Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 02 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC.

Next call: Monday, 06 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes.

2h is a bit excessive.

hello all

I honestly don’t see an extra half hour twice a month to be a big deal.

would be useful to see how it does, we are all adjusting to situations

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)

I still think a small group effort on that issue is the way to go.

I thought your suggestion was going in the right direction Anne

+1 Cheryl, we often see part attendance in the regular timed meetings and folks use the recordings and excellent summaries circulayed

+1 Cheryl

The zoom linknis usually in all emails

Ifully support that as I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM

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.

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.

@Jamie - thanks for your support of the compromise approach on independent research.

thanks Julie, the 15 min reminders are always helpful

The 15 min reminders are invaluable!

I agree. When I don’t find the invitation, the reminder saves mes.

@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.

what is the reason to wait for three years?

I would agree with Anne

That would be a month later then @Anne?

it was initial term NCAP was intended to take

where will the NCAP be by then??

or two years

I agree with Maxin's statement.

or even in June?

no, it means 2022

put it in the last spot and if NCAP is not at a point where collaboration works, we move on

they have no obligations on time of delivery or delivery at all

it is not holistic study

what is the reason to relay on unfinished work?

Well noted @Maxim

three

WT 3

we have some buffer to revisit the topic if any substantial progress is made after the WG discusses later this month

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.

Link to document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

Thx @Steve noting that is not a live link in chat in my zoom

I have done the update a feew hrs back

@ Cheryl - In addition, SubGroup B did not actually complete its work on processing public comment in relation to name collisions, did it?

I believe all PC comments were fully analysed and responded to in our charts but perhaps staff can double check @Anne

Testing to see if link works now: Link to document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

No @Julie not a live link since my zoom required update

Same with me @Julie...the new update messed it up

obviously I can copy and paste...

Thanks Steve - that change works.

can staff highlight "all stages of the process"?

Tx!!

Does it also include Objection processes and will it include appeals as we institute those?

@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.

hand up

with other non-applicant rights recognized in the 2012 AGB

I'd add Workstream 2 reference here

irp?

The IO process still relates to perceived third party rights

"Community" is not a party. Yes, please put in the footnote.

it is between GNSO Council and the Board

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

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.

Well noted @Kavouss

Agree with Kavouss, this is unnecc

IO acts on behalf of the Limited Public Interest, not a third party so the footnote is needed

unnecessary complicated

Move to page 66 in the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

@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.

@Paul - All

what has this comment got to do with the cooling off period?

@Jeff - thanks. I will mirror Kathy "interesting!"

Julie - could you kindly repost link to doc on screen. Link above goes only to page 17

would be helpful for those who are commenting if they had read the documents and indeed the AGB

See this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

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.

before a panel was initiated would insinuate a time before any fees get paid though. that was not the case in the 2012 round

+1

I would make it upon response

Paul, that would seem to make a great deal of sense - and would be analogous to treatment of many other proceedings

+1 Kathy - I think it's appropriate to wait for the response.

+1 Jamie

Give peace a (limited and consensual) chance!

Have to leave now. Thanks all.

Thanks @Alan

bye all, need to drop

After the response s file, there *may* be a cooling off period for compromise or settlement *upon agreement of both parties*

Natural break point

I feel like we moved the ball forward in a positive way today.

NEXT CALL: Monday, 06 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 120 minutes.

Thanks everyone good progress today... Bye for now then...

Bye All

Tx Jeff!

Thanks Jeff, Cheryl and staff!

1500 UTC on 06 April

for 120 minutes