051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Working production document on screen here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#
can Staff make this bigger?
I’ve made it a bit bigger
@Steve, can you show the full section?
Jeff, can you still with the Formal Objection issue first?
But this language allows ICANN to accept opposition (i.e. informal objection) and it could force further application change and public comment
Registry Voluntary Commitments Recommendation xx (rationale 4)
hello all, sorry for being late
The public comment took place after changes from Formal Objections, too.
I know…just trying to grab page number :)
It’s about 162 or so
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
Sorry being late
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
@jeff, can you please clarify - give an example of "objection" outside of the 4 types of Objections under the AGB?
Organization X filed a public comment, right?
with simple text, this application is not in public interest, without a proper justification?
Organization X may just contact the applicant before the public comment period expires and get an RVC before filing an Objection.
Is there a time limit to when lower case objections to be submitted/filed?
Yes, there is a limited public comment period and a limited period to file Objections.
We are not discussing different periods of submitting comments.
I hear you @Jamie (personal opinion of course!)
I think we need to be clear on what is meant by "objections"
before the execution of RA there is no registry, only an applicant
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
@Jeff, please read my comment (I can not use mic)
delete and/or; allow formal and informal objections; put everything out for public comment when there's a new RVC.
@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.
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?
@Jamie - then exclude CPE. It's a different category.
that was it
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
Just use the draw tool in google docs
removing and/or doesn't solve the problem being raised
@Staff - very hard to read. Can you send document link? Thanks
and add CPE timeline
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
Isn't it the case that "public comments, objections, GAC EW and GAC Consensus Advice" can only be submitted during the public comment period.
@Justine .. No. not the way ICANN ran the program in the 2012 round
GAC can do their stuff anytime
@Justine .. or the formal objections
Happy B-Day, Paul!
Taylor Bentley (ISED Canada)
Donna Austin, Neustar
Is Paul turning 100?
From me as well, Paul!
@Paul .. my issue is different than Kathy’s
Happy Birthday Paul
@Paul .. yes .. and delay
No @Paul, Jamie's point is an informal objection was considered by the CPE panel which affected scoring.
@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
@Paul, and the fact that the informal objection came in VERY late.
Not just “rolling the dice” then… its betting your CP a
Tx for the discussion on this.
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.
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
Well in the first place, we are doing away with "batch" and "batches"
~pg 140, objections section
my hand is not up :)
Jeff is seeing things!
I didn't hear Jeff say that, @Anne.
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.
exact translation of the string in any language
~pg 146, community applications
Justine - I only asked because I thought you were saying the WG agreed the same restrictions should automatically apply. Jeff is not saying that.
ALAC will definitely be filing comments and proposals on CPE.
@Anne, I didn't say that WG agreed the same restrictions should automatically apply. I asked if it did or not.
The lack of agreement referred to in the text referred to a new category of objections.
hmm my chat is delayed Internet unstable sorry
@Steve, can we have the link?
@Jeff - looking forward to seeing the proposed language
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?
@marc I hope not
OK so disregard the highlighted language that says no disclosure requirements for non-auction private resolutions including JVS and settlement agreements?
@Marc - yes for now
Thx for clarification
bye all, have to drop
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.
@Justine - what's if a JV happens?
Great, thanks @jeff.
Any contractual commitments to a change of ownership or option to buy out any party to the agreement subsequent to contracting
jeff are dollar amounts objectionable if they are not disclosed until after contracting?
@Jeff, although the second bullet talks about "material change to the surviving application", what is there is no material change?
We already have that language
It should be disclosed
For eg, B settles with A to withdraw, so no change to B. A just drops out.
It's not just about Day 1 or Day 2
Agree that factors will be better.
Good progress today though Team... Thanks!
@Paul, where? I guess I will have to look at the next iteration of this.
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.
Thanks Jeff! Have a great day all!
Happy Birthday Paul!
Bye for now then....More on Tuesday :-)