Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Justine Chew
42:44
@Jeff, thanks. I'm sure the notice will also include a deadline for response. Just confirming the same.
Paul McGrady
44:25
Thanks
Steve Chan
44:40
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Justine Chew
46:24
Do we know how many ROs are in this position?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:40
What is the current standard for seeking a Code of Conduct exemption?
Paul McGrady
47:19
Support. Innovation should not die on the vine because the business model doesn't fit in the vintage second level domain name sales model.
Steve Chan
48:15
Code of conduct exemption page here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-contracting/ccer
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:04
It seems that if we are recommending they be able to seek exemption, we would have to specify standards. How do we know how hard they tried to get aaccredited registrars?
Justine Chew
49:05
I'd support a question being asked in the draft Final Report, then examine the responses against the "anectodal evidence" to see if action is necessary.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:08
It is going to be fixrd in the future @Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:20
it is a temp measure for security updates
karen.lentz
49:20
Not just you!
Jim Prendergast
49:37
But wouldn't due diligence, especially after the 2012 round issues a small handful experienced, require ensuring you have a distribution channel? Need to do your research ahead to make sure a or a few registrar will carry your TLD.
Jim Prendergast
51:37
I think Justines approach works for this
Jim Prendergast
51:44
yes
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:19
What if the registry just doesn't like the financial terms offered by the accredited registrar?
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:47
This is a marketplace issue Anne, in that registrars largely prefer to onboard registries that are vanilla. there are costs to the registrar to onboard a registry that has requirements that are unique in some way, so it may not always make economic sense for the registrar and that limits the options available for the registry.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:08
Thank you Donna. That may be a good reason for the second part of the question.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
58:13
Thanks Jeff.
Greg Shatan
59:08
The Report should make it clear that this is about the Registry opening its own registrar. The current paragraph is very cryptic.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:30
+1 Greg
Donna Austin, Neustar
59:31
Just as an FYI, this was something that I raised in a presentation I provided to the board on the registry/registrar marketplace in Montreal.
Justine Chew
01:00:07
@Anne, I would exclude in the question any reference to "standard"; instead, I think it's sufficient to simply ask for rationale.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:45
@Anne, yes, we need to add that stuff from the other sections into here
Steve Chan
01:06:19
Hand up
Justine Chew
01:06:29
I get the feeling that we need to actually stipulate what WOULD NOT require posting for public comment
Justine Chew
01:07:07
Your approach works too @Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:14
we should be explicit where we can
Justine Chew
01:08:00
Sure, that's fine too
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:00
indeed!
Steve Chan
01:09:24
I tried to raise my hand earlier, but I can’t :)
Justine Chew
01:09:46
I just thought since we have that "Do Not Require" list, anything that falls outside would require public comment. Perhaps we need to look at adjusting the "Do Not Require" list.
Justine Chew
01:10:01
+1 Steve
Steve Chan
01:11:37
The page I’m on now is here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/change-requests#statistics
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:13:12
We really need to specify those items that were discussed specifically in our deliberations where we were assured that references to Application Change Request included public comment. For example, settling Objections,
Greg Shatan
01:13:48
Agree with Justine - Do Not Require makes sense, has a track record, and it’s preferable to have a false positive (comment period where one wasn
Greg Shatan
01:14:04
t really imperative.)
Steve Chan
01:15:49
It’s Steve btw :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:10
Hello all, sorry for being late
Jeffrey Neuman
01:19:43
I am back, but Cheryl is doing great..... :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:28
Ergh
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:43
always one end or another with beasties :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:03
There are items that are not just Implementation Guidance on Application Change Requests. Some of these are Recommendations for public comment. eg RVCs as stated above.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:51
Ok thank you - look forward to new draft.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:40
Change in a string was another area where deliberations reflected a need for public comment. For example, a settlement could involve a payment from one party to another which does not take into account the public interest.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:07
Ok thank you.
Justine Chew
01:31:38
If I recall correctly, the ALAC did comment that there should be guardrails for changes to applied-for strings.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:31:54
@Justine - absolutely
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:58
+1 Justine
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:07
I think the last paragraph has those guard rails
Justine Chew
01:32:45
Yes, indeed.
Steve Chan
01:32:55
And some of the concerns are raised in the second paragraph of course.
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:41
a decade later?
Greg Shatan
01:34:54
@Maxim, but who’s counting? :-)
Greg Shatan
01:35:41
The proposal in the third para is eminently reasonable.
Justine Chew
01:37:08
@Jeff, use .brand as example, and ask if other circumstances could be considered?
Justine Chew
01:37:28
@Jeff, look at ALAC's suggested guardrails.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:37:56
Thanks @Justine....Steve can we bring that up
Steve Chan
01:38:17
One sec…
Justine Chew
01:38:20
If I can sum up ....
Justine Chew
01:39:47
NO to (1) causing name collision risk (2) new string not closely related to original string as determined by expert/community input (3) new string is exact match or is an IDN variant of an already applied-for string (4) new string is an IDN variant of a delegated string
Steve Chan
01:40:24
Doc is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ea-CjtL-heQjEwTesr7MYC_8gFEvmhY8XBCWTvoan6g/edit?usp=sharing
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:35
Thanks Justine - very helpful in addition to public comment and open for objections
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:10
if it is a variant of the string applied by the same entity?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:42:49
I don't think it needs to be just brands, but I don't recall what Kathy said.
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:58
I mean IDN variant to something, applied for by the same applicant , or to some TLD, run by the same entity?
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:48
if we specify too much, then we might miss something new
Paul McGrady
01:44:52
The AGB would double in size if we relist the rules here
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:15
The general reference should include examples. We can specify the listed guardrails from the chat for the broader category - we can list these as compliance with the other rules, e.g. Justine's list and then also public comment, and Objections etc
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:20
I hope this time it is going to be less than 500 pages
Paul McGrady
01:45:36
+1 Maxim, a good goal
Heather Forrest
01:45:44
Hooray Maxim
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:45:48
We're making this very complicated
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:51
@Maxim - I doubrt that - we are adding appeals
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:01
No Guaruntees Maxim ;-)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:46:37
You start pushing out timelines and messing with evaluation processes.
Paul McGrady
01:46:52
@Karen- thanks for raising that!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:09
Good point Karen! Because there are timing issues with when the trademark was registered, right?
Paul McGrady
01:52:31
Maybe we should make the definition of .brand more practical, e.g. eact match of mark or exact match of mark + relevant industry term
Steve Chan
01:52:34
Should point (d) include GAC EW/Advice specifically? And should point (d) apply to joint ventures?
Heather Forrest
01:53:02
Good point, Paul - all of these guardrails link directly to what we define brand as, ie, what we allow brands to apply for
Heather Forrest
01:53:37
we can't apply a guardrail standard that is wildly different from what we allowed .brands to apply for in the first place
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:18
GAC sending requests for delay to PDPs directly , instead of GNSO Council seems to be a wrong vehicle
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:49
it is like GNSO sending letters to some GAC subgroups
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:58
not really Maxim. Jeff and Cheryl have actively engaged with the GAC
Heather Forrest
01:55:24
To Anne's point, we are going inevitably to have issues with GAC participation in remote meetings. APAC was completely unable to participate in Cancun. Which GAC region will be unable to participate in ICANN68?
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:22
I meant that PDP itself can not seriously extend it’s timeline without a Council in reality
Heather Forrest
01:56:38
+1 Jeff. Means we need to get creative, outside of the ICANN68 replacement (whatever that is), in seeking GAC input.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:56:42
and let's remember that this effort has been going for 4 years, so as Jeff's says ample opportunity has been afforded the GAC along the way.
Greg Shatan
01:57:42
Heather, in New York, we’ll be starting at 8 pm and finishing at 6 am, since we are 12 hours behind KL....
Steve Chan
01:57:53
Running public comment periods create a lot of overhead for the community, the WG, and staff. It’s good to consider the impact from running two public comment periods.
tomwdale
01:58:51
I understand the time zone (and there may be more than one) for ICANN68 has not yet been decided.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:59:13
+1 Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:00:51
I think we have the opportunity to offer some specific GAC input on the 5 comments
Heather Forrest
02:01:36
+1 Cheryl - let's not forget that the GAC had the opportunity to participate in the previous public comment period, and will have the same opportunity in relation to the Final Report, irrespective of location/time zone of ICANN68.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:32
The goal under current run times on the topics as we see it was to allow ICANN68 to be in the PC period to allow faciliataion and discussion *OF* our Report during and beyond ICANN 86
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:41
maybe 68 ;-)
Steve Chan
02:04:59
I know we’re over time, but is there time for a quick comment from me?
Jeffrey Neuman
02:05:38
@steve...no....just kidding....of course
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:06:46
YES that's true but they emphasized that they had lower participation due to last minute issues.
Justine Chew
02:07:11
If we are contemplating running ahead of time, I would love it if we could consider dropping back down to 1 call per week, but hey, wishful thinking.
Paul McGrady
02:07:44
or at least backing the 2 hour marathon to the 90 minute marathon...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:08:50
Time check
Justine Chew
02:09:06
Perhaps put a stake in automatically extending the public comment period?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:10:25
Particularly in relation to a Final Report, there is a big difference between participation versus - available for public comment.
Jim Prendergast
02:11:20
we went for 100 tonight so give us 10 min back on Thrusday ;)
Steve Chan
02:11:23
Thursday, 16 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 120 minutes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:11:30
Lots done today people THANKS to you all we continue to progress MORE to come of course! :-) Bye for now...
avri doria
02:11:53
bye, thanks, be well all.
Greg Shatan
02:11:57
Bye
Maxim Alzoba
02:12:00
bye all
Heather Forrest
02:12:00
Thanks Jeff