Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view

Download (97 MB)

Playback Range -

Julie Bisland

24:43

Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 13 February 2020 at 03:00 UTC.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

25:42

soud is fine @Jeff

Jim Prendergast

30:12

RE the workplan - I had some feedback on specific dates in the workplan where there might be scheduling issues. Are those still under consideration as I saw the timeline submitted to Council did not reflect any of the changes.

Jim Prendergast

31:03

gotcha - finish line - not how we get there

Steve Chan

31:30

@Jim, all of the dates you flagged are now noted in the document however.

Steve Chan

31:41

So they will be taken into account when get the calls scheduled.

Jim Prendergast

32:02

thx steve - I was only looking at the one sent with the change request.

Steve Chan

33:40

Good catch Jeff, that was not forwarded to the WG.

Steve Chan

34:49

Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

35:05

Thx @Steve

Paul McGrady

35:43

Does that make it policy?

Steve Chan

37:06

Question from Paul, Jeff

Steve Chan

37:18

It’s in the chat

Paul McGrady

37:53

Thanks Jeff!

Jim Prendergast

38:10

welcomes and encourages?

Jim Prendergast

41:18

hand

Jeff Neuman

42:02

@Jim - we can change that to "should"

Paul McGrady

42:20

"really ought to"

Paul McGrady

42:41

joke

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

44:53

I will prompt you if anyones hand is up for any significant time @Jeff

Jim Prendergast

46:36

I think that might work

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

46:43

Pre Evaluation Process/// PREP

Donna Austin, Neustar

47:16

RSP PREP?

Justine Chew

47:36

So, that was the proposed term you had Jim waiting for @Jeff? :)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

50:02

Donna's Hand up

Justine Chew

50:44

@Jeff, may be useful to include a footnote to explain between evaluation vs testing some where appropriate.

Justine Chew

51:31

Thanks @Steve

Justine Chew

53:14

Perhaps include examples, if possible?

Justine Chew

53:39

@Donna, it's important to ask, thanks for doing so.

Donna Austin, Neustar

56:41

taking into account service levels, but not to minimise the opportunity for violations.

Paul McGrady

57:18

"...to minimize the opportunity for failures to meet SLAs"

Justine Chew

57:38

+1 Paul

Paul McGrady

58:19

@Jeff - violations sounds like its done on purpose

Justine Chew

58:33

I like minimize likelihood of failures to meet SLAs

Jeff Neuman

58:49

taking into account the service level requirements

Paul McGrady

59:41

@Jeff, your iteration works

Paul McGrady

01:02:37

"practical" not "possible" Possible implies the potential for wild spending to make it happen

Paul McGrady

01:03:09

Donna's version works too

Justine Chew

01:03:16

KISS

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:03:41

Yup

Justine Chew

01:03:50

Muah @Jeff

Justine Chew

01:06:22

+ Karen

Justine Chew

01:06:26

Justine Chew

01:09:11

@Jeff, should we add a point about publishing the results of data collected?

Karen Lentz

01:12:13

I am not sure either, but can find out

Justine Chew

01:13:02

Yup, that's why I asked. Because the EBERO stuff was "discovered" at a GDD Summit, I don't recall it being an announcement to the community.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:13:05

Thx @Karen

Jim Prendergast

01:13:31

there were also EBERO level violations where "ICANN does not know the root cause" That may also be a driver for increased robustness

Justine Chew

01:14:18

+1 Donna, exactly.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:15:23

Good point Jim

Jim Prendergast

01:15:44

@Justine - I believe the EBERO stats were published prior to the GDD Summitt. What was news in Bangkok was the number of applicatns who had issues with passing PDT and according to Kristine W (no longer with ICANN) its was not just the typical IDN table issue

Justine Chew

01:15:46

I mentioned "results of data collected" meaning "results of the monitoring"

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:15:54

Good point {Publish)

Justine Chew

01:17:37

@Jim, sure, I just wanted to ask for what we need to know what's going on with the monitoring, whether to do with EBERO or more.

Jim Prendergast

01:19:13

NEed more context with the statistics

Justine Chew

01:19:32

Good

Steve Chan

01:19:52

Could we include the response received as example (in a footnote perhaps)?

Steve Chan

01:20:07

Is that the level of detail sought?

Justine Chew

01:22:11

Thanks @Jeff @Steve

Jim Prendergast

01:25:10

be good to put that in the notes so those not on the call are aware we may accelerate on calls.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:25:14

So we will aim to always have an option to move into to reduce the total time in the Work Plan...

Paul McGrady

01:25:17

Optimist

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:25:35

so please 'be prrepared'as best as possible

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:26:04

But if we can't fine consensus that we can all live with

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:26:52

then Move along to the next topic noting the lack of consensus and continuation of the 'status quo'

Julie Bisland

01:26:55

NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 18 February 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:27:20

Thanks for the discussion today, thoughtful and good progress... LOTS more next week :-) Bye for now...

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:27:30

Thanks all

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:27:35

middle of my night whatever day it us

Steve Chan

01:27:54

Jeff, don’t jinx us :)

Paul McGrady

01:28:34

Or conflict with INTA Annual meeting, if possible, please

Paul McGrady

01:28:55

Optimist

Karen Lentz

01:29:15

Thank you

Heather Forrest

01:29:16

Bye all

Download

Upcoming Meetings