Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
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
+1
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