In Webinar mode @Christopher you as a participant won't see that list, However we currently have 66 people attending

I will keep ypu all updated on attendees

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

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

82 ateendee

Slides can be found on the GNSO Calendar or wiki agenda pageWelcome to those who joined late. All attendees will be on mute until the Q&A session.

90 now welcome all!

GNSO calendar: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep

Agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C

feel free to use the Qand A pod as we gothrough

Hi *.*

@all: to ensure everyone can see your chat messages, please change the dropdown to include All Panelists and Attendees.

Hello 2 @all! Hola a tod@s!!

any simple things in QandA we will also attempt to answer as we go in the pod

we now have more than 104 attendees FYI so please you can all join us today

115 attendees at this time

Great attendance!!

Note FINALISATION by EOY!!!

Which year? :)

/me ducks

120 now @Vanda excellent, and reflective of the importance of the topic

@cheryl. great!

note Äs Implamented"on that Status Quo reference

"As Implemented" typos SIGG

We do recommend that in prep for filling out the Form you use a Word Doc to prepare, this will also help where group inputs are being created

Is there a separate doc with all the questions?

we have a PDF and Word option yes

Grand

perfect

@Michele, yes. You can find in Section III here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-draft-final-report-2020-08-20-en

A problem I’ve experienced when trying to read comments submitted via the google form, is that they are displayed in a spreadsheet in which the text in each cell isn’t properly wrapped. Generally, the interface makes it difficult to read submitted comments, but in some cases, the responses to questions aren’t fully displayed.

Any potential fix for this?

Noted @Amr, but of course before WG Analysis of PC we will ensure that all data is fully readable and shown n the Staff Report

Thanks, Cheryl.

@Jeff, when you say "we are recommending this" or "we are recommending that", do you mean that the consensus call on all of these things has already been taken?

@Paul @Jeff specifically covered that earlier

But No we have NOT taken any Consensus call at this stage

@CLO, thanks. I joined late.

Ahh NP I always expect you to be with us @Paul

QUESTION: Given that the Draft Final Report is 361 pages, is the length of the public comment period realistic? QUESTION

@Anne, we recognose that if it was a 'go read allthat then formulate opinion write feedback and lodge it'exercise it would be a push for some (especially groups with the associated group dynamics) But we have gone to great lengths to ensure that the reference to the specifics of recommendations etc., substantial changes from previous Reports etc., is called out and linked to the Form and of course the PC Form also makes the input itself as easy as we can make it to assist in it not being unrealistic

Are there any rules against another applicant helping an applicant who doesn't get applicant support? Coulda competitor try to keep another competitor in a contention set...

@Paul can I ask you to copy that one into the Qand A Pod (I am unable to) as I would like to come back to that one at the end of the presentation in general QandA

Done. Thanks!

Thx @Paul

I've marked it for "live Answer"/discussion

The fact that the "g" in gTLD stands for "Generic" does not help this discussion!

indeed @Alan

None of the proposals will likely be adopted by the WG, but the principals are indeed the issue that we need to focus on.

@all: to ensure everyone can see your chat messages, please change the dropdown to include All Panelists and Attendees.

an applicant - not a registry yet

@Alan, I agree

the logest one @Jeff ;-)

Mr. Even Keel. You are doing great Jeff.

To ask a question, click the Q&A box and type in your question at bottom of your zoom screen or you may also raise your hand.

If you raise your hand Terri will unmute you but you may also need to unmute yourself

we have provided support to competitors here in Brazil and all got it approved but int he end we as group decided not apply by we own.

I asked a question in the Q&A

Jeff, thanks for this concise and helpful summary of this emmense tome (ot tomb??) and within the time frame!

ot = or

certainly the question needed to be answered

some back end providers give some good answers to those not able to understand all the technical process

@Jeff, Thank you for the presentation.

I think the preapproval process is one of the really big improvements coming out of this PDP.

we called it the RSP Pre-evaluation process. so Pre-evaluated. Not Pre-approved.

not pre-approved. pre-evaluated.

I agree Paul. It would be nice if applicants could therefore defer the selection of their back-end provider until required for the testing phase.

technical answers identify a backend well

thanks

Jeff, Thanks for a very articulate, balanced, understandable, and appropriately nuanced presentation of a major piece of work.

indeed george very good thank you Jeff

We need to end the que now

Any other questions can be sent and we will respond after the webionar

+1 Christopher. Seems like the only ,brands who will apply are the ones that are 100% confident that they can win the sealed bid auctions. By filing, you have to play ICANN's game, rather than just suing an applicant trying to squat on your mark.

@Jeff: Great job, thanks!

WG needs to fix this anti-brand bias before the final report comes out.

Start drafting @Paul

@CLO - the good news is that it is an easy fix. Simply exempt .brands from the sealed bids process and let them use the ascending bid process like last time.

Jeff - This is all very well done. Thanks for walking us through this Report. Very helpful. Congrats to all WG members on this effort.

(thanks Jeff, and thanks Cheryl) needless to say that that 35.3 a read tough one to ecxercise.

Applicants should able to defer the selection of their technical service providers, including back-end registry providers, until pre-delegation testing.

Slides and recordings can be found on the GNSO Calendar and wiki agenda pagehttps://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep and https://community.icann.org/x/DwC-C

+1. Great job Jeff!

+1 to Alan's note

Many, many, many thanks due to Co-chairs @Jeff & @CLO for this great, detailed refresher call. And some great Q & A !

thanks great webinar

Thanks everyone!!! Bye for now

Great job Jeff and Cheryl .. Million thanks !!

thanks again!

bye all