[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Apologies and Notes from Listening to call (Long Note)
Javier Rua
javrua at gmail.com
Thu Jul 2 15:30:14 UTC 2020
Hope Angel recovers quick. Dogs are family. Period.
As you heard, call was definitely highly participatory and very productive.
WG is clearly moving forward at a good pace!
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:26 AM Jeff Neuman <jeff at jjnsolutions.com> wrote:
> I want to first apologize for missing the call last night. My dog “Angel”
> had a run in with my younger daughter’s home baked chocolate cake. And our
> “Angel” used her paw to knock the cake plate, cover, cake and all on to the
> floor to help herself to a tasty dessert. For those of you that know what
> chocolate cake does to dogs, its not pretty. Needless to say, without a
> phone (but luckily with a mask), I hopped in the car with the dog and got
> to Animal Hospital. All is good now, but dog has a nasty “hangover” today.
>
>
>
> I listened to the call this morning: (Huge Thanks to Cheryl and Steve for
> covering my absence)
>
>
>
> *Dissenting Views / Minority Reports*
>
> On the concept of Dissenting Views, I think ultimately you all got to the
> answer which is that for the *Draft Final Report*, we are including the
> concepts in the deliberation/rationale section though not official
> statements or minority reports from the dissenters. For example, we may
> state in the rationale “A few Working Group members did not agree with A, B
> and C because of {List general reasons}.” But there will not be actual
> Minority Statements issued by those that disagree with the Working Group.
> Those Minority Reports will ONLY be including in the FINAL REPORT *after
> a Consensus Call*.
>
>
>
> This is why we have been asking everyone to review not just Section (a) of
> each sub-part ( recommendations/implementation guidance sections), but also
> section (b) (rationale) for each Sub-part.
>
>
>
> As Steve mentioned during the call:
>
> 1. The issues in the “Cant Live With” comments from Justine and the 2
> other At-Large Members were already considered by Work Track 5 in their
> deliberations. This is why we do not need to summarize these new comments
> in either the Work Track 5 section or elsewhere in our report. If Justine
> and the 2 other at large members wish to submit this as a public comment to
> the Draft Final Report, they are free to do so and/or if they want to
> include it in a Minority Report AFTER the consensus call IN THE FNAL REPORT
> (later this year), they may elect to do so.
> 2. Other issues raised by Working Group members previously in other
> sections have already been included in deliberations/rationale sections.
> The reason they are is because they were based on new issues thoroughly
> discussed by the Working Group.
>
>
>
> *Private Resolution of Contention Sets*: Thanks Jim and Paul for
> submitting your proposals and summarizing them on the call. And thanks to
> Cheryl for “tabling” the topic (In the non-American way). We will discuss
> these both (as well as the responses) next week.
>
>
>
> *Predictability Framework*
>
> A couple of points:
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. *Council Role in Situation B*
> 1. The GNSO Council always maintains supervisory authority over
> the SPIRT.
> 2. That said, for Non-Minor Operational Changes are not intended to
> go to the GNSO Council for their approval. The GNSO Council would have a
> right to object to the solution, but it was not intended to require GNSO
> Council approval. As Steve mentioned during the call, if they are true
> Operational Issues, the GNSO Council technically has no jurisdiction over
> the issue. More importantly, the GNSO Council does not have the expertise
> that is required to solve the Operational Issues. And of course this would
> bring the program to a halt.
>
> i. The
> purpose of all of the Predictability Framework is to have a predictable
> process to resolve issues that arise after the publication of the Guidebook
> and to ensure that ICANN staff gets some advice from the SPIRT on
> Operational changes.
>
> ii. The SPIRT
> Team is intended to be a representative body of *experts* on operational
> issues.
>
> iii. The GNSO
> Council does not have that expertise nor do they represent the interests of
> New gTLD Applicants
>
> iv. And
> remember, if there is a policy impact, then it is no longer in Category B,
> but rather Category C.
>
>
>
> 1. *Change Log*: This came up initially to address the fact that
> Categories A and B do not go to the GNSO Council for *approval*.
> Again, we can talk about whether the GNSO Council could object, but it
> should not have any sort of approval right of the Operational Changes.
>
>
>
> 1. *Examples*
>
>
>
> 1. ICANN appoints a new provider of Pre-Delegation Testing. The new
> provider’s system requires the use of certain authentication mechanisms
> that are proprietary in nature and therefore could require back-end
> operators to incur some development in configuring their systems to build
> this one off solution. This type of change could cause both development
> time and money for back-end service providers and therefore is a non-minor
> change.
>
> i. ICANN
> Org presents this change to the SPIRT to collaborate on a solution.
>
> ii. Together
> the SPIRT and ICANN Org develop a solution that requires the new provider
> to develop an open-source API that is easily accessible by back-end
> providers and saves significant time and money.
>
> iii. The SPIRT
> Team recommends sending out notice to all applicants to inform them of the
> change and to see if there are objections from any of the applicants.
>
>
>
> 1. After all applications are submitted, ICANN changes its Naming
> Services Portal to have the ability to add Applicants and Applications into
> its work flow. ICANN now wants to require that ALL communications with
> applicants now go through this new portal. Because of the switchover to
> this new portal, it turns out that the portal requires manual re-entry of
> all application sections by applicants. In addition, the cutover will
> require a hiatus of 4 weeks to the program.
>
> i. ICANN
> Org presents this change to the SPIRT to collaborate on a solution.
>
> ii. Together
> the SPIRT and ICANN figure out a mechanism that would enable a smooth
> migration of applications to the new system, but perhaps without some of
> the normal NSP functionality to start with. This would save both time and
> money and only cause a 1 week stop to the program/
>
> iii. Together
> the SPIRT and ICANN Org create a document to send out to all applicants
> describing the changes, the impact and asking for additional feedback.
>
>
>
> As you can see from these examples, they are not policy but are truly
> operational. In 2012, this would have been done by ICANN alone without any
> consultation of members of the community and applicants were forced to
> accept the changes and absorb all of the costs and delays. A SPIRT team of
> operational experts could add significant value. But the GNSO Council
> generally would not.
>
>
>
> The GNSO Council would be informed through the Change Log of what was
> happening. It would receive information on all of the “decisions”. And
> perhaps we can create a right to object. But putting the recommendations
> for Category B to the Council does not make sense. The Council has no
> expertise in these matters. Its akin to asking a Lawyer to fix an
> issue with your toilet or sink. Sure there may be a couple lawyers that
> could do it, but I would venture to say most of them are likely not as
> skilled Plumbers and requiring a set of lawyers to approve a plumbers
> solution would not make sense.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeff Neuman
>
> JJN Solutions, LLC
>
> Founder & CEO
> +1.202.549.5079
> Vienna, VA 22180
>
> Jeff at JJNSolutions.com
> http://jjnsolutions.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200702/09c6ffdb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 113 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200702/09c6ffdb/image001-0001.png>
More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg
mailing list