Page History

Mp3

AC Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

2.2.2.3.4 (line 32):

ACTION ITEM: #1 ALAC -- Go to the ALAC liaison to see what they mean by a separate process. 

2.2.2.e.5 (line 35):

ACTION ITEM 1: #4 IPC: Change to agreement (does not conflict).

ACTION ITEM 2: General: Copy over lines 14 and 21 (NCSG and public interest) into comments after 35 as disagreement.

Other Comments: #1 geoTLD.group, #2 dotBERLIN, #3 Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH

ACTION ITEM: Change all three comments to agreement with the lack of predictability of the previous round.

2.2.2.2.c.1 (line 1): #9 INTA -- ACTION ITEM: Change to a new idea, from a concern.

Notes:

1.  Update SOI’s: No updates

3.  Discussion of Public Comment on: 

a.  2.2.2 Predictability (continued): 

2.2.2.e.3 (row 27):

-- Lots of new ideas (BRG, ALAC BC, RySG) -- move to the full WG for discussion.

-- How will new ideas be handled?

-- We will want to process these a bit to share with the full group. We may want to do some work to see if they are ideas that have previously discussed, if there are patterns, etc.

-- The full group will decide what to do with the ideas presented to them and whether this should go out to the community for further comment.

-- The Sub Group should not evaluate the merit of each comment, but identifying patterns is helpful.

-- Trends -- Is there a set of new ideas that could be presented to the WG?  Such as those that relate more to policy?

-- Look for patterns, such as using existing mechanisms or taking things on a case-by-case basis.  Seem to agree with what we already have in the recommendations.

-- Not sure if we are seeing agreement on the standing IRT or not.  Most comments seem to be in favor, but some diverge.

-- Maybe some of the "new ideas" might provide a roadmap to compromise.

-- Could we go to those that are divergent and see what could be done to address their concerns, or visa versa.  Example: 2.2.2.e.1: Does the concept of a Predictability Framework make sense to address issues raised post-launch? #6 NCSG divergence -- "short answer is no."

-- Initial Report did not state that the standing IRT would make policy.  Important when considering these comments what the Initial Report said.

From the chat:

Donna Austin, Neustar: I think there is a distinction between the full WG and the full community. The members of the WG has signed up to participate and will ultimately discuss ideas to see if we can reach consensus and then provide recommendations to the community for consideration. I don't believe it is the full community that needs to discuss new ideas.'

Steve Chan: @Jeff, as well as to determine if the comments are categorized (Concerns, New Idea, etc.) properly as well.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: I agree with Donna but it's possible there is a new idea that is so revolutionary that we think it deserves public comment.

Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): It seems like there are a couple of things that seem to be jumping out.  (i) Case by Case basis, (ii) use existing mechanisms to the extent possible (iii) looking at urgency/impact

Anne Aikman-Scalese: I would just note that under existing policy and procedure, any  Council member can invoke a process to bring a policy implementation issue before the GNSO.  new ideas have to be considered in light of this framework that was already adopted by the Board.

Kathy Kleiman: There is deep disagreement on the Standing IRT

Kathy Kleiman: What I was hoping is that some of the "new ideas" might provide a roadmap to comprise.

Kathy Kleiman: But right now, one SG and EFF and Public Knowledge have objected (among others)

Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): It seemed to me that the biggest worry was that this standing IRT would talke on a policy role.  The initial report did not state that the standing IRT would make policy

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @kathy - that is why we need an Standing IRT to consider the issue.  If you read the Policy and IMplementation Working group Final Report, there is a full discussion of this issue and a full analysis of how various issues came up in the 2012 round. This is how the existing mechanisms such as GNSO INput, GNSO Guidance, and GNSO EPDP came into existence.

Jeff Neuman (Overall Co-chair): @Kathy - nothing will be dismissed; but if people in the group believe tht the comments raised mischaracterize what was in the report, then (i) we should make sure the group clarifies what it meant, (ii) we go back to the objector and explain what was intended; (iii) find out from the objector if there is any room for compromise. 

2.2.2.3.4 (line 32):

-- #1 ALAC -- concerns, new idea; refer both to full WG re: more extensive deliberations required on standing IRT; separate process outside of the WG's public comment process is warranted.

ACTION: Go to the ALAC liaison to see what they mean by a separate process.

-- #2 BC -- agreement.

-- #3 RySG -- concerns, new idea; refer both to the full WG re: risk in review panel is that it might not contain the experience/expertise; discussion is required to ensure that members of the panel have the expertise. 

From the chat:

Michael Casadevall: @Jeff: it's concerning that when we see objection across the board, and we just move right along; there was a lack of support at all for that, and that comment is again repeated in a bunch of other sections. 

2.2.2.e.5 (line 35):

-- #1 ALAC -- agreement (does not see conflict), new idea; refer new idea to full WG re:  further consideration is warranted on whether all operational changes should be subject to public comment.

-- Not sure this is a new idea?  Is it a concern?

ACTION: Add the NCSG and PIR comments here to the extent they are relevant.

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT:  I think we may need to ask the ALAC liaison to clarify this comment.  COMMENT

-- #2 BC -- agreement (does not conflict).

-- #3 RySG -- agreement, concerns (about representation in GIP and GGP -- does not believe EPDP is appropriate); bring concern to full WG.

-- Re: concerns about representation; it is about having applicants be represented.  Might check the comment to make sure we haven't mischaracterized the comment in the summary.  Check with the liaison.

-- Also, not sure if this shows agreement.

-- #4 IPC -- concerns (suggested first step, e.g. determine if in scope of standing IRT); bring to full WG.

-- Seems the concern is who has the right to determine whether something is within the GNSO's remit or not.  Initial Report says it is the standing panel that makes that decision.

-- See this as agreement or does not conflict.  It is not talking against the idea of a standing panel.

-- Issue of what is the purview of this PDP is something we'll need to tackle down the road.

-- Example: Proxy/Privacy IRT and pressure to go back to policy.  Concerns about IRTs in the community.

Other Comments

-- #1 geoTLD.group

-- #2 dotBERLIN

-- #3 Hamburg Top-Level-Domain GmbH

-- ACTION ITEM: Change all three comments to agreement with the lack of predictability of the previous round.

-- #4 Christopher Wilkinson -- concerns (about focus of the framework and about policy development process).

-- #5 Christopher Wilkinson -- concerns 

b.  2.2.2.2 Clarity of Application Process

2.2.2.2.c.1 (line 1):

-- #8 BC -- agreement, concerns (notes the important of a transparent process involving the community if substantive changes are made) -- Seems like the concern is connected to (or addressed to some degree) by the Predictability Framework in 2.2.2

-- #9 INTA -- agreement, concerns ((specific points raised about the refund and implementation of a "parallel track")

-- Change to a new idea, from a concern.

-- #10 Valideus -- agreement, concerns (statement that parallel process should be scoped/implemented in advance of round) 

Start the next meeting with 2.2.2.e.1.