Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
42:21
https://community.icann.org/x/JDKJBw
Emily Barabas
43:11
• 2.10.2 Registrar Non-Discrimination / Registry/Registrar Standardization• 2.5 Registrar Support for New gTLDs• 2.11.1 Registry System Testing• 2.12.1 TLD Rollout• 2.12.3 Contractual Compliance
Jim Prendergast
47:09
ok - thanks
Jim Prendergast
47:58
Star Wars day
karen.lentz
49:09
Yes, Matt Larson from OCTO
Julie Hedlund
49:32
Link to the Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
karen.lentz
51:16
I believe so far no RRDRP proceedings, will confirm
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
55:10
I like that After Delegation Dispute Policies
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
56:20
@Steve - it's the Trademark PDDRP
Steve Chan
57:15
Thanks. Hence why it’s confusing :)
Annebeth Lange
57:35
Dispute Policies is a good substitution for Dispute Resolution Procedures. But I do not see the difference between Post-Delegation and After Delegation. It means the same, and at least legally, it is usual to use the words “post” and “ante” for after and before.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:19
RVC DRP?
Susan Payne
58:52
I don't believe we should do any more than mention the TMPDDRP exists. No need to get into any history or detail since it has always been out of scope for this WG
Justine Chew
58:52
@Anne, must dropV
Susan Payne
59:28
+1 Alan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:48
fair point AG
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:52
But we changed the name of voluntary PICS to RVCs
Susan Payne
59:53
re PICDRP
Annebeth Lange
01:01:20
Changing acronyms are always difficult. It is difficult enough as it is for all reading the AGB and other documents to remember all the different acronyms. Better to stay with those that people are used to.
Susan Payne
01:01:45
Specific Commitment DRP (covering pICs and RVCs)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:02:10
Justine suggests Registry Commitment DRP
Annebeth Lange
01:02:15
+1 Alan
Paul McGrady
01:02:23
Congrats to us. We have found a way to make PICs even more complex...
Susan Payne
01:02:53
agree with you on that too Alan, but seemingly a few people in this group take issue with the ref to public interest
christopher wilkinson
01:02:55
@Alan +1
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:03:15
But thank you :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:16
We definitely need to distinguish between mandatory PICs and Registry Voluntary Commitments
Justine Chew
01:03:34
@Anne, I didn't actually, I just meant that the "voluntary" in your RVC DRP should be dropped.
Steve Chan
01:04:01
Note that in the Registry Commitments section there is this Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 5): The Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP) and associated processes should be updated to equally apply to RVCs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:36
I think we just said that the PICDRP procedures would apply equally to RVCs.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:05:06
we talked extensively about this adjustment of terminology...
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:05:21
Now we're just talking about the right title for the applicable DRP
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:05:39
Is this chat room using very large letters?
Susan Payne
01:06:36
Christopher, you can't just reopen things that are closed call after call. I don't personally agree with the terminology change, but it's done
Jeffrey Neuman
01:07:41
@Anne - that is another option
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:07:59
Agree with CLO
Annebeth Lange
01:08:22
@Cheryl, very well put
Paul McGrady
01:08:29
Jeff is doing the best he can. And the proposed change is meant to fix a problem. But, I do have sympathy for Alan's point that changes like this can lead to (at least initial) confusion for those of us that were familiar with the good old PIC. :)
Annebeth Lange
01:09:16
I agree, Paul, sometimes we have to just learn the changes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:38
Most assuredly @Anne
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:09
@Anne, correct. I believe the proposal may have come from the Non-commercial Stakeholder Group if I remember correctly.
Justine Chew
01:11:34
I don't have a problem with the term RVC and I am ambivalent about changing or keeping the term PICDRP, it's far important for me to specify that PICDRP covers all registry commitments - both mandatory PICS and RVCs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:00
+1 Justine
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:44
+1 Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:12:45
I didn't thonk my hand was up apols if it was
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:14:51
yes Paul that is my understanding at least
Paul McGrady
01:14:59
thansk
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:00
and mine
Julie Hedlund
01:15:52
Page 40 in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Steve Chan
01:16:01
I paused the screen while moving so as not to make you all nauseous :)
Roger Carney
01:20:31
@Jeff and any successor RFC?
Roger Carney
01:21:05
Good point
Roger Carney
01:21:38
Makes sense
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:21:43
I don't think IETF is involved in land grabs or motivated to do so - no advantage to them as a group. Their issues are security and stability.
Paul McGrady
01:24:07
@Jeff - so then why do we need to bless it?
Paul McGrady
01:24:49
Can we change "recommends" to "acknowledging the existence of"
Paul McGrady
01:25:28
Thanks Jeff.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:42
@Paul - because the Board will never accept to ignore IETF RFC 6761 and there was public comment in favor of maintaining compliance with that procedure
Katrin Ohlmer
01:27:39
Do we want to add a recommendation for strings which had to been withdrawn in the 2012 round due technical issues like .home?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:28:39
OK
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:56
There is at least one application for .home that has not been withdrawn. Applicant may be interested in waiting for a possible change in name collision policy. .corp and .mail also have applications which have not been withdrawn. These will be studied in Study 2 of the Name Collision Analysis Project.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:45
Total agreement :-)
Alexander Schubert
01:33:45
Bzzzzzzz
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:01
:-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:24
This protects the country codes, right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:51
yes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:36
@Christopher - country codes remain reserved (not available) at the top level based on this language I think.
Julie Hedlund
01:35:52
page 7 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Olga Cavalli
01:39:21
hi apologies for being late, several remote meetings !!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:00
Welcome Olga I am confident we can all empathise
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:20
good point @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:42:10
We now have "applicant type" twice in the first paragraph. It should read "application type, , string type, or the applicant type": - same order as the list below.
Paul McGrady
01:42:33
Thanks Jeff!
Annebeth Lange
01:42:35
@Jeff, that is what I remember as well. The definitions should be included.
Paul McGrady
01:44:22
Under application types, should we parse out public companies from private companies? Too granular?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:45:58
agree, too granular
Paul McGrady
01:46:06
OK. Thanks
Paul McGrady
01:53:06
@Anne- right. The Council could initiate a PDP to address this issue whenever it wants
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:37
I support Paul's suggestion.
Paul McGrady
01:57:02
It's a easy enough global change
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:03
Agree Paul, but I do think it's possible the Predictability Framework could address an issue if GNSO Council agrees it would be more expeditious. GNSO Council can always decline to use the Predictability Framework using existing GNSO procedures for PDP, EPDP, Input and Guidance
Justine Chew
01:57:56
+1 Jeff
Justine Chew
01:58:47
yes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:51
Does to me... Paul?
Paul McGrady
01:59:50
I think my point was acknowledged, so I'm OK for today. But a don't want to start the discussion of the Predictability Framework with the presupposition that everyone is on board.
Paul McGrady
02:01:33
I hear you Jeff... :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:22
Thanks everyone lots covered today, bye for now then, more next week...
Martin Sutton
02:03:26
Good progress, thanks Jeff
Paul McGrady
02:03:34
Thanks Jeff Great call
avri doria
02:03:37
thanks, stay well all.