Page History

Versions Compared

Key

This line was added.
This line was removed.
Formatting was changed.

...

Note
Notes/ Action Items 1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI) - No SOI updates 2. Agenda review and length of calls - No proposed updates to the agenda - This call is scheduled for 90 minutes - No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length 3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference - One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names - Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer? - Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection - In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections." From the chat: Liz Williams: @Kristina...you are absolutely right. We must not start with objections. We must start with positives and a very open funnel and work downwards to dealing with objections which may be a very very long way in the future. Robin Gross: What Kristina recommends makes sense. Better to start with defining geonames and then drilling down into the objection process for them. Sara Bockey: Agree with Robin and Kristina wafa Dahmani (AtLarge-ccNSO): +1 kristina - Note on the Terms of Reference Google Doc: the beginning of the document includes a framework for handling suggestions, including those that were included and not included in the current draft. This text will be omitted in the final text of the Terms of Reference. - The co-leads reviewed all comments and tried to work them in where possible, but if the comments were beyond that which is possible in the current context of a PDP WG frame, they were not incorporated into the current draft. From the chat: Liz Williams: @Martin...what I was saying was that we should be focusing on broader elements in this context as we know full well that Terms of Reference limitations we see issues raised time and time again outside of the PDP if people perceive their points are not heard. -Question - in Problem Statement paragraph 1, what do the " . . . " mean in the quoted text? Answer - this is a long quote that was cut down. - Comment regarding the introductory language about changes that may need to be made to 2007 policy. If there is not consensus recommendation, are we putting in the Terms of Reference that we are using the 2007 policy as the point of reference or as the AGB was implemented in 2012? From the chat: Paul McGrady: The GNSO Council Policy stands until it is replaced with new Policy. Intervening implementation that ignores Policy doesn't make the Policy go away. Robin Gross: Completely agree, Paul. Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul Alan Greenberg: I thought the basis, unless we explicitly change or revert to the original policy, is the Applicant Guidebook Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is my understanding @Alan Yes - We have policy in place that was approved in 2007. The AGB included some changes that did not go through a policy process. If the AGB elements are elements that the WT supports, this would need to be added to the policy for subsequent procedures. - Some WT members suggested adjusting the text quoted from the Subsequent Procedures WG Charter. One member suggested that "overriding expisting policy principles" should not be included. The Co-leaders clarified that the language quoted from the Charter in the Problem Statement are taken verbatim from the Charter, therefore it is not possible to adjust this text. However, some of the quoted text can be trimmed out if it is not relevant. - Input from a WT member -- the GNSO policy remains GNSO policy unless it is replaced with new GNSO policy, regardless of intervening implementation. From the chat: Liz Williams: @Paul & Robyn yes I agree however, we know that implementation substantially changed the way policy was actually used in the process. That is what we need to clean up; make more objective; ensure that all applicants know what they are doing; all evaluators are clear; ensure, particularly, when and how the Board and GAC get involved in any application evaluation. It is a grave error to repeat the confusion where the board becomes the evaluation panel. Liz Williams: It is double trouble that the GAC, in the context of the discussion here, becomes a quasi evaluation panel, even though we all know governments may have legitimate public policy interests Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Here's a proposed revision of Para. 1 (Scope) that addresses my concern. Explanatory note will follow: Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding geographic names at the top level, including both ASCII and IDN form. WT5 will (i) consider what constitutes a geographic name in the specific context of the New gTLD Program; (ii) analyze relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; and (iii) take into account previous work related to geographic names that the community may have completed. Alan Greenberg: Can we have a ruling from the PDP Co-Chairs, we have to irreconcilable positions being proposed here as to what the default it. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Explanatory note: : I intentionally used Geographic Names Review because it is the umbrella section within the AGB (2.2.1.4) within which a number of more specific sections – such as Geographic Names Requiring Government Support (2.2.1.4.2) and the Review Procedure for Geographic Names (2.2.1.4.4.). To address my concern about the previous “Potential Grounds for Objection,” I intentionally used Objection Procedures, which is the title of the AGB module that covers objections. Liz Williams: @Kristina...nice work. Tight language and allows for inevitable broader discussion. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Liz: Thanks. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Kristina that helps us capture your point and post a possible solution Robin Gross: Avri was pretty clear in Abu Dhabi at our WT5 kick-off meeting that existing gtld policy stands unless and until this WT comes to consensus to change it. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): +1Alan Steve Chan: @Hadia, as noted by Greg, the language in quotes is direct text from the overall PDP WG's charter. Greg Shatan: Once again, this is the Charter you are objecting to. Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. I like the proposed language. Justine Chew: @Kristina, good writing. Robin Gross: I think Kristina's language proposal is a good way forward also. - One WT members suggested that if the implementation from the last round incorrectly implemented the policy, this is different from a case where we might want to make adjustments going forward in terms of policy or implementation. Do we want to spend additional time focusing on policy that did not end up being implemented? - In our deliberations, we could have a matrix with the 2007 policy, the implementation, the reason policy and implementation are different (to the extent they are different), and the recommendation going forward from the WG, which could be in line with the earlier policy, the implementation, or something different from either of these. Regardless of what the group recommends, the recommendation going forward needs to be clear. - One member suggested that for any issue, if we don't make an explicit decision to change anything, the AGB stands. It is much more detailed than the original policy. From the chat: Peter Van Roste - CENTR: +1 @Nick's comment. How have the other WTs defined their scope? Liz Williams: Can we ask the question, through the chair, if we can proceed with Kristina's language? Constant revisiting of the preparatory work is not getting us to where we need to be. Greg Shatan: We have to abide by the Charter whether or not it’s quoted in this document. Liz Williams: @Greg...good point but the charter is also like a map that we keep at our left hand whilst we make progress... Greg Shatan: Kristina’s language needs to be amended to include reference to the 2007 Policy. Marita Moll: That (such a matrix) sure would help those of us who have not seen the various versions Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Greg: I didn't intentionally exclude the charter language. I was working from the current scope para 1. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1 Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): (to Alan) Jeff Neuman: Liz, the charter is not supposed to be a map. That will be the work plan The charter is the umbrella under which a work plan will be created to act as that map Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): + 1 Alan Yrjö Länsipuro: +1 to Alan Jeff Neuman: Lets please try to make some progress on the language itself as opposed to trying to introduce a new philosophy about charters. Thanks :) Greg Shatan: Disagree with Alan. Greg Shatan: Agree with our Charter, which should be dispositive. -Review of Kristina's proposed text -- any feedback on this proposed text? From the chat: Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet, RySG): happy with that scope wording which Martin just read out Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: Thnank you Kristina - very helpful Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Chat comments re @Kristina's draft text were by my reading all supportive - One member stated that the 2007 policy should be included in the scope statement to put the problem statement and scope section in harmony. Chat excerpt: Liz Williams: @ Nick W-S...agree with you which means we have some helpful scope and Kristina's language Paul McGrady: Disagree with Alan as well. While we should evaluate the Applicant Guidebook, it needs to be evaluated against the standing GNSO Policy and in light of the geo names issues that arose in Round 1. Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): good point Greg Liz Williams: @Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text Liz Williams: @Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation. Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Kristina....and there we have it :-) Justine Chew: +1 Kristina Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Kristina Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina Alan Greenberg: I didn't say we should not re-evaluate. I said if we do not make any change, the new "applicant guidebook" we keep the language of the old one. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): showing what is out of "scope" for our work Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Noted @Peter , but do we need to explain more clearly in the text then or not? Alfredo Calderon: @Susan, I agree with 'remit' to replace jurisdiction. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): okayyyy Greg Shatan: Must be that nasty American language. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): @Susan "remit" could well work - Suggestion to change "leads" to "leaders" as the term for those in leadership positions for Work Track 5. Chat excerpt: Alan Greenberg: I think that we can safely change LEADS to LEADERS without major debate. Justine Chew: The Work Track Co-Leaders -- what was agreed to in structuring this WT5? Justine Chew: I ask because even in the Agenda pod the term "Co-Leads" is used. Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): I object! I like “leads”!!! :) Steve Chan: @Justine, we have consistently used the term co-leads for the other four work tracks. I think using co-leads for WT5 was just considered a natural extension of that practice. Justine Chew: @Steve, thanks for reply on precedent. Janvier NGNOULAYE: But the WT5 can give its content to the word "co-lead" based on the scope we want to cover - Question - why is the text about jurisdiction of SO/ACs included in this document under Scope? - In previous discussions, there were issues raised around the distinction between a gTLD and a ccTLD and the remit of the GNSO and ccNSO. This text was included to make clear that these are not issues for this WG to address. - Feedback - in one perspective, the decision-making methodology is too closely tied to the GNSO PDP methodology and not influenced enough by the CCWG decision making methodology.

Note

Notes/ Action Items

1. Welcome; Updates on Statement of Interests (SOI)

- No SOI updates

2. Agenda review and length of calls

- No proposed updates to the agenda

- This call is scheduled for 90 minutes

- No objections raised to making future calls 90 minutes in length

3. 2nd reading of the draft Terms of Reference

- One perspective –IDN’s are mentioned briefly in the TOR document, but we need to be aware of the fact that IDNs will be used more broadly in the future, and that they are an important part of the discussion regarding geographic names

- Clarifying question - sentence 1 in the Scope, regarding “Grounds for Objection” - there is no section in the Applicant Guidebook that specifically speaks to grounds for objection with respect to geographic names. To what does this text refer?

- Additional input - We need to focus first on the affirmative: what is a geo name, how are geo names reviewed, etc and then go into potential grounds for objection

- In cleaning up the draft Terms of Reference, we should make clear in that sentence that there is no section in the 2012 AGB "Potential Grounds for Objections."

From the chat:

Liz Williams: @Kristina...you are absolutely right. We must not start with objections. We must start with positives and a very open funnel and work downwards to dealing with objections which may be a very very long way in the future.

Robin Gross: What Kristina recommends makes sense. Better to start with defining geonames and then drilling down into the objection process for them.

Sara Bockey: Agree with Robin and Kristina

wafa Dahmani (AtLarge-ccNSO): +1 kristina

- Note on the Terms of Reference Google Doc: the beginning of the document includes a framework for handling suggestions, including those that were included and not included in the current draft. This text will be omitted in the final text of the Terms of Reference.

- The co-leads reviewed all comments and tried to work them in where possible, but if the comments were beyond that which is possible in the current context of a PDP WG frame, they were not incorporated into the current draft.

From the chat:

Liz Williams: @Martin...what I was saying was that we should be focusing on broader elements in this context as we know full well that Terms of Reference limitations we see issues raised time and time again outside of the PDP if people perceive their points are not heard.

-Question - in Problem Statement paragraph 1, what do the " . . . " mean in the quoted text? Answer - this is a long quote that was cut down.

- Comment regarding the introductory language about changes that may need to be made to 2007 policy. If there is not consensus recommendation, are we putting in the Terms of Reference that we are using the 2007 policy as the point of reference or as the AGB was implemented in 2012?

From the chat:

Paul McGrady: The GNSO Council Policy stands until it is replaced with new Policy. Intervening implementation that ignores Policy doesn't make the Policy go away.

Robin Gross: Completely agree, Paul.

Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul

Alan Greenberg: I thought the basis, unless we explicitly change or revert to the original policy, is the Applicant Guidebook

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): That is my understanding @Alan Yes

- We have policy in place that was approved in 2007. The AGB included some changes that did not go through a policy process. If the AGB elements are elements that the WT supports, this would need to be added to the policy for subsequent procedures.

- Some WT members suggested adjusting the text quoted from the Subsequent Procedures WG Charter. One member suggested that "overriding expisting policy principles" should not be included. The Co-leaders clarified that the language quoted from the Charter in the Problem Statement are taken verbatim from the Charter, therefore it is not possible to adjust this text. However, some of the quoted text can be trimmed out if it is not relevant.

- Input from a WT member -- the GNSO policy remains GNSO policy unless it is replaced with new GNSO policy, regardless of intervening implementation.

From the chat:

Liz Williams: @Paul & Robyn yes I agree however, we know that implementation substantially changed the way policy was actually used in the process. That is what we need to clean up; make more objective; ensure that all applicants know what they are doing; all evaluators are clear; ensure, particularly, when and how the Board and GAC get involved in any application evaluation. It is a grave error to repeat the confusion where the board becomes the evaluation panel.

Liz Williams: It is double trouble that the GAC, in the context of the discussion here, becomes a quasi evaluation panel, even though we all know governments may have legitimate public policy interests

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Here's a proposed revision of Para. 1 (Scope) that addresses my concern. Explanatory note will follow: Work Track 5 will focus on developing proposed recommendations regarding geographic names at the top level, including both ASCII and IDN form. WT5 will (i) consider what constitutes a geographic name in the specific context of the New gTLD Program; (ii) analyze relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures; and (iii) take into account previous work related to geographic names that the community may have completed.

Alan Greenberg: Can we have a ruling from the PDP Co-Chairs, we have to irreconcilable positions being proposed here as to what the default it.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): Explanatory note: : I intentionally used Geographic Names Review because it is the umbrella section within the AGB (2.2.1.4) within which a number of more specific sections – such as Geographic Names Requiring Government Support (2.2.1.4.2) and the Review Procedure for Geographic Names (2.2.1.4.4.). To address my concern about the previous “Potential Grounds for Objection,” I intentionally used Objection Procedures, which is the title of the AGB module that covers objections.

Liz Williams: @Kristina...nice work. Tight language and allows for inevitable broader discussion.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Liz: Thanks.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Thanks Kristina that helps us capture your point and post a possible solution

Robin Gross: Avri was pretty clear in Abu Dhabi at our WT5 kick-off meeting that existing gtld policy stands unless and until this WT comes to consensus to change it.

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): +1Alan

Steve Chan: @Hadia, as noted by Greg, the language in quotes is direct text from the overall PDP WG's charter.

Greg Shatan: Once again, this is the Charter you are objecting to.

Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina. I like the proposed language.

Justine Chew: @Kristina, good writing.

Robin Gross: I think Kristina's language proposal is a good way forward also.

- One WT members suggested that if the implementation from the last round incorrectly implemented the policy, this is different from a case where we might want to make adjustments going forward in terms of policy or implementation. Do we want to spend additional time focusing on policy that did not end up being implemented?

- In our deliberations, we could have a matrix with the 2007 policy, the implementation, the reason policy and implementation are different (to the extent they are different), and the recommendation going forward from the WG, which could be in line with the earlier policy, the implementation, or something different from either of these. Regardless of what the group recommends, the recommendation going forward needs to be clear.

- One member suggested that for any issue, if we don't make an explicit decision to change anything, the AGB stands. It is much more detailed than the original policy.

From the chat:

Peter Van Roste - CENTR: +1 @Nick's comment. How have the other WTs defined their scope?

Liz Williams: Can we ask the question, through the chair, if we can proceed with Kristina's language? Constant revisiting of the preparatory work is not getting us to where we need to be.

Greg Shatan: We have to abide by the Charter whether or not it’s quoted in this document.

Liz Williams: @Greg...good point but the charter is also like a map that we keep at our left hand whilst we make progress...

Greg Shatan: Kristina’s language needs to be amended to include reference to the 2007 Policy.

Marita Moll: That (such a matrix) sure would help those of us who have not seen the various versions

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): @Greg: I didn't intentionally exclude the charter language. I was working from the current scope para 1.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): +1

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): (to Alan)

Jeff Neuman: Liz, the charter is not supposed to be a map. That will be the work plan The charter is the umbrella under which a work plan will be created to act as that map

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): + 1 Alan

Yrjö Länsipuro: +1 to Alan

Jeff Neuman: Lets please try to make some progress on the language itself as opposed to trying to introduce a new philosophy about charters. Thanks :)

Greg Shatan: Disagree with Alan.

Greg Shatan: Agree with our Charter, which should be dispositive.

-Review of Kristina's proposed text -- any feedback on this proposed text?

From the chat:

Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet, RySG): happy with that scope wording which Martin just read out

Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: Thnank you Kristina - very helpful

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Chat comments re @Kristina's draft text were by my reading all supportive

- One member stated that the 2007 policy should be included in the scope statement to put the problem statement and scope section in harmony.

Chat excerpt:

Liz Williams: @ Nick W-S...agree with you which means we have some helpful scope and Kristina's language

Paul McGrady: Disagree with Alan as well. While we should evaluate the Applicant Guidebook, it needs to be evaluated against the standing GNSO Policy and in light of the geo names issues that arose in Round 1.

Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Paul

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): good point Greg

Liz Williams: @Chris...we know full well that the AGB procedures were not right, at the time and in hindsight. We only have to look at the length of time it has taken for the resolution of some applications to know that is the case. We must aim to do better in any subsequent rounds...for the sake of applicants, their supporters and ICANN as an organisation.

Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry): We can include reference to the 2007 GNSO Policy recommendations in scope para 1 by changing my original (ii) to: (ii) analyze (a) 2007 GNSO Policy Recommendations on the Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains; and (b) relevant rules contained in the 2012 Applicant Guidebook, such as the Geographic Names Review procedure, Geographic Names Extended Evaluation, and Objection Procedures;

Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Greg - we can look at referencing the policy principles for 2007 in Kristina's proposed text

Martin Sutton WT5 Co-Lead: @Kristina....and there we have it :-)

Justine Chew: +1 Kristina

Katrin Ohlmer: +1 Kristina

Paul McGrady: +1 Kristina

Alan Greenberg: I didn't say we should not re-evaluate. I said if we do not make any change, the new "applicant guidebook" we keep the language of the old one.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): showing what is *out* of "scope" for our work

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): Noted @Peter , but do we need to explain more clearly in the text then or not?

Alfredo Calderon: @Susan, I agree with 'remit' to replace jurisdiction.

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): okayyyy

Greg Shatan: Must be that nasty American language.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO - PDP Co-Chair): @Susan "remit" could well work

- Suggestion to change "leads" to "leaders" as the term for those in leadership positions for Work Track 5.

Chat excerpt:

Alan Greenberg: I think that we can safely change LEADS to LEADERS without major debate.

Justine Chew: The Work Track Co-Leaders -- what was agreed to in structuring this WT5?

Justine Chew: I ask because even in the Agenda pod the term "Co-Leads" is used.

Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC): I object! I like “leads”!!! :)

Steve Chan: @Justine, we have consistently used the term co-leads for the other four work tracks. I think using co-leads for WT5 was just considered a natural extension of that practice.

Justine Chew: @Steve, thanks for reply on precedent.

Janvier NGNOULAYE: But the WT5 can give its content to the word "co-lead" based on the scope we want to cover

- Question - why is the text about jurisdiction of SO/ACs included in this document under Scope?

- In previous discussions, there were issues raised around the distinction between a gTLD and a ccTLD and the remit of the GNSO and ccNSO. This text was included to make clear that these are not issues for this WG to address.

- Feedback - in one perspective, the decision-making methodology is too closely tied to the GNSO PDP methodology and not influenced enough by the CCWG decision making methodology.

Content

Space Tools

Versions Compared

Old Version 27

New Version 28

Key