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

soud is fine @Jeff

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.

gotcha - finish line - not how we get there

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

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

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

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

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

Thx @Steve

Does that make it policy?

Question from Paul, Jeff

It’s in the chat

Thanks Jeff!

welcomes and encourages?

hand

@Jim - we can change that to "should"

"really ought to"

joke

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

I think that might work

Pre Evaluation Process/// PREP

RSP PREP?

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

Donna's Hand up

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

Thanks @Steve

Perhaps include examples, if possible?

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

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

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

+1 Paul

@Jeff - violations sounds like its done on purpose

I like minimize likelihood of failures to meet SLAs

taking into account the service level requirements

@Jeff, your iteration works

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

Donna's version works too

KISS

Yup

Muah @Jeff

+ Karen

+1

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

I am not sure either, but can find out

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.

Thx @Karen

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

+1 Donna, exactly.

Good point Jim

@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

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

Good point {Publish)

@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.

NEed more context with the statistics

Good

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

Is that the level of detail sought?

Thanks @Jeff @Steve

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

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

Optimist

so please 'be prrepared'as best as possible

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

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

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

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

Thanks all

middle of my night whatever day it us

Jeff, don’t jinx us :)

Or conflict with INTA Annual meeting, if possible, please

Optimist

Thank you

Bye all