Hello from Norway

Hi Norway! :-)

See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

Sounds good Jeff, thx

Very sensible, Jeff

The dreaded double mute strikes again!

+1 - w talked about the UN languages - support addition to the text and that will avoid further public comment

+1 - Jim and Anne, important issue

I don't know how we do it, but we need to make sure that recommendation re language translations doesn't get passed over when the implementation budget is prepared. We don't want to find out later that translations were sacrificed for something else.

hand up

Just as important to having it in UN langauges is to have those translation at the same time as English version being published. In 2012 - there were some translations provided but it was several weeks after the engish version so those applicants had a smallr application window as a result.

+1 Jim

sorry to arrive alte

rises to the level of recommendation as to timing of translat6ion

And also that the English is clear and understandable for all those countries that do not get “their” translation

sorry to arrive late

I don't think French 1 day before the window opens is the same as English 6 months before.

translations yes at the same time please

(1) at the same time as possible; and (2) at least X days before the window opens. We can't seem to solve the mystery as to why there are so many more applicants from N. America. Perhaps this is one reason and one that we can easily fix.

Can we understand in principle how long that would take to have the English and the translations available given the AGB will be a sizeable document?

+1 Kathy

+1 Kathy concur

+1 Donna - surely we can get a time estimate and go from there.

Translation might create slight differences in meaning (I remember that in the 2012 guidebook it came down to "nuances"). Just to prevent that accidentally "different" application guidebooks are being created we should indicate in the translated versions that in any case of doubt the ENGLISH version is relevant and authoritative. So if the exact meaning in a translation is in question - the applicant would have to consult a capabable translator.

Apologies, all - I have to drop for another call. Have a good day.

Agree with Alexander, English has to be identified as the authoritative version.

I also have to join another call.

COMMENT I think it will be important to specify how quickly all translations will be available after the English version because otherwise the time for prep of application is not equitable.

Actually even "American English"; no?

If translated versions are created as the AGB develops, this will also ensure all potential applicants have access to information as it is built up. This has resource/cost implications, obviously, but could provide the balance required.

@Jeff - I think that is sensible. The publication dates should be meaningfully before the open of the application window

@Paul - agreed

+1 Cheryl

My mike does not work, so I write it here. We must NOT forget at there are numerous countries in the world that will not get a translated version!

@ agree with Cheryl - really as I participate in some from Brazil. took much longer to do twice

The translations should always reference the English

Exactly @Alan

its all about project planning and management

+1 Alan - as noted above, translated versions should accomplish that

Guys - if we insist on this not being a recommendation, we will just invite GAC advice that the AGB be published in all UN languages at the same time.

Good idea Anne, provided GAC issues such an advice

I would feel comfortable with this being specified clearly under implementation guidance

+1 @ Martin

hand up

OK thank you Jefff

Hand up

Agree with Steve - and to be transparent if it cannot be implemented in exact away specified

Thanks Steve - Can we state that status in our preamble to the proposed Final Report?

Thanks Steve, useful to say. We should also rely on the IRT to ensure these are followed through

hand up

Good suggestion Anne

OK thanks Jeff - very important to state it in the preamble

Final version of AGB Jeff, yes?

It all depends when the window CLOSES. How long is the window?

it was only 4 months last time . this was definitely not long enough to prepare business plans / raise finance etc etc . should be at least 6 months

Need to go to another meeting. Thanks all.

In fact, starting outreach early may help mitigate concerns about the headstart English speakers may have.

If the window is 2 month we have 6 month

sorry alac monthly call will start in 4 minutes and I will close this window. will contribute on this on the exchange of e-mail.

That is covered under Application Submission Period

There could be an issue in terms of staff time if potential applicants are asking a lot of questions staff cannot answer because AGB is not final.

But maybe that is good because the questions might inform the IRT and result in clearer language in the AGB?

For a community priority application you need at bare minimum a year. I am working on one since 2017 and two other's since September..... So community applicants should get a cue a year upfront.

@Jeff, I'd agree with that - early outreach allows interested potential applicants to engage whilst the AGB is neing finalised

No it is a GNSO Staff meeting that shortened todays WG call not the ALAC meeting

but I am pleased as I can actually avoid a 2 call at once overlap for once

Good discussion today thanks everyone... Bye for now

20:00 UTC on Thursday

Thanks @Julie

Appreciated @Jeff bye all

Thank you

Thanks, bye!

Bye

ok so a communication / outreach starts six months prior to the completion of Final AG

thx