Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 05 March 2020 at 20:00 UTC.

I updated my SOI last week

is there a way to grant pdp members

zoom seats during the sessions of the pdp?

We will send a message with the agendas and time slots with links to the wiki and schedule to the WG

Jeff, please see my question up there

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

to avoid situation were we face - please wait banner

There is some background noise here

it would be great to investigate that in advance

Is the question whether the zoom room will be open to all?

privilege to have granted seats

ok, it is no

how many people can it hold

I think what Maxim is getting to is that some virtual rooms have limits.

So there is no "seat at the table" as in a real room.

Which for context, is no different than how an open F2F session is run.

so far I found the only wY to log in earlier

in 5 min or so

ok

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

Thx @Julie

If an application is specifying a sunrise period - it should be forced to execute such rollout phase.

ok

also GEOs are dependent on cities and those have long approval cycles...

Not so much warehousing - but "blocking".

it will just lead to creation of new legal bodies

. no support.

@Christopher, how will you police this?

I think we should stick to charter

@Christopher - there is nothing prohibiting new entrants from participating in this process

and not to invent single member veto idea

It is very easy to go around a rule like this. We have experience from that from national domains.

Christopher makes a very good one point.

Thanks for your opinion. Nol

there is no forced abstention in the charter

I wonder if its possible to not attack any particular perspn or party while trying to make points

And one that has been shared many times -- concern about the Global South and new participants

the multi-stakeholder model encourages participation by all

Is the prioritization of IDNs now included?

+1 Jeff. Also, many of us learned valulable lessons and are trying to make it better for the next round of participants.

Those who do not learn from history and all that...

At least we know who Kristine represents.

+1 Donna!!

with lack of definition of global South it is hard

@Donna the MSM is failing to take account of the under-represented stakeholders.

hands are raised

@Christopher, with all due respect that is a bigger issue for the ICANN community to address and not one that should restrict participation by anyone on this WG.

@Cristopher, I think we should not conflate under presentation and lack of support

In Norway, under .no, we have a quota (only 100 domains under .no for each organisation). What is done then, is to establish a new legal entity to circumvent it. So it is very difficult to avoid that those that should not have more domains, if we have a rule like that, not get it. I am sympathetic with Christopher here, but it is not doable, I am afraid.

Maybe make sure to ask for the Minority Statement on this one?

it could be reflected as 'some group members.. ' text

What about idns and priority?

correct

Is that an issue for discussion with the GAC or no?

Thanks Jeff

do we expect ICANN Compliance items during today meeting?

@ Donna - I am reaching the conclusion that the incumbent interests should recuse themselves from the PDP debate.

@Cristopher, is there anything about incumbent interests in GNSO documents? if no, then not necessarily

@christopher, personally I find that suggestion offensive given that I have participated in this effort for the past four years and done my best to be constructive in doing so. I don't make it a secret that I represent Neustar, but that doesn't mean that my contribution is any less valuable than yours.

+1 Donna.

+1 Donna

+1 Donna

Because generality is subject to interpretation

+1 Donna.

or misinterpretation

+1 Donna

Who pushed for this text in the first place? Kinda awkward for people who didn't push for it to have to make it more specific. Can anyone claim the language and come up wth some thoughts on how to make it more specific?

I would just add that I have the link to what I think is the most recent Contractual Compliance dashboard.

If it makes sense to take at least a glance.

please do not forget ICANN self generated cases because of lack of grounds

closed because of lack of grounds

such statistics was shared during gdd summit in Madrid

Here is the link: https://features.icann.org/compliance/dashboard/2020/0120/report

lots of cases for registries and registrars (in%of all cases)

so we need to identify what it is that we want to be included in the compliance reports - whether or not already there. Because probably there is more data now than when the WT looked at this, but we also don't want to lose data later that is currently shared because we don't specifiy it as beiong a requirement.

AGree Susan

lots of confidential information might be a reason for lack of details

So we're asking for information and insights to be provided based on the data

@Maxim, confidential information such as?

details of security measures e. t. c. and items which are confidential under contacts

I defer to Greg Shatan's comments on this section as he is co-leading the IPC "kitchen cabinet" on Sub Pro.

@Christopher, I think if you re-read this section you'll see that there are no recommendations here, regarding trademarks or any other names. Not my viewpoint, but the outcome of the WG

Monitoring of complaints filed also? Leading to identification of a pattern.

I think reopening items in a pdp is not a very good idea

Perhaps a few extra words on B might help clarify, '...believes that by providing additional information and insights gathered from the data on the activities..."

@Susan, but there should have been recommendations. Not even against premium pricing for trademarks?

All good

Sears Tower Time

Thanks everyone and we appreciate in advance the additional efforts many of you will be making to juggle this virtual ICANN67 and your other commitments... More (lots more ;-) Next Week! Bye for now...

Yes, it is. By the Faithful

McGrady Time!

Thx all - bye

Thanks, have a nice weekend

see you all in zoom

What time UTC on Monday?

bye

bye

See you at the virtual Gala