[Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan
Donna.Austin at team.neustar
Wed Feb 12 22:17:06 UTC 2020
I wholeheartedly support Jim’s suggestion as it relates to face-to-face time at ICANN meetings. We should be advocating to Council (or our Council Liaisons should be doing so on our behalf) that we find as much time as possible at ICANN meetings to knock out these topics, as Jim says.
I agree that there is a point during calls where folks seem to lose interest and drop off, but I feel that in some cases our calls just fall short of allowing us to wrap up discussion to a useful conclusion. So perhaps we can find a balance and building on Jim’s suggestion perhaps we can start with a notice for a 2 hour call with the option available to continue for another hour if determined by the Chair and the group that it would be productive to do so.
Neustar, Inc. / Senior Policy Manager, Registry Solutions
Mobile: +1 310 890 9655
donna.austin at team.neustar<mailto:donna.austin at team.neustar> / Website: home.neustar<http://www.home.neustar/>
Follow Neustar: LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/5349> / Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/neustar>
Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this email message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jim Prendergast
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:19 AM
To: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan
Jeff and Cheryl
Thanks for the updated workplan and the chance to provide feedback. It presents a clear, organized way to look at the path ahead. A tad intimidating, but knowing where we are going and when we are going there is helpful.
I applaud the shift from aspirational timelines to what I would say is a worst case scenario timeline. It will hopefully avoid having to go back to Council and ask for further extensions.
I also agree with Jeff’s assessment on Thursday’s call that there are probably areas where we can make up time and accelerate what is in the workplan.
As to your suggestion about the need for extended calls at some point in April and further down the line, I share the concerns of others with how effective those will be. As others pointed out on the call – doing a meeting for that length, in one stretch can be taxing. My experience is that this exacerbated in an online environment. I recall we had some 3 hour calls when we operating in WTs and the productivity dropped significantly after the 90-120 minute mark. We were left with the leaders of the call essentially speaking to themselves. Not a productive use of time.
My concern only increases when these calls fall in the middle of the night, which theoretically will happen for everyone at some point. It is simply not realistic to expect participants to commit to 4 hour meetings after putting in a full day’s work elsewhere.
We also have to consider the increased burden this puts on our ICANN support team. As I understand, several people are already playing double duty and I’m worried about the impact 4 hour calls will have on them. I’m sure there is a lot that goes into prepping and following up on a call so it’s more than just a 4 hour commitment to them. The policy support team goes to great lengths to support us and others and that “no” is not in their vocabulary so I’m hoping people consider this on their behalf.
As an alternative I would suggest two possible paths – 1) take advantage of the ICANN meetings where a critical mass of WT participants will be in the same room to try and knock out these topics. 2) for some topics, extend some calls to two hours and see how that goes. Two weeks of 2 hour calls = 5 - 90 minute calls instead of 4.
Feedback on the timeline itself
For ICANN 67, which is only 4 weeks away – we have “topics of interest GAC; areas where recs potentially conflict with GAC advice.” – How will this work? I don’t see how the GAC can react to recommendations when it’s clear from the timeline that many of the issues the GAC will probably be interested in (community applications, applicant support, registrant protections and Auctions) are not set to be addressed until after Cancun. Does the GAC know they need to have this ready for Cancun? As hard as they try, speed is not their forte.
Also for ICANN67 – “GAC Advice” I’m assuming that refers to 2012 round advice. Has leadership considered ways to try and get early warnings of new and future advice from the GAC so we can head that off and avoid the long protracted process we saw last round with the ICANN Board and GAC going back and forth? People chuckled when I suggested that Sub Pro request GAC advice be finalized before the application window but what that would do is create a much more predicable environment for applicants and avoid that Board/GAC standoff. As with WT5, I think we need to find ways to bring the GAC into this now so we don’t have surprises like we did in 2012.
Feedback on specific dates as they may cause scheduling/participation issues
April 9 - major Holiday across Europe
April 13 - major Holiday across Europe
May 4 and 7 – GDD Summit
May 21 another major Holiday across most of Europe
May 26 – depending on time in UTC, may be a major holiday in US (May 25).
June 29 and July 2 – immediately after ICANN68 which we historically avoid.
Thanks for considering.
The Galway Strategy Group
From: Steve Chan <steve.chan at icann.org<mailto:steve.chan at icann.org>>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2020 6:23 PM
To: Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
Subject: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Updated Work Plan
Dear Jim, WG Members,
Please find the latest version of the work plan here as a Google doc (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJVK7FoI$>) and attached as PDF. You can also find these resources on the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJJmNMnIO$>
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jim Prendergast <jim at GALWAYSG.COM<mailto:jim at GALWAYSG.COM>>
Date: Friday, February 7, 2020 at 2:19 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: "gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed agenda - New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG - Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC
Thanks Julie. Any sense of when the draft work plan that was presented on the call yesterday will be distributed?
On Feb 7, 2020, at 3:49 PM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
Please find below the proposed agenda for the call on Monday, 10 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes:
1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest
2. Review draft final recommendations – see attached Working Document and here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing__;!!N14HnBHF!oV4IiQzMyRqd-_wtrw7ftdlN88jGBM2yXAkDtS1ME3y_V_3QNS2U0uy7kgnJJDLO-kDT$>
* 2.2.3 Applications Assessed in Rounds (brief continued discussion – page 20)
* 2.2.6 RSP Pre-Approval (page 20)
If you need a dial out or would like to submit an apology, please email gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>.
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg