Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
19:04
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC.
Julie Bisland
21:07
Next call: Monday, 06 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
Alexander Schubert
23:07
2h is a bit excessive.
Maxim Alzoba
24:20
hello all
Robin Gross
24:42
I honestly don’t see an extra half hour twice a month to be a big deal.
Martin Sutton
24:46
would be useful to see how it does, we are all adjusting to situations
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:49
If you can onky make part of these scheduled longer calls (just like with any length of call) tht is ok,and of course why we have the material(s) from are calls available for review as soon as possible post meeting(s)
Paul McGrady
30:21
I still think a small group effort on that issue is the way to go.
Jamie Baxter
31:01
I thought your suggestion was going in the right direction Anne
Martin Sutton
31:01
+1 Cheryl, we often see part attendance in the regular timed meetings and folks use the recordings and excellent summaries circulayed
Annebeth Lange
31:40
+1 Cheryl
Alexander Schubert
33:14
The zoom linknis usually in all emails
Kavouss Arasteh
33:22
Ifully support that as I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:25
I'm not trying to get changes at all. I am responding to Paul McGrady and Kristine's desire for a change to the existing language. Paul - if you want a small group, I guess it's up to you to convene it. (I thought staff was going to do it.) if you do convene it, please include Jamie Baxter, Kathy Kleiman as well as you and Kristine D.
Alexander Schubert
34:28
If you join via smartphone app: it stores the meeting ID - just click "join meeting" in the app - and type "3" - the app will suggest the meeting.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:29
@Jamie - thanks for your support of the compromise approach on independent research.
Martin Sutton
34:36
thanks Julie, the 15 min reminders are always helpful
tomwdale
35:14
The 15 min reminders are invaluable!
Annebeth Lange
35:41
I agree. When I don’t find the invitation, the reminder saves mes.
Paul McGrady
36:09
@Anne - thanks. Why don't the 5 of schedule a short call to go over what you proposed? It would be great if we could all get on the same page and then present it to the larger WG.
Maxim Alzoba
41:17
what is the reason to wait for three years?
Jim Prendergast
41:22
I would agree with Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:29
That would be a month later then @Anne?
Maxim Alzoba
41:34
it was initial term NCAP was intended to take
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:39
where will the NCAP be by then??
Maxim Alzoba
41:41
or two years
Donna Austin, Chair
41:44
I agree with Maxin's statement.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:48
or even in June?
Maxim Alzoba
42:00
no, it means 2022
Jim Prendergast
42:18
put it in the last spot and if NCAP is not at a point where collaboration works, we move on
Maxim Alzoba
42:34
they have no obligations on time of delivery or delivery at all
Maxim Alzoba
42:43
it is not holistic study
Maxim Alzoba
42:58
what is the reason to relay on unfinished work?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:13
Well noted @Maxim
Robin Gross
43:29
three
Robin Gross
43:33
WT 3
Martin Sutton
43:35
we have some buffer to revisit the topic if any substantial progress is made after the WG discusses later this month
Anne Aikman-Scalese
44:01
THe truth is that the Work Track 4 discussions on the topic of name collisions were exceedingly brief. Study 1 is very informative on the nature of the beast.
Steve Chan
44:07
Link to document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:52
Thx @Steve noting that is not a live link in chat in my zoom
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:09
I have done the update a feew hrs back
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:49
@ Cheryl - In addition, SubGroup B did not actually complete its work on processing public comment in relation to name collisions, did it?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:09
I believe all PC comments were fully analysed and responded to in our charts but perhaps staff can double check @Anne
Julie Bisland
47:46
Testing to see if link works now: Link to document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:43
No @Julie not a live link since my zoom required update
Jeffrey Neuman
50:09
Same with me @Julie...the new update messed it up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:16
obviously I can copy and paste...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:36
Thanks Steve - that change works.
Kathy Kleiman
58:55
can staff highlight "all stages of the process"?
Kathy Kleiman
59:14
Tx!!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:45
Does it also include Objection processes and will it include appeals as we institute those?
Paul McGrady
01:02:51
@Anne - I think that makes sense. The point is the Applicants can apply for what they like minus the handful of objections that are out there and no one should use the process to knock out an application that otherwise passes all objections, etc. just because they just don't like it.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:21
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:04
with other non-applicant rights recognized in the 2012 AGB
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:38
I'd add Workstream 2 reference here
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:28
irp?
Susan Payne
01:09:38
The IO process still relates to perceived third party rights
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:10:23
"Community" is not a party. Yes, please put in the footnote.
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:20
it is between GNSO Council and the Board
Susan Payne
01:14:37
AGB re IO: "In light of this public interest goal, the IndependentObjector is limited to filing objections on the grounds ofLimited Public Interest and Community
Susan Payne
01:14:42
Limited Public Interest Objection – The applied-for gTLDstring is contrary to generally accepted legal norms ofmorality and public order that are recognized underprinciples of international law.Community Objection – There is substantial opposition tothe gTLD application from a significant portion of thecommunity to which the gTLD string may be explicitly orimplicitly targeted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:46
Well noted @Kavouss
Annebeth Lange
01:17:33
Agree with Kavouss, this is unnecc
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:45
IO acts on behalf of the Limited Public Interest, not a third party so the footnote is needed
Annebeth Lange
01:17:45
unnecessary complicated
Julie Hedlund
01:19:09
Move to page 66 in the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Paul McGrady
01:25:07
@Jeff - apologies, but what objections would the cooling off period apply to? All? Some? I think you already said this, but I lost the thread.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:25:33
@Paul - All
Susan Payne
01:25:52
what has this comment got to do with the cooling off period?
Paul McGrady
01:26:16
@Jeff - thanks. I will mirror Kathy "interesting!"
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:34
Julie - could you kindly repost link to doc on screen. Link above goes only to page 17
Susan Payne
01:28:27
would be helpful for those who are commenting if they had read the documents and indeed the AGB
Julie Hedlund
01:28:30
See this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Jamie Baxter
01:30:40
As an applicant that received an objection against our application, I was completely unaware this policy existed. In fact we were required to respond to the objection within a limited period of time.
Jamie Baxter
01:32:27
before a panel was initiated would insinuate a time before any fees get paid though. that was not the case in the 2012 round
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:44
+1
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:59
I would make it upon response
Susan Payne
01:34:02
Paul, that would seem to make a great deal of sense - and would be analogous to treatment of many other proceedings
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:38
+1 Kathy - I think it's appropriate to wait for the response.
Phil Buckingham
01:39:27
+1 Jamie
Paul McGrady
01:41:24
Give peace a (limited and consensual) chance!
Alan Greenberg
01:41:41
Have to leave now. Thanks all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:52
Thanks @Alan
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:00
bye all, need to drop
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:09
After the response s file, there *may* be a cooling off period for compromise or settlement *upon agreement of both parties*
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:05
Natural break point
Paul McGrady
01:43:12
I feel like we moved the ball forward in a positive way today.
Julie Bisland
01:43:21
NEXT CALL: Monday, 06 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:33
Thanks everyone good progress today... Bye for now then...
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:44
Bye All
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:49
Tx Jeff!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:44:01
Thanks Jeff, Cheryl and staff!
Julie Hedlund
01:44:02
1500 UTC on 06 April
Julie Hedlund
01:44:06
for 120 minutes