Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Correct

Is anyone else having trouble with Jeff cutting in and out?

Audio is fine for me

No - sounds ok

He sounds fine to me

sounds perfect to me

@anne: it seems to be your connection. :(

im having issues too - im dialed in on phone

OK - t's my phone

i will try and dial back in

What time is Monday's meeting? It's not on my calendar.

Bottom of page 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit

@GG - 11pm EDT

I'm very nervous about sending this on without a cap.

I’m very nervous on this too

3 years from signing the contract?

@paul, I'd say yes, that's the easiest date to fix this to

Marc’s language: All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

Thx Emily

10% will not be a suitable inhibitor.

new language from Marc - To disincentivize “gaming” of the applicant support program by applicants who are applying on behalf of third parties, or with the intent to immediately transfer ownership to third parties, applicants who receive financial support through the ASP Program will not be permitted to assign the relevant Registry Agreement within the first five (5) years of execution of the Registry Agreement unless they repay the repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).

not your turn Christopher

Feel free to type as well Christopher, so people can analyse what your saying accuratly

it will be very unlikely that this scenario will happen . surely the applicant will fail its financial evaluation in the first place . once it finds out it will be in a contention set it will have to go back out into the market to find additional funding . also ICANN cannot be seen to be funding an applicant to enable it to win an auction

I think Donna is phrasing it well.

That IS I think the essense of what I heard @Donna Yes

We have never discussed the relationship of the string to the applicant

Indeed @Jeff

Apologies if I missed it.

I'm a little afraid that we are conflating in our minds community based applications and strings that get support.

WT1 did not place limitations on the strings

@Paul - yes, there does seem to be some intermixing here

Correct Community criteria also applies

@susan .. is does if they don’t pass CPE

@jamie - correct?

Ahh and we are talking of recommendations to improve CPE @Jamie, but yes CPE is a key here as well

I'm also not in favor of a multiplier or bid credit, especially with no caps/limits.

The At-Large has said that the applicant that qualifies for ASP should get priority in a contention set (therefore avoiding auction to the extent possible). We expect the criteria for ASP to be stringent in order to identify the suitable applicant in need. It has also been said that such applicant must be able to substantiate how their selected string benefits their targeted community or public benefit. We hope to see also other stringent criteria on eligibility.

losing audio

Jeff: your audio is fading

Jeff went somewhere

audio Jeff

from the PC

I thought it was satory of kinds

It sounded like you were in Ashburn

I was half-expecting a flush at the end....

@Justine, I find this helpful: has also been said that such applicant must be able to substantiate how their selected string benefits their targeted community or public benefit. We hope to see also other stringent criteria on eligibility.

How many of the 2012 round Applicant Support applications were Community applications?

@Alan, that's hard to do/

Yes, we have already settled that an auction will be the mechanism of last resort

The mechanics are still up for discussion on the next call

with regard to .kids, if it was won at auction it begs the question of how they qualified for applicant support in the first place.

We could have a Go Fund Me contest instead of an auction. Whoever raises more money wins.

Interesting idea Greg.

or passes the amount to ICANN

@Donna, .kids qualified for ASP and I doubt it would have won at an auction, which is why it should have received priority upon qualifying for ASP.

isn’t ASP decided before applicants even know if they are in contention?

Thanks for clarifying that Jeff

@justine, why, if it isn't a community application?

@ Justine - Personally I agree any qualified ASP application should get priority. I think Jeff said this was rejected in public comment.

agreed Christa

@Kathy, which is why we ended here now

@Jeff, when do we get to talk about how scary this idea is without a cap?

@christopher - so how much do you think ICANN needs to raise to fund the support of ( say ) 200 applicants ?

@Phil, certainly a lot more than USD2 mil.

Is this a good time to talk about legitimate assignments?

Thanks Jeff. Will react to it when I see it. Much appreciated.

Death and retirement generally refer to natural people and not corporations. Since natural people can't apply, how do we tighten this language up?

retirement of majority stakeholder

Mergers, name changes, entity restructuring,... the normal changes of an organization or company.

death of majority shareholder

hostile takeover

think we should take out - “assignment to subsidiaries “- this is opening up a can of worms .

@Phil, but sometimes you have to assign things to subsidiaries and affiliates due to changes in tax laws, etc. Would not like to preclude that sort of thing.

Assignment to a subsidiary is probably the most harmless scenario.

@Donna, are you able to put your suggested text here?

The TLD is staying under the same ultimate parent entity,

@Donna - ok, so it is another "legitimate" assignment

I got it.

1. Going out of business

2. Death or retirement of a majority shareholder

Assignments that become necessary because of death or retirement etc. shall be permitted.

3. Assignments to affiliates or subsidiaries

4. Assignments due to EBERO

5. Assignments required by competition authorities

agree anne

6. Assignments ordered by bankruptcy courts

assignments and normal mergers

entity restructuring and realignment.

Approximately page 42: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#heading=h.bvrtu4hvyef1

Correct

but this isn't the AGB, so applicants aren't going to be reading this document when they come to apply

375 pages was enough

+1 Maxim

I agree with Kathy that we should state it here again with a cross reference. Applicants who make a change based on a comment need to know that something further down the line could happen to them and commenters need to know so that they can see if the change actually addresses the problem they raised.

Notifications back to application commenters would require significant operational effort

Package 5

It’s out for review now

current

@Jeff - we hear you. Will do.

Not needing to add many more pages!

@jeff, what happens if we read something in a later package that we thought might affect a topic in an earlier package?

Mention it in the latest Can NOIT live with note @Justine

with reference and text to note the issue

(if it happens)

Thanks @Cheryl

Just on the practice of using abbreviations, I suggest that we spell out the first instance of such terms in EVERY section.

+1 Jeff. Makes sense.

translation is not a variant

if IDN variants in the same language - only one winner should take it all (after paying)

abnormal application process?

Can we change "...and will be allowed for activation...". Makes the sentence less murky

@Jeff, audio faded

I am seeing a document on the ICANN website dated January 2019 call "IDN Variant TLD Implmentation" which was adopted after pubic comment.

How do make it clear that only the same RO and BE RSP gets to "apply" for IDN variants of an existing TLD or an applied-for string?

it is not a policy so far

policies are for Registries and REgistrars

not for applicants so far

@jeff, sorry, which recommendation is that please?

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf

I will need to go back to original text

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-list-18may20-en.pdf

IDN WG is not started it’s work yet

recommendations were not a policy, so there was a scoping group

Maybe go with, "IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements." But I will have to check this with IDN-WG.

it means , in case where TLD_something is RO someRO, then the only winning applicant can be sameRO_as_applicant

there should be not TLD awarded without the application

.ORG in Chinese is registered to CONAC (the Chinese organizational oversight entity).

Chinese and English are not the same language

it is translation , not variant

Maxim could you provide a couple of examples of variant and translation, I think that would help

Ok

if _something_ in simplified Chinese belongs to CONAC, then other dialects of Chinese word _something_ should go to them too

Thanks Maxim - the ICANN work seems to say that there is no existing definition of "variant"?

please read papers of the IDN scoping team

will post in a minute

https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/idn-scoping-team-final-report-17jan20-en.pdf

it has references to history of variants (other documents) and description of what can be done

This has to be understandable by some lawyer from Flatlandia whose client ask him to get them "one of those domain name thingies." This is confusing to even we who have no life outside of ICANNland.

variants - in same language , translations- different languages

Let me reconfirm with the IDN-WG

it should be started

in some time

there should be IDN and variants in the same sentence (so it is variants of the same language)

not in all -> in some countries (at least two) ASCII and IDNs are in different hands

different scripts in the same language - variants

meanings - translations in different languages

if Hobbitania had south Hobbit and north Hobbit dialects - variants

if it is about Orcs and Hobbits - not variants (translations)

@Maxim - thanks! Helpful.

Exactly @Alan.

if an RO has TLD .superboot in simplified Chinese, then only they can be successful applicant for the .superboot in another dialect of Chinese

Good progress today again !

@Jeff, please let us have the amended text for consideration -- I will take that back to the IDN-WG and find out what they think,

is there a plan to update the work plan given the time it is taking to get through the ‘can’t live with”

I would recommend to read across the final report of the IDN scoping team (it has references to recommendations of the previous groups)

Here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?pli=1#gid=839727774

IN my package 4 comments, i had made a very brief Package 3 comment related to some guidance that said "may want to consider" Workstream 2 work - verus "should" consider

NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

We're getting "there"... More next week … Bye for Now...Stay Safe!

Thank you

bye all