Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

More details below

@Kathy your connection is horrible - breaking up

Apologies for joining late, had a previous meeting run a bit long

The chart is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit?pli=1#gid=0

+1 Christopher

I think that there have to be evaluation entities - e.g. WIPO - their procedures are widely respected

I have always expressed concern about the lack of transparency around CPE evaluators

At least one of the reasons to have this appeal/challenge process is to ensure that where an entity makes a decision there is a path to seek reconsideration, rather than having to try to bring an acct mechanism against icann for an act of the entity

i.e we were recognising that there are entities and building in an improvement

why on earth wouldn't KPMG be able to assess financial matters?

I agree it seems like a benefit and not a flaw to have these various third-parties performing the evaluations/dispute resolutions

With appropriate oversight/transparency/appeals…which I understand is what these recommendations/implementation guidance is intended to achieve

+1 Griffin

my hand has been up for awhile too

Apologies for continuing the off-topic discussion....

I don't have a problem with where we are with the third party evaluator recommendations. I think Greg may have raised some additional issues.

If that’s Christopher’s point then we agree with that

(As clarified by Paul)

+1 on Paul’s interpretation as well

Agree. Seems unlikely.

For those who are agreeing, how does that all relate to the newly-revised IRP process addressed at length in Workstream 2 Accountability work?

+1 Paul

on the contention set members

set = group

Pretty sure there is an AGB definition for contention set?

Set is the term that is used

contention set = the group of applicants who applied for the same string

All parties that apply for the same gTLD is a set

It is a set — of applications.

well defined in the AGB

yes it is well defined in the agb

@Susan, or strings deemed similar :)

true justine

+1 Paul

Good precision, Justine

.Does the partial refund compound the "buddy down the hall" problem we already have? Now the co-employee will not only have to say his colleague is wrong, but his company has to also pay? Seems like that won't happen much.

Given there are still excess funds available from 2012, it seems possible that the cost has been absorbed in some way by ICANN with the excess funds.

Excellent idea Donna

There was no appeals last time, so that would be comparing apples to oranges

@Jeff .. but I think our case would have been a perfect example of a future appeal

@Susan, I was just reflecting on the question posed by Jamie about who paid, I wasn't proposing anything.

It just happens that the only option we had was an accountability mechanism and the Board had to acknowledge it

I too am concerned about an arbiter finding a grossly wrong finding on the part of a fellow arbiter making the wrong decision.

Absolutely Paul, access to a challenge or appeal (which is great) can easily become inaccessible due to costs.

@ Paul - I don’t recall saying that, but I tend to agar with Paul-.

@Christopher, it was derivative of something you said, which is these costs can be tied to high cost lawyer billable hour rates. The appeals fees should be modest and accessible.

costs can't be tied

We are throwing out SWORD

@Ane SWORD didn't work

sorry Anne, not Ane

we most certainly haven't made such a recommendation. who is "we"

Pretty sure there were many discussions about WT5

@Paul - the latter

i.e its Geo name as set out in AGB

Geonames "as prescribed in AGB"

Should be a quote unquote Geographic Name

Thanks Jeff

+1 Justine

Would be good to keep on topic

not your turn Christopher. perhapsstaff would mute his mik

Today’s issue is challenges and appeals. Can we stay on topic, please?

Christopher you are making very wide reaching and not I believe widely held statements as some sort of truth as opposed to I admit your well stated and deeply held personal opinions, please refrain from this with your interventions when it is not our Agenda for today (or when it is for that mater)

No one is raising hands because you are taking us off topic

OFF TOPIC

AGAIN!

Agree with Martin

we are dealing with Appeals today please note that as others are clearly doing so

low volume for me @Susan

'better now

+1 to Martin

Of course we can Kavous

+1 to Susan

Can we not attack each other?

@Greg, and not vide Objection?

spa

Would or could that not be an objection?

Legal rights objection? Community objection?

Sure, if no other avenue is available then yes. I'm sure there was or was not.

*I'm not sure ...

Limited appeal

Also standard AM stresses on procedure

@Anne - yes, we will all have to watch the timeframes carefully

Request for REconsideration: Is this actually substantive in relation to the portion that says you can challenge the decision if it "ICANN's Board Governance Committee is responsible to receiving requests from any person or entity that has been materially affected by any ICANN staff action or inaction if such affected person or entity believes the action contradicts established ICANN policies, or by actions or inactions of the Board that such affected person or entity believes has been taken without consideration of material information." If that is still a basis, isn't that substantive in nature - i.e. "they got it wrong".

Kavouss is that a new hand?

Transparency is clearly the Key here @Jamie

I like "ultimate decision makers" + transparency for background investigation appeal too

Transparency is key

All, apologies, but I do need to drop off for another call at the top of the hour.

Noted @Paul

We should wrap by then anyway

I believe ;-)

TIME CHECK

+1 Justine

Thanks @jeff

We will check and ensure it is then

Thanks Jeff!

Next call: Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

+1 Justine - CW

LOTS done today everyone THANK you most helpful indeed!

Thanks Jeff

Thanks, Jeff!

Next call: Monday, 20 April 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

With ASP, we might need to look at expanding the panel, to allow for challenge by "another person".

Bye for now then...

Bye, bye and goodnight from Europe

*to be heard by "another person".

bye all

bye all