https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report

We will post Justine’s comments today :)

thanks. And presume that if not in the form, it wont get compiled? Otherwise staff's job becomes exponentially more difficult.

Correct

Thanks Jeff and Cheryl. Will stay tuned.

ICANN does not seem to contract persons, so it has to be an organization

I meant for applicant

Ah, yes...thanks Maxim

true

panelists need to sleep and do human things, so 5 might be bit low

standby ready panelists?

@Christopher, you should bring that up under Applicant Support topic.

so far it is a third party , since 2012 and is till the same party doing tests of RSP

it means this third party can twist hands of RSPs

And might become a competitor to the RSPs they evaluate?!

who knows, do we have anything against in the the AGB?

Katrin - there will be a conflicts of Interest policy that we have and will talk about

Thanks, Jeff!

@Jeff, when we are done with RSP Pre-Evaluation, I'd like to revisit an item above

@Jeff, might there be some sort of overall recommendation or implementation guidance regarding selection of all evaluators, in the context of challenges and appeals?

@Paul, then how would third parties put up a challenge?

Third parties can still make public comments

good question Justine - What if ALAC wants to challenge?

@Jeff, I'll have to think a bit more on this.

it will create endless oportunities for bad guys with blackmail intentions

I understand the concerns, it's the history of cybersquatting behaviour that I'm concerned with.

there is also a recommendation to allow non-public submission of information in relation to a background screening

(this is in addition to public comment)

@Anne, for the record, it's not ALAC that I had in mind, but industry folks actually.

Agree with 15 day notice filing followed by substantive arguments 15 days later.

+1 for bracketed language

+1 for bracketed

+1 for bracketed

+1 for bracketed

It also gives opportunity for dialogue between the parties

what happens if an independent objector goes rogue and files objections against everything?

It wouldn't. The ALAC would not be able to appeal without a budget from ICANN.

ALAC bake sale?

We should say that ALAC budget request should include funds for appeal if needed that ALAC will return to ICANN if not used.

As a reminder, if you are having trouble following along with the screen share, the sheet we are reviewing is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=634268874

If we say ALAC be funded to file appeal and pay for costs if appeal dismissed. Similar to the Independent Objector. That would be great.

+1 for clarity of the language about loser pays

Exactly, @Paul. No funds means no appeals for ALAC.

unlimited funding not good too (example - challenging every application)

is not good

"Unlimited funding" was never mentioned @Maxim.

do we have any mechanisms preventing unlimited funding?

Yes, please! :)

So the IO is funded and ALAC isn't. Not my favorite outcome since IO in last round had very iffy approach and outcomes

Minus the Administration Fee

Right

We will use the same language as in the Guidebook

@Jeff - how does ALAC get the funding for the initial filing?

ICANN paid the fees

No approval from ICANN Board re ALAC objections or appeals. ALAC just gets funding from ICANN Org.

We don't receive funds. We just get ICANN Org to make payment.

allowed to spend should be more like allowed to request payment , not actual funds

thanks

For CPE, it's a challenge. Not appeal.

How do ALAC members on this call feel about the budget vs the old mechanism?

Quantum is sort of out scope for this WG.

@Paul, what do you mean by "old mechanism"?

could it be referred as reasonable amount?

panelist will be happy

Punt to IRT - okay with that

@Jeff - put "former President Obama" in brackets

Yes, okay to punt to IRT. Maybe consider Board committee as arbiter also?

IRT may be the right answer, I just want to ponder

for some reason, in safari the page numbers appear differently

it’s the same text though

Needs grounds for challenge / appeal

I'm not a fan of the quick look.

COMMENT: I don't think Footnote 84 re "clearly erroneous" reflects my prior comments which were:

+1 Paul

In line with Paul's comment, who defines "frivolous?"?

now that’s serious

+1Gg, one person's frivolous is another person's last ditch effort to get a panelist to understand

Hi Anne, can you repost your comment in the chat?

I see :COMMENT: I don't think Footnote 84 re "clearly erroneous" reflects my prior comments which were:

but not the text following it

I want to make sure we capture your input

Clearly erroneous: On balance, in terms of the substantive determination, I would tend to leave an Objection ruling in place unless (1) the panel failed to follow the appropriate procedures or (2) failed to consider/solicit necessary material evidence or information.

Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes

Interesting discussion today! Bye!