051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
hopefully a few more will trickle in
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
We did also receive 5 (I believe Terri said) apologies
Contractual Compliance comments here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS_F-5t4sU/edit#gid=2018104401
We have 2 back-to-back calls next week at 20:00 UTC on Monday and Tuesday?
Staff will send out a calendar update on that then
Having a breach notice published by ICANN is a penalty.
Interesting suggestion but what can we feasibly do at this stage?
I kinda feel like we are meddling in things that are bigger than this PDP.
These parameters beyond the current dashboard material but added to the revcommendation on type of parameter @Christine?
Happy to provide input to revised recommendation / IG
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
Hello everyone.Extremely sorry for delay
I check the ICANN Org dashboard from time to time - I haven't seen the element of standards and thresholds applied by CC in assessing / processing complaints yet.
Google doc here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mkfwWZtyGAOdIbN3LsgNtDnVs6ehPmgrONzl85gWD2I/edit#gid=1091535370
but there are other changes we have proposed for .brands, correct? beyond the 100 domains?
Spec 13 registries are exempt from the Code of Conduct.
They can designate up to 3 registrars.
if the support is still not there well... … … ….
Late in the game to be excluding folks from processes.
I am sure more than @Paul is listening ;-)
Doc here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=612369294
They are complicated, trust me
variant sorry always terrible at spelling
It sounds like we already accepted the commenter suggestions.
rubens do we have the skill set to even discuss meaningfully??
where *we* is thw WG
@Rubens, do you think we should accept this comment?
The one on the screen only mentions one thing not adopted which is translation.
@Paul, I believe that besides language, we already did.
I think we let registries choose if they include IDN tables that if don't approved, registry prefers not to have to the TLD.
Very similar to a registry service.
I think it’s 39.5, but hopefully I’m understanding the right connection.
In 2012 there were no RZ-LGRs set at the time, and that didn't prevent the evaluation.
So how was evaluation done in 2012+?
We discussed this at some length didn't we? I understand ICANN Board's desire for efficiency, but weren't we balancing out others who may be caught up in contention sets or want to file objections?
indeed we did @Paul
They are a good thing to have, and the WG deferred to RZ-LGRs wherever they apply. But when they are not there, no reason to stop evaluation.
That was the rationale indeed #Rubens a to the extent possible
FWIW, for a string in a script that is not part of the RZ-LGR, there is no guarantee it will ever be valid
pretty edge IMO
There are 18 scripts in RZ-LGR now
More The Edge than U2. Sorry, its late
I kind of defer to the subject matter experts on this as its a specialized subject matter beyond my area of focus.
Yes, it sounds pretty much.
So the bottom line is, if RZ-LGRs exists for a script, that applies; if one does not exists then a set of evaluation criteria is established? By whom?
We have a foot-note in the report that variants of current gTLDs are not covered.
Also out of our control anyway
Similar to name collisions: there is a framework, if that is replaced, then it's replaced.
Purpose of that
To be a meaningful measure then staff commitment comparison to other non IDNs need to be looked at as well NEW and yes Implementation
We covered those.
We simply didn't agree with ICANN recs.
But all of them were on the table.
Some words for the comments need to be added
Not correct :)
Is it a PDP or and EPDP
scoping for the launch the when is TBD
What are you suggesting Jeff? That our work needs to be done before the ePDP launches? Or that the ePDP's work needs to be done before the next Round kicks off?
Jeff - you are not asking for the answer to that in the next 5 minutes, are you? That's a pretty heafty question.
My take is similar to name collisions: there is a framework, if that is replaced, then it's replaced.
@Jeff, @Cheryl, sure I'm not saying that. I'm just asking to be alerted on what might potentially be affected by the new PDP on IDNs.
YUP far better said then my response @Rubens
Jeff waits to the end of the call and scares us all awake. :-)
Thank you @jeff, I guess my use of the word "conflict" worried a few people here.
Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO.
its not the end of this topic. its TBD....
Lots done today and SO thank you all!!!
Jeff is on fire tonight
Thursday, 19 November 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes
1500 UTC on Thursday
Better late than never!