View Source

ACTION ITEM: Ensure comments/questions raised by Jamie Baxter (about the process and rules around letters of opposition) are considered/integrated into the matrix of public comments.

ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to prepare write-up of letters of opposition process.

ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to redistribute work plan. [COMPLETE – attached and available here: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=58001972]

Notes:

Notes/Action Items

1. Agenda review/SOIs

Maxim Alzoba (FAITID): I was elected as one of GNSO Councils from RySG (to be seated from the end of AGM in October)

2. Role of liaisons

-- Questions and some confusion about liaisons on behalf of SO/AC/SG/Cs ("groups"). Most were comfortable with the concept of a liaison, but not responsibility to speak on behalf of their "group" for consensus purposes.

-- Confirmed, looking for liaisons and potentially alternates, to help with reviewing public comment responses and answering questions about those questions.

-- Role is limited to understanding position(s) of the "group" and socializing new positions of groups.

-- No role involved in the consensus determination process.

-- Donna and Keith spoke with Jeff and Cheryl about this process. Believe it makes sense; thinking back to CC2, it helps to have a liaison to resolve questions and confusion. Same purpose for Initial Report comments seems to make sense.

- Still lingering concerns how the consensus determination process will be run. Will the liaisons play a role? Suggestion to send note about future consensus determination process.

- While it is primarily qualitative, there is some limited quantitative aspect.

- Leadership to come back with additional detail about the consensus process.

-- Liaison role is helpful to convey positions from regional organizations/groups (e.g., from the ccNSO).

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Hi Jeff. Just looking for confirmation that this is not a change to new measure of "qualitative consensus".

Answer: No intention to change the definition. The PDP Guidelines offer chairs a fair amount of flexibility to determine initial consensus levels. Initial levels will be put forward to the group (e.g., on list) for discussion and are subject to change as necessary. Iterative process, as discussed in PDP Guidelines.

3. SAC090

-- Reviewing section 3, Findings, from SAC090 available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/sac-090-en.pdf

-- Reviewing section 4, Recommendations

-- Reviewing SAC090 review document, will be shared with WG immediately after call. Simply an introduction at this point and a preview about the work that has been done so far.

Steve Chan: Columns 1-6 are pulled directly from an ICANN Board briefing paper: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/bm/briefing-materials-2-redacted-23jun18-en.pdf [icann.org]

-- Emphasis is to review columns 7-9.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION for consideration when received by email: If Board has formally adopted Recommendation 4 - no round should proceed until all name collision issues resolved - how do we, as Sub Pro have to treat the Board's adoption of this recommendation, which is not consistent with the preliminary recommendations in the Initial Report? QUESTION

-- Board adoption may not necessarily require absolute adherence to SSAC Advice.

Rubens Kuhl: Board acceptance of advice means different things to different people. Board has adopted GAC Advice that I would rather considered as being rejected rather than adopted...

4. Initial Report next steps

-- Comment period was extended to 26 September.

-- ICANN staff will work to collate comments, divide by topic by three groups.

-- Idea is to divide into three groupings, related to the organization in the Initial Report.

-- Intention is to discuss this topic in greater detail on 17 Sept call

-- Purpose of groups is intended to be limited to reviewing the public comment received and to make recommendations to the full WG.

-- Sub Groups will likely begin initial, introductory meeting at ICANN63 and begin in earnest after ICANN63.

-- Structure-wise, which leaders will support the new sub groups? Intent is to use existing co-leads (from WTs 1-4).

-- Proposed: Sub Group A: Jeff/Robin; Sub Group B: Rubens/Christa; Sub Group C: Cheryl/Michael

Tom Dale: As the CCT Review Final report was deivered to the Board 2 days ago, how will it be handled by this PDP?

ACTION ITEM: Call for volunteers for sub-groups will be initiated next week.

Justine Chew: <Question>@jJeff, do you foresee if a group small "l" liaison being expected to participate in all 3 subgroups?</Question>

Answer: No, more important to be available to be available to convey questions.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: Will all WG members participate in Consensus Call even if they did not participate in the Sub Group: Should "groups" within ICANN designate a liaison for each Sub grouP. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the liasison could be effective in all SubGroups.

Answer: Yes. The purpose of the sub groups are to review the comments and to make sure the full WG understands if there are patterns in the comments.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT: Suggest you ask for one liaison per SubGroup - otherwise extremely difficult for liaison to get meaningful understanding of public comment and pose question to the group

Answer: Groups are welcome to do so, great idea. Understand if not possible.

ACTION ITEM: Send Sub Group breakdown to WG

5. Supplemental Report (sections 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5)

Section 1.3: Role of Application Comment

-- Reviewing document.

-- How are letters of opposition considered in the context of CPE? It seems like the period for submitting letters of opposition is potentially too long.

-- Does this topic relate to CPE (in the Initial Report)? Are there any other instances where a letter of oppistion is used?

-- Letters of opposition were not discussed during CPE and do not seem to fit perfectly here in Application Comment.

Rubens Kuhl: Jamie, I believe this is something the process for prioritizing community applications, in its implementation guidance, should define.

ACTION ITEM: Ensure comments/questions raised by Jamie Baxter (about the process and rules around letters of opposition) are considered/integrated into the matrix of public comments.

-- Suggestion from Jamie to ask about fairness and what the justification is/was for having a longer period of time for CPE application comments.

Justine Chew: Perhaps we should provide a brief description of what happened in 2012 round to lay context for questions on letters of opposition?

Michael Casadevall: COMMENT: As a follow-up it should also be clear how letters of opposition are handled once received and influence decisions

ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to prepare write-up of letters of opposition process.

Section 1.4: Change Requests

-- Reviewing report

Michael Casadevall: COMMENT: How do we handle if a joint venture unexpectedly terminates; can it/should it trigger a re-evaluation?

-- Helpful to discuss on list.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION: By when is Leadership looking for input on these Supplemental Report sections and when would they be published for comment?QUESTION

Answer: Suggested timeline in work plan. Intention is to go back over sections and revisions from comments (mailing list/calls). For sections 1.1 and 1.2, comment needed soon to be integrated into document.

ACTION ITEM: ICANN staff to redistribute work plan.

Work plan available here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/90768940/SubPro%20Work%20Plan_24Aug2018.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1535148916000&api=v2

Justine Chew: <Comment>: In the eg of SAS, if competing applications are allowed to amend their string selection, should that original string selected still be available for application in the next round or subsequently?</comment>

Section 1.5: Registrar Support for New gTLDs

-- Will be discussed on the next call.

6. AOB