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): yup

2.8.1.e.3:

-- Most comments agree.

-- #6 ALAC -- concerns; refer to full WG re: that there is no presumption that a “string will not proceed”, since it is for the ICANN Board of Directors to decide whether it wishes to accept a GAC Advice on an application or not. The AGB in section 3.1 speaks of “a presumption that an application should not proceed” not that it will not proceed. This is an example of an incorrectly formed notion and therefore the ALAC suggests the removal of any such reference to a “presumption” altogether.

Discussion in chat:  Sense is that it is not "will not proceed" It should more appropriately be "should" not proceed, as referenced in the AGB" That said, that detail is in their comment, but she was just drawing attention to it I think.

2.8.1.e.4:

-- Most comments agree.

Justine Chew: 2.8.1.e.4. ALAC comment - ALAC also agreed that there should be no limit to the number of objections that the IO can file. ACTION: Change to green (Line 123).

-- #7 NCSG -- divergence; refer to full WG re: role of IO should be eliminated or at least significantly reduced.

2.8.1.e.5:

-- #4 Brand Registry Group -- divergence; refer to full WG re: The BRG recommends the exception should be removed.

-- #5 Neustar -- divergence; refer to full WG re: Neustar supports removing the "extraordinary circumstances" exception.

-- #6 RySG -- divergence; refer to full WG re: No, the extraordinary circumstances exception should be removed. The Independent Objector failed to meet the "extraordinary circumstances" standard and the RySG does not believe it is possible to revise the standard or establish criteria so that the standard is stringent and not capable of being abused.

2.8.1.e.6:

-- #4 RySG -- agreement, new idea; refer new idea to full WG

-- #5 ALAC -- Is this truly divergent?  Or is it agreement with a modification proposal?  Justine Chew:  Looked at the question and it talked about the two types of objection that the IO can file, so the ALAC's answer was pertaining to that with its divergence.  Could be agreement and divergence.

From the chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): line 137

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): This ALAC Comment is really an additional suggestion not a disagreement  though is it not?

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): so green (ish)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): OK  Justine  thanks for clarification if you think it is Divergence  leave it as is then

Susan Payne: I think it is a divergence - most are saying, yes, limit to 2 grounds and the ALAC saying maybe it needs to be opened up further

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): I am looking to highlight categorization as best as we can and a single DIvergence point just sticks out at me ;-)

Steve Chan: Or blue, as a New Idea? The comment assessment categories do not always fit well for questions (versus recommendations or options)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): I am thinking Blue with a greenish tinge ;-)

2.8.1.e.7:

-- #4 RySG -- agreement, new idea; refer new idea to full WG.

-- #5 ALAC -- divergence; refer to full WG re: worth considering lifting the 2-ground limit on the IO's ability to file objections.

From the chat;

Justine Chew: 2.8.1.e.7 Question - why is NCSG's comment green/agreement?

Susan Payne: INTA, RySG and NCSG are all listed as agreement but they aren't all saying exactly the same thing - INTA supporting a small panel of available IOs from whom a non-conflicted IO could be selected if there is a conflict, RySG (and I think NCSG) supporting just an alternate IO

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO- PDP Co-Chair): This line 148 comment again from the ALAC has to me similar Greenish /Blue over Divergence

Jim Prendergast: agree

Jim Prendergast: budget implications between those

Start at 2.8.1.e.8 next meeting.