Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Javier Rúa-Jovet
37:00
hi 2 all
Robin Gross
37:30
Good evening from San Francisco!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:25
and of course at this stage the specifics of any schedules for Virtual ICANN 67 remain unknown (with lots of moving parts still being sorted out still)
Alexander Schubert
41:51
if the sessions start before 2pm ET - European participation will be low. (I personally reside in Florida - so it doesn't impact me.)
Jim Prendergast
42:15
Im not so sure having a few hours of bilats with the GAC qualifies as full discussion - but one can hope.
Rubens Kuhl
43:12
I think the way to have timely advice is to qualify advice the Board is expected to accept, like being Consensus Advice and Timely Advice.
tomwdale
43:40
The GAC session dedicated to SubPro learning was scheduled for Saturday 7 March. Details on GAC website.
Alexander Schubert
43:43
uuups. i was off with ET.... still thinking in European time
Rubens Kuhl
43:43
So this puts an incentive to follow the program timeline.
Robin Gross
44:14
+1 Rubens
Alan Greenberg
44:47
The virtual meeting hours will be 14:00 - 22:00 UTC.
Alan Greenberg
45:16
9-5 EST/Cancun time
Steve Chan
46:00
Google doc available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:04
Literally midnight to Dawn for some of us
tomwdale
46:49
@CLO Like shift work.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:07
Except the normal day shifts and demands also continue
Rubens Kuhl
47:08
Cheryl, are there werewolves in Australia at those hours ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:24
so more like double shifts+
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:53
naa @Rubens the Drop Bears sorted them all out ages ago ;-)
tomwdale
47:53
Nurses work double shifts...but get paid.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:23
they don't od it 5 days in a row Tom
Justine Chew
48:45
And get time off after shifts.
Steve Chan
48:56
Page refreshed…comment from Kathy is there now
Justine Chew
50:02
I wouldn't mind still having the week after virtual ICANN67 off to recover from 7 days of double shifts. Sigh.
Rubens Kuhl
51:08
My memory is that we had the same voices over and over disagreeing, not a WG disagreement.
Jim Prendergast
52:20
@Justine - I was going to say - we may be even more fried from this meeting because of time zones and the challenegs of trying to be focused online for long stretches
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:43
I can bore people with the effects on the ACH (Adreno Cortisol stress hormone system) on short term but sustained interruptions to normal D=diurnal cycles is on the average human over a libation anytime any of you want to pick my "stress physiologist& qualified brain (pun intended with all the brains I 'picked' in my PhD studies ;-)
Kathy Kleiman
52:44
@Justine - agreed!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:36
Consistency is key yes @Alan
Kathy Kleiman
54:12
So let's ask for the public to help us with this issue.
Kathy Kleiman
54:22
Lots of government agencies deal with this issue...
Rubens Kuhl
54:35
ICANN already has to identify corporate trees when it onboards a TLD. So that implementation already exists.
Kathy Kleiman
55:25
Registry, registry, registry
Paul McGrady
55:42
What is the "Public Interest community"?
Kathy Kleiman
56:58
can you put the link for this document into chat?
Steve Chan
57:20
Sure: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zDdzlBwLCz5m2sNXui6N6pporbUq-lDFEwfh4rKi4A/edit#gid=2145886643
Rubens Kuhl
57:34
Public Interest Community is mostly NCSG familiar faces.
Alexander Schubert
57:53
if there isn't consensus - we could at least try to NOT make it easier to have a DNS-land mass-grab.
Paul McGrady
58:16
I think the way it is worded now i sjust fine
christopher wilkinson
58:19
The conditions for new entrants should not be determined by incumbents.
christopher wilkinson
58:24
Old hand
Rubens Kuhl
58:27
Alexander, competition authorities are still out there and can intervene.
christopher wilkinson
59:40
@Rubens ICANN itself is the competition authority.
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:09
Agree with Anne
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:42
CW, that's not true. Look at RSEP, where ICANN refers competition issues to competition authorities. ICANN has no legal standing to declare itself a competition authority.
Robin Gross
01:01:15
Good point.
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:01:51
interesting discussion
Jim Prendergast
01:03:07
I believe the recommendation has to reflect the totality of the discussions. That should include dissenting opinions to what the recomendations states. Is there room in C for that?
Rubens Kuhl
01:03:09
Minority reports exist to be the vehicle to disagreements.
Jeff Neuman
01:03:32
@Jim - that's precisely where that belongs...in deliberations.
Jim Prendergast
01:04:01
just spell it correctly Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:10
I'm pretty sure we all know the themes that will have minority statements many years back.
Justine Chew
01:06:18
So it the objection to "The WG believes .."?
Justine Chew
01:06:41
*So is ..
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:13
That is what I am hearing @Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:35
and a desire to recognise the feasibility limitations of imposing any limits
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:06
In this case we don't need the Newmann rule; there is rough agreement.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:08:21
Neumann...
Jeff Neuman
01:08:31
Neuman :)
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:08:46
New Man
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:49
There is no fun in writing Jeff's name right.
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:32
ultimately the Working Group concluded that there were no effective, fair and/or feasible mechanisms to enforce such limits. It therefore concluded that no limits should be imposed on either the number of applications in total or the number of applications from any particular entity.Screen reader support enabled.
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:04
yes, provided we hone very close to 2.2.5.c.1
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:46
That would be a better reflection, tx.
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:11:20
Why don't we want to put limitations for Application Submissions?
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:05
"Even those that supported limitations, recognised that there were no effective, fair or feasible mechanisms to do it."
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:44
That's what our report says...
Paul McGrady
01:14:30
There is no such dependencies in the comments made by HUGE chunks of the GNSO that took the time to submit comments and positions. We should not rewrite history.
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:27
No one has come up with nothing near a hint of how to limit.
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:59
I don't think the status quo comes into play here.
Paul McGrady
01:16:22
@Kathy - and then there was public comment following on from the initial report. Unless you are suggesting that preliminary reports always govern and public comments should be ignored. But I know you better than that - you don't believe that. Comments matter, especially when they are overwhelmingly pointing us in a single direction.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:30
We're not rewriting history with 2.2.5.c.1
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:53
The CQs phrase is backwards.
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:54
Cause x consequence
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:36
Just the wording
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:44
To the list later
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:55
question
christopher wilkinson
01:25:43
Applicant comments: If ICANN can do all that to check ownership of Comments, then surely ICANN can do that equally well for the ownership of individual applications.
Steve Chan
01:28:14
Or remove the responsible party?
Steve Chan
01:28:54
Exactly Jeff
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:58
I've sent suggested wording to the list.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:45
But no one would know...
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:04
Kathy, one issue is when the relationship between comments and change is not biunivocal.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:37
Just a notification period about a change being posted...
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:56
But we could notify all people that commend on one application that there was a change in the application due to one application comment, but not necessarily that person's comment.
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:44
So this wouldn't be an unsolvable matrix problem, but a simpler guidance.
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:34
[ x ] I want to be notified if the application is changed
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:44
Shall we put it here too....
Justine Chew
01:35:39
Implementation Guidance on Systems: IRT to look into rolling up a sign-up mechanism to be alerted by email on any part of an application that is updated.
Justine Chew
01:35:53
*rolling out
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:56
right!
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:59
Tx!
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:00
It sounds contradictory to the other recommendations.
Paul McGrady
01:40:26
Why would we change direction at this late hour?
Rubens Kuhl
01:41:06
So we either strike them, or keep them. But the two are incompatible.
Justine Chew
01:41:17
Should seek true identity but not necessarily publish it?
Paul McGrady
01:42:34
@Justine - I don't think that does it. The motives of the commenter are important.
Paul McGrady
01:43:25
Its an enormous burden to identify yourself?
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:45
It's an enormous burden to confirm identity.
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:12
My name is Paul McGrady.
Paul McGrady
01:45:40
@Rubens - ha!
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:22
That's great -- I was not sure. Tx for the discussion!
Rubens Kuhl
01:46:29
We could avoid disposable e-mail addresses, which is feasible to implement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:46
All good!
Justine Chew
01:46:47
I said "seek" true identity not "verify", so not sure where I differed on this discussion.
Justine Chew
01:48:44
Good to know, on CPE comments.
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:50:57
May you share again the link for Workplan please?
Steve Chan
01:51:53
Sure: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit#gid=839727774
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:52:28
Thanks
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:18
Good night, good morning!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:30
Thanks everyone excellent progress today: -) bye for now...
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:36
Bye all!
Juan Manuel Rojas
01:53:40
Thanks everyone!
karen.lentz
01:53:42
Thank you
avri doria
01:53:43
bye