Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Andrea Glandon
26:57
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Alexander Schubert
29:39
😇
Steve Chan
31:31
Working production document on screen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
Kathy Kleiman
33:10
can Staff make this bigger?
Steve Chan
34:23
I’ve made it a bit bigger
Kathy Kleiman
35:02
@Steve, can you show the full section?
Kathy Kleiman
39:42
Jeff, can you still with the Formal Objection issue first?
Kathy Kleiman
39:48
stick
Justine Chew
45:11
pg 162
Jamie Baxter
45:27
But this language allows ICANN to accept opposition (i.e. informal objection) and it could force further application change and public comment
Justine Chew
45:49
Registry Voluntary Commitments Recommendation xx (rationale 4)
Maxim Alzoba
47:06
hello all, sorry for being late
Kathy Kleiman
47:15
The public comment took place after changes from Formal Objections, too.
Steve Chan
48:11
I know…just trying to grab page number :)
Steve Chan
48:17
It’s about 162 or so
Jamie Baxter
48:44
restated … this language allows ICANN to accept late opposition after formal objections are concluded (and prior to CPE), which is yet another moment in the process when community applicants many be required to submit changes or RVCs in order to overcome that informal objection
Annebeth Lange
49:23
Sorry being late
Jamie Baxter
49:55
this does not help with building predictability into the process for community applicants and any informal objection must me submitted to ICANN within the public comment period stated in the AGB, with no late submissions accepted
Justine Chew
52:20
@jeff, can you please clarify - give an example of "objection" outside of the 4 types of Objections under the AGB?
Kathy Kleiman
52:48
Organization X filed a public comment, right?
Maxim Alzoba
53:36
with simple text, this application is not in public interest, without a proper justification?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:38
Organization X may just contact the applicant before the public comment period expires and get an RVC before filing an Objection.
Justine Chew
54:38
Is there a time limit to when lower case objections to be submitted/filed?
Jeffrey Neuman
55:41
Yes, there is a limited public comment period and a limited period to file Objections.
Jeffrey Neuman
55:48
Formal Objections.
Jeffrey Neuman
56:31
We are not discussing different periods of submitting comments.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
56:51
I hear you @Jamie (personal opinion of course!)
Justine Chew
57:37
I think we need to be clear on what is meant by "objections"
Maxim Alzoba
58:10
before the execution of RA there is no registry, only an applicant
Justine Chew
58:50
Applicant
Jamie Baxter
58:58
I agree with that Jeff, but this leaves the door open for ICANN to allow last minute opposition that an applicant may be forced to respond to last minute
Maxim Alzoba
59:22
@Jeff, please read my comment (I can not use mic)
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:24
delete and/or; allow formal and informal objections; put everything out for public comment when there's a new RVC.
Jamie Baxter
01:03:26
@Kathy .. but the point being missed is that without going back to force letters of opposition to be submitted during the public comment period, this language encourages last minute gaming against community applicants.
Paul McGrady
01:04:06
I am made nervous by all this talk of "settlement" and "negotiate", etc. Applicants can't negotiate with the entire public. So what is the process after public comment?
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:28
@Jamie - then exclude CPE. It's a different category.
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:49
that was it
Elaine Pruis
01:06:10
It would be super helpful if staff could draw a timeline showing when objections can be made, overlap when RVCs can be written, when public comment is open/closed
Elaine Pruis
01:06:26
Just use the draw tool in google docs
Justine Chew
01:06:43
removing and/or doesn't solve the problem being raised
Paul McGrady
01:07:02
@Staff - very hard to read. Can you send document link? Thanks
Elaine Pruis
01:07:03
and add CPE timeline
Steve Chan
01:07:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
Julie Hedlund
01:07:22
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
01:07:26
jinx
Jamie Baxter
01:07:30
informal objection = last minute letter of opposition filed against a community applicant which could cause yet another delay if the applicant is required to file and RVC or make an application change, then go through public comment = delay delay delay. Public opposition must be filed in the Public Comment period or in a formal Objection in order to create predictability for community applicants
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:12
Thanks@Anne
Justine Chew
01:09:36
Isn't it the case that "public comments, objections, GAC EW and GAC Consensus Advice" can only be submitted during the public comment period.
Jamie Baxter
01:09:56
@Justine .. No. not the way ICANN ran the program in the 2012 round
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:09
GAC can do their stuff anytime
Jamie Baxter
01:15:42
@Justine .. or the formal objections
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:00
Happy B-Day, Paul!
Taylor Bentley (ISED Canada)
01:16:16
+100
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:16:35
Is Paul turning 100?
Annebeth Lange
01:16:37
From me as well, Paul!
Jamie Baxter
01:16:48
@Paul .. my issue is different than Kathy’s
Alexander Schubert
01:16:51
Happy Birthday Paul
Jamie Baxter
01:16:58
@Paul .. yes .. and delay
Justine Chew
01:17:47
No @Paul, Jamie's point is an informal objection was considered by the CPE panel which affected scoring.
Jamie Baxter
01:18:07
@Paul .. correct, but to protect CPE points (which were distributed in a very stingy manner in 2012) an applicant will be forced to address it. why not just force the informal opposition to come in during the Public Comment period
Justine Chew
01:19:02
@Paul, and the fact that the informal objection came in VERY late.
Elaine Pruis
01:19:09
Not just “rolling the dice” then… its betting your CP a
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:10
Tx for the discussion on this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:19:10
Yes, Paul. That's right. For Jamie's point, we need to make sure the CPE section is clear. This section is just clarifying that IF a new RVC is adopted, even in response to private negotiation, that triggers public comment.
Jamie Baxter
01:19:21
If all informal opposition is required to be submitted during the specified public comment period then it gives the applicant ample time to address it and know that nothing is going to come in at the last minute that they had no idea was coming
Steve Chan
01:19:25
~pg 123
Justine Chew
01:22:40
Well in the first place, we are doing away with "batch" and "batches"
Steve Chan
01:24:59
~pg 140, objections section
Emily Barabas
01:29:16
my hand is not up :)
Steve Chan
01:29:25
Jeff is seeing things!
Justine Chew
01:30:03
I didn't hear Jeff say that, @Anne.
Justine Chew
01:32:12
What I heard Jeff say is, there is a "safe assumption" that any string that falls into a Cat 1, then the translated string will also be subject to the same Cat 1 restrictions. The "safe assumption" isn't explicit.
Justine Chew
01:32:48
exact translation of the string in any language
Steve Chan
01:32:50
~pg 146, community applications
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:50
Justine - I only asked because I thought you were saying the WG agreed the same restrictions should automatically apply. Jeff is not saying that.
Justine Chew
01:33:36
ALAC will definitely be filing comments and proposals on CPE.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:04
LOL
Justine Chew
01:34:37
@Anne, I didn't say that WG agreed the same restrictions should automatically apply. I asked if it did or not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:57
last resort
Justine Chew
01:35:23
The lack of agreement referred to in the text referred to a new category of objections.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:23
hmm my chat is delayed Internet unstable sorry
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:51
@Steve, can we have the link?
Steve Chan
01:37:01
Sure: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1X8F8zHkgMzQg2WqGHpuoEP78rhpDkFOjD2qKrZZzjHw/edit#heading=h.vggepvpizwpy
Paul McGrady
01:39:24
@Jeff - looking forward to seeing the proposed language
Paul McGrady
01:39:28
Yes
Marc Trachtenberg
01:42:31
Sorry joined late but quick question for clarification of what is on the screen. All material terms of any private resolution must be disclosed except for non-auction private resolutions where there are no disclosure requirements? So only private auction resolutions must disclose?
Elaine Pruis
01:43:21
@marc I hope not
Marc Trachtenberg
01:45:22
OK so disregard the highlighted language that says no disclosure requirements for non-auction private resolutions including JVS and settlement agreements?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:45:40
@Marc - yes for now
Marc Trachtenberg
01:45:52
Thx for clarification
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:06
bye all, have to drop
Justine Chew
01:46:22
That's if a JV happens. We also need to know if say A withdraws because A settled with B and B remains as the applicant on file for its application.
Marc Trachtenberg
01:47:25
@Justine - what's if a JV happens?
Elaine Pruis
01:48:16
Dollar amounts
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:28
+1 Elaine
Justine Chew
01:49:53
Great, thanks @jeff.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:13
Any contractual commitments to a change of ownership or option to buy out any party to the agreement subsequent to contracting
Elaine Pruis
01:50:57
jeff are dollar amounts objectionable if they are not disclosed until after contracting?
Justine Chew
01:51:09
@Jeff, although the second bullet talks about "material change to the surviving application", what is there is no material change?
Paul McGrady
01:51:29
We already have that language
Elaine Pruis
01:52:03
It should be disclosed
Justine Chew
01:52:03
For eg, B settles with A to withdraw, so no change to B. A just drops out.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:52:04
It's not just about Day 1 or Day 2
Paul McGrady
01:52:33
Agree that factors will be better.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:20
Good progress today though Team... Thanks!
Justine Chew
01:53:44
@Paul, where? I guess I will have to look at the next iteration of this.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:54:01
My bona fide intent to run the registry can change after delegation. I may want a buy-out after delegation. The Applicant remains the same and I get bought out.
Paul McGrady
01:55:02
Thanks Jeff! Have a great day all!
Alexander Schubert
01:55:06
Bye
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:13
Happy Birthday Paul!
Paul McGrady
01:55:21
Thanks!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:28
Bye for now then....More on Tuesday :-)