#ICANNeverywhere

if the report is out for comment until end of September, what will we be doing on the September calls?

WT5?

ok, cool

correcrt

I'd be curious to see that list. Not to be addressed now but my initial reaction is I'm kind of uncomfortable deliberating on something while its out for comment. That's immediately changing what the community is being asked to comment on, isn't it?

As you all , there are several issues in WT5 which the PDP not yet addressed. CW

There is a strong interdependence between WT5 and Closed Generics: We have never discussed how "Closed Generics" (outside of Brand Spec-13) would be governed in regards to Geo terms. We always said either a string is protected by only being used by a brand - or it was open for registration. With Closed Generics all these assurances are suddenly evaporate into air.

*are

So if we allowed closed generics we have to go back to WT5.

@Alex +1

it is an opinion

Well: we should make a note that if we suddenly allow closed generics we need to revisit WT5 (not that we forget that later). If we allow Close Generics we probably also allow non-Spec-13 non-generics, right? If a closed '.book' was allowed a closed '.bookly' would be allowed as well (as non-Spec-13), right? So a closed (non-Spec-13) .shanghai or .telaviv would be allowed - and all our years long of discussions became superfluous.

*become

Kathy is planning to be here, but she may be a little late.

Another question regarding Closed Generics:

Sorry to be late. I'm here now.

That's not correct Christopher. Some are Advisory Committees some are Supporting Organisations with very different roles and objectives.

COMMENT; As to Predictability Framework, the GNSO Council powers referred to in the intro to that section are contained in the ByLawss of ICANN. COMMENT

Are as per now: Are non-generic term based "closed gTLDs" permissible (without Spec-13)?

So not a brand - just a non-generic string as closed TLD.

I agree with Susan. This is all specified in ICANN’s bylaws. No point trying to change that here.

Good reminder Susan - and as Donna points out SO/ACs have different roles and objectives too

Well said Susan

+1 Susan. _+1 Robin. Christopher's concerns are for a different forum.

you are very welcome Christopher

Thank you Cheryl

yup

So imagine I wanted I to apply for a closed .zyx - would that be possible outside of a Spec-13 registry (per our current AGB draft)?

apologies I should have been muted

Rather than "debated or discussed" I would say "addressed"

Rather than "of which", I would say "as to which"

Sure

is the above from Anne Friendly amendment(s) Kathy?

@Kaathy - All SPIRT members must be immune from any interest in any applications.

great

Sorry for being late. Had a conflict.

Welcome @Alan

Word version

prepare in the Word Version

Suggest grammar edit - regardless of position of the paragraph - "and therefore, at this time, none of the proposals HAS any agreement"

Agree re link as to TITLES and AUTHORS

Thanks, Jeff!

Great - all good .

yes makes sense @Jeff

Why was several pages of the text posted in illegible grey?

Hi Christopher, most of this section has previously been subject to comment

there is just one new paragraph, and the co-chairs requested that new comments are limited to that new paragraph in black text

"may with respect" would need to be modified - "may wish to propose with resepect"

made?

CW - Sounds like a minority statement to me (not something that belongs in the body of the recommendations).

+1 Robin.

I had the same question.

Perhaps the missing word is “have”

to reflect his other addition “or if there are any other proposals that members of the community may have with respect to the availability of closed generic strings”

How will we handle all of the fresh proposals? Do we really intend to give them all adequate airtime? If not, why waste the public's time?

I have no urge to open up for additional mpdels

models

That sounds great

@ Robin - I am not really interested in a ‘minority’ position. I want to CHANGE the PDP position to make it more acceptable internationally and economicaly., world-e

that’s the end of the section

but there are a few comments in the grey text

+1

+1

“As all material changes require” is there

agree with Paul

+1 Elaine

"should a material change require"

can we just delete "are likely to result" to say "may result"

the surviving application would be a new entity, it has to go through the process

same diference

It' s less clear than just referring to the Application Change process

@Jim- correct in that instance. That is why we don't need a change here.

sorry

+1 Anne

that makes sense

yes

that's works

that works

okay

@Jeff yes that does it.

bye all, have to drop

much clearer

Thanks for joining @Maxime

Good question Susan.

@Jeff, maybe we say "are subject to the Application Change process..."

so if it does have criteria then it doesn't need to refer to this example. if criteria are met, then you follow the process

because everything is. its in the AGB

OK

Everyone is in agreement on the principle.

intent to use … makes sense

Instead of "non-good faith intent", could we say "lack of good faith intent"?

do not use ""use:

Sure Paul establishes style of language might help

to clarify, Justine was suggesting changing “use” to “intent"

bona fide intent (no use)

@Alexander - it is a few years, not months.

An interesting topic for discussion about years ago. It's a bit late now to start negotiating mandatory start dates.

hand up

Hand up

@Alan - if someone went into it not looking to be a happy loser and ends up happy since someone through gobs of money at them, that is not the harm some say the Board was worried about.

The difficulty I have is that we have not agreed on punitive measures against no bona fide intent to operate

@Paul, yes, I agree. But how do you determine the difference??

@Alan - tough to do. That is why whenever we mess with the free market the structures become cumbersome.

Absent any analysis of why TLDs from 2012 are not being 'used', I'm not sure we should be making judgements. Many things changed from time of application submission to launch, including considerable delays.

@Julie, please correct "bona fide use intent" also in this bullet - no "use"

@Justine - would the consequence be the applicant cannot win the TLD?

+1 Donna. Including limitations on business models

+1 Donna. There were creative applicants who got hassled along the way that could have shown a path forward to using these TLDs in innovative ways. For example, those who applied for Closed Generics.

@Anne, we discussed consequences but I guess leadership came to no agreement determination so it was only mentioned in the later section

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit

@Justine - should we say "If a lack of good faith intent is established, the new business combination or other joint venture will not be awarded the TLD."

Don't tease us Jeff.

can we have the link to the doc up now?

Next meeting: Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC

please?

The auctions document is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit?pli=1#

I don’t believe so

Good progress today Team we should wrap up this phase of our work on Monday :-)

Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC

Thought you were going to say to hold a big party for getting it done!

Bye for now....

Bye