Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Definitions document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYOruGqewTsu5ejL_zoom0ol6VA1xMLX2FXW2VAy4eI/edit

sorry for the delay, I had some problems with password

Jeff, you sound okay to me

I hear you ok Jeff

Brands

@A.A-S. I have just said that the status quo has to be changed for non AGB geo-names.

What closed generic policy Kathy?

For me, status quo is AGB 2012. However, I am sure that is different for the different issues.

And haven't you been arguing throughout that closed generics were always prohibited? So, it's good to see you now accept that is not correct

Hello all , sorry for being late

+ 1 Greg

@Susan, disagree and will leave it at that.

I don't agree with Kathy that the negotiations over the contracts for .brand registries was "policy." That said, do we need to reach this issue in order to approve this document today?

The note is that was far more than "implementation" between AGB and delegrations.

I disagree that we have to get through this document without providing examples. Definitional documents are extremely important.

It's important in part because we are reviewing "can't live with" language.

Sorry I'm late folks. What did I miss?

It was an IG

@Donna - we solved Closed Generics, Auctions, and the SPIRT with 100% agreement. :)

Agree with Anne. "hopefully" isn't explicit enough.

+1 Anne - that makes sense

@Jeff - for auctions would it be "no agreement for changes to the status quo" (unless we get agreement)?

+1 Justine

@Jeff - I withdraw the question. I see the default back to status quo is the the No Agreement section

Thanks Jeff

Production document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing

I'd prefer should.

I prefer should

I still it should be a must

I also prefer “should” especially given the definitions

I think the recommendation and IG work well together

for this example

Can I have some time to revisit the rationale for this IG please?

What does it mean?

So, it means that the application comments collected are not part of the overall communications plan and will be handled elsehwhere?

Should it be: the impaction of comments made on applications collected through ....

Yes

Thanks Donna and Justine

Steve :)

Kudos to Julie, Steve and Emily for their invisible contributions

FYI, we are in the section on Systems

Empty answer is equal to another empty

Agree

@autofill : insofar as these provisions are designed to facilitate multiple portfolio applications I would be opposed, until the PDP has agreed LIMITS on the number of applications from the same entity.

lots of TLDs do not have anything added

@Cristopher, then we see lots of entities, not necessary affiliated in the begining

but merged later

it is not a bog deal to create another organization/company

*big

I have the same basic proposal

please don’t make it painful to add text to the application.

@Anne - but what does that have to do with auto-fill??

all RSEP go through the public process

is out task to make life of an applicant as complex as possible?

“curse you subpro!”

hand up

We are really talking about data entry convenience here, right? If so, I think we can just agree with Anne and move on.

we do not need to make life worse just because we think it is too simple

@Paul - we could, but really why do we have to make this so complicated for applicanyts because 2 people think this?

Autofill is different from copy & paste right?

isn't copy & paste a hardware function? Or, am I really stupid? (please be kind)

it is software level, until you install a robot behind the keyboard or API

if PIC is empty - then it is autofilled by definition

WHY !?!

why are we trying to police applicant submissions

new hand

It's a good question Elaine.

Thanks Maxim. So, I don't get it. How is it helpful to force manually typing something in?

@Elaine - it started out as a simple process improvement……

more labour = more paid hours, it helps economy

@Elaine - quite. Because some people think you shouldn't apply for more than one TLD and so they want hurdles

but adds lots of mistakes to the text, so the panelists have more things to do the same time

lack of autofill is highly unlikely to act as a deterrent to any applicant

So, if we are talking about banning block & copy (rather than just making pull-down-auto-fill unavailable for that section, I don't see how that makes sense.

copy and paste should not be forbidden

+1 Paul/Maxim

Right. So do we really NEED this autofill improvement at all?

Mandatory PICs

Good point, Maxim. If not Voluntary PICs, empty

I don't believe we do Justine

then reference to formerly called voluntary is not quite right

I didn't understand @Maxim

is adding random articles a, the counts as making a text ‘different’? if so - then we will have this

at $185k no one was ‘not’ thinking about what they put in the form

system was horrible - we had to use PDF (not editable) to use as a source from where text was copied bit by bit

I think we are there...

+1 Elaine

nobody needs live typing when the text is prepared in advance

agreed

even if paste function if forbidden it will be walked around by type bots emulating persons

fine,thanks

This autofill improvement really only helps applicants who intend to submit many applications, which seems to be to be favouring those kinds of applicants. So I sitll don't understand why we need this. Oh well ..

NOTE TO STAFF: RE Question 23, we also need a better definition of "additional services", ie "other than basic pre-approved services"

Thanks Anne. noted

OK

Who added this text?

+1 Jeff. This text would make applicants the funders of ICANN operations not just the funders of the new applicant program...

what on earth have the costs of the EPDP got to do with new gTLDs?

why is historical costs included ? they are now written off .

EPDP is cost of business , it is due to GDPR

Agree Jeff - ongoing operating fees cover BAU

this is wrong terminology .

No it wasn't.

after application - it is a Registry and ICANN invoices those

The reserve funds were used for IANA Transition.

No - funds were withdrawn for other reasons!

+1Donna

There is still excess funds from 2012 sitting in a separate ICANN account.

+1 Donna

everyone else is saying in chat so taken my hand down - auction proceeds were plundered for IANA transition. EPDP is due to change in legislation and nothing to do with the new gTLD program.

The EPDP and the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is being funding through the fees being collected by ICANN from contracted parties

ongoing

Angélique texts: ICANN benefits enormously from the value of unaccounted voluntary contributions of time. E.g. this PDP: These distinctions among different categories of costs are quite fungible.

the fee floor will need to be readjusted in the start of each round

Donna proposed a new IG

Agree - good addition from Donna

+1

@ Phil, I don't agree with your statement.

@Donna, +1

At some juncture we should have a discussion about how the costs of Application Support will be financed.

no

objection

Thanks

Must OK

yes I ll be put more on chat

bye all

Monday at....the appointed time

Tuesday 02 June at 03:00 UTC

Tuesday, 02 June at 0300 UTC

Bye All

Lots of good progress today team, thanks everyone! Bye for now...