Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Taylor Bentley (ISED Canada)
23:22
#ICANNeverywhere
Jim Prendergast
25:16
if the report is out for comment until end of September, what will we be doing on the September calls?
Donna Austin, RySG
26:43
WT5?
Donna Austin, RySG
28:36
ok, cool
Emily Barabas
29:14
correcrt
Jim Prendergast
29:42
I'd be curious to see that list. Not to be addressed now but my initial reaction is I'm kind of uncomfortable deliberating on something while its out for comment. That's immediately changing what the community is being asked to comment on, isn't it?
christopher wilkinson
30:08
As you all , there are several issues in WT5 which the PDP not yet addressed. CW
Alexander Schubert
33:32
There is a strong interdependence between WT5 and Closed Generics: We have never discussed how "Closed Generics" (outside of Brand Spec-13) would be governed in regards to Geo terms. We always said either a string is protected by only being used by a brand - or it was open for registration. With Closed Generics all these assurances are suddenly evaporate into air.
Alexander Schubert
34:14
*are
Alexander Schubert
35:53
So if we allowed closed generics we have to go back to WT5.
christopher wilkinson
36:35
@Alex +1
Maxim Alzoba
40:26
it is an opinion
Alexander Schubert
41:39
Well: we should make a note that if we suddenly allow closed generics we need to revisit WT5 (not that we forget that later). If we allow Close Generics we probably also allow non-Spec-13 non-generics, right? If a closed '.book' was allowed a closed '.bookly' would be allowed as well (as non-Spec-13), right? So a closed (non-Spec-13) .shanghai or .telaviv would be allowed - and all our years long of discussions became superfluous.
Alexander Schubert
42:22
*become
George Sadowsky
43:35
Kathy is planning to be here, but she may be a little late.
Alexander Schubert
45:15
Another question regarding Closed Generics:
Kathy Kleiman
45:19
Sorry to be late. I'm here now.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
45:56
That's not correct Christopher. Some are Advisory Committees some are Supporting Organisations with very different roles and objectives.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
46:34
COMMENT; As to Predictability Framework, the GNSO Council powers referred to in the intro to that section are contained in the ByLawss of ICANN. COMMENT
Alexander Schubert
46:58
Are as per now: Are non-generic term based "closed gTLDs" permissible (without Spec-13)?
Alexander Schubert
48:00
So not a brand - just a non-generic string as closed TLD.
Robin Gross
48:22
I agree with Susan. This is all specified in ICANN’s bylaws. No point trying to change that here.
Martin Sutton
48:55
Good reminder Susan - and as Donna points out SO/ACs have different roles and objectives too
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
49:04
Well said Susan
Paul McGrady
49:08
+1 Susan. _+1 Robin. Christopher's concerns are for a different forum.
Susan.Payne
49:12
you are very welcome Christopher
Martin Sutton
49:44
Thank you Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:23
yup
Alexander Schubert
53:05
So imagine I wanted I to apply for a closed .zyx - would that be possible outside of a Spec-13 registry (per our current AGB draft)?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:22
apologies I should have been muted
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:55
Rather than "debated or discussed" I would say "addressed"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:35
Rather than "of which", I would say "as to which"
Kathy Kleiman
57:23
Sure
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:33
is the above from Anne Friendly amendment(s) Kathy?
christopher wilkinson
58:04
@Kaathy - All SPIRT members must be immune from any interest in any applications.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:07
great
Alan Greenberg
01:00:09
Sorry for being late. Had a conflict.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:23
Welcome @Alan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:34
Word version
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:40
prepare in the Word Version
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:03:13
Suggest grammar edit - regardless of position of the paragraph - "and therefore, at this time, none of the proposals HAS any agreement"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:04:10
Agree re link as to TITLES and AUTHORS
George Sadowsky
01:04:23
Thanks, Jeff!
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:24
Great - all good .
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:50
yes makes sense @Jeff
christopher wilkinson
01:05:03
Why was several pages of the text posted in illegible grey?
Emily Barabas
01:06:51
Hi Christopher, most of this section has previously been subject to comment
Emily Barabas
01:07:17
there is just one new paragraph, and the co-chairs requested that new comments are limited to that new paragraph in black text
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:29
"may with respect" would need to be modified - "may wish to propose with resepect"
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:41
made?
Robin Gross
01:10:01
CW - Sounds like a minority statement to me (not something that belongs in the body of the recommendations).
Paul McGrady
01:10:19
+1 Robin.
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:55
I had the same question.
Emily Barabas
01:12:21
Perhaps the missing word is “have”
Emily Barabas
01:12:41
to reflect his other addition “or if there are any other proposals that members of the community may have with respect to the availability of closed generic strings”
Paul McGrady
01:14:18
How will we handle all of the fresh proposals? Do we really intend to give them all adequate airtime? If not, why waste the public's time?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:30
I have no urge to open up for additional mpdels
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:34
models
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:20
That sounds great
christopher wilkinson
01:15:49
@ Robin - I am not really interested in a ‘minority’ position. I want to CHANGE the PDP position to make it more acceptable internationally and economicaly., world-e
Emily Barabas
01:15:59
that’s the end of the section
Emily Barabas
01:16:06
but there are a few comments in the grey text
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:04
+1
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:20:14
+1
Elaine Pruis
01:21:06
“As all material changes require” is there
Susan.Payne
01:21:15
agree with Paul
Justine Chew
01:22:07
+1 Elaine
Paul McGrady
01:23:15
"should a material change require"
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:23:15
can we just delete "are likely to result" to say "may result"
Jim Prendergast
01:23:33
the surviving application would be a new entity, it has to go through the process
Justine Chew
01:24:14
same diference
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:24:14
It' s less clear than just referring to the Application Change process
Paul McGrady
01:24:21
@Jim- correct in that instance. That is why we don't need a change here.
Paul McGrady
01:24:38
sorry
Christa Taylor
01:24:51
+1 Anne
Elaine Pruis
01:25:24
that makes sense
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:33
yes
Jim Prendergast
01:25:33
that's works
Paul McGrady
01:25:39
that works
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:25:49
okay
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:53
@Jeff yes that does it.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:54
bye all, have to drop
Phil Buckingham
01:25:56
much clearer
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:29
Thanks for joining @Maxime
Paul McGrady
01:26:46
Good question Susan.
Paul McGrady
01:27:04
@Jeff, maybe we say "are subject to the Application Change process..."
Susan.Payne
01:27:31
so if it does have criteria then it doesn't need to refer to this example. if criteria are met, then you follow the process
Paul McGrady
01:27:42
because everything is. its in the AGB
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:46
OK
Paul McGrady
01:28:14
Everyone is in agreement on the principle.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:32
intent to use … makes sense
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:34
Instead of "non-good faith intent", could we say "lack of good faith intent"?
Justine Chew
01:30:18
do not use ""use:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:30
Sure Paul establishes style of language might help
Emily Barabas
01:30:31
to clarify, Justine was suggesting changing “use” to “intent"
Justine Chew
01:31:03
bona fide intent (no use)
Paul McGrady
01:32:09
@Alexander - it is a few years, not months.
Paul McGrady
01:34:24
An interesting topic for discussion about years ago. It's a bit late now to start negotiating mandatory start dates.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:07
hand up
christopher wilkinson
01:36:53
Hand up
Paul McGrady
01:37:11
@Alan - if someone went into it not looking to be a happy loser and ends up happy since someone through gobs of money at them, that is not the harm some say the Board was worried about.
Justine Chew
01:37:13
The difficulty I have is that we have not agreed on punitive measures against no bona fide intent to operate
Alan Greenberg
01:38:07
@Paul, yes, I agree. But how do you determine the difference??
Paul McGrady
01:39:23
@Alan - tough to do. That is why whenever we mess with the free market the structures become cumbersome.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:40:09
Absent any analysis of why TLDs from 2012 are not being 'used', I'm not sure we should be making judgements. Many things changed from time of application submission to launch, including considerable delays.
Justine Chew
01:41:10
@Julie, please correct "bona fide use intent" also in this bullet - no "use"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:11
@Justine - would the consequence be the applicant cannot win the TLD?
Sophie Hey
01:41:13
+1 Donna. Including limitations on business models
Paul McGrady
01:41:27
+1 Donna. There were creative applicants who got hassled along the way that could have shown a path forward to using these TLDs in innovative ways. For example, those who applied for Closed Generics.
Justine Chew
01:42:25
@Anne, we discussed consequences but I guess leadership came to no agreement determination so it was only mentioned in the later section
Emily Barabas
01:42:50
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:44:05
@Justine - should we say "If a lack of good faith intent is established, the new business combination or other joint venture will not be awarded the TLD."
Paul McGrady
01:45:27
Don't tease us Jeff.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:45:51
can we have the link to the doc up now?
Michelle DeSmyter
01:46:00
Next meeting: Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:46:01
please?
Emily Barabas
01:46:27
The auctions document is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit?pli=1#
Emily Barabas
01:47:52
I don’t believe so
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:00
Good progress today Team we should wrap up this phase of our work on Monday :-)
Michelle DeSmyter
01:48:06
Monday, 17 August 2020 at 15:00 UTC
Christa Taylor
01:48:09
Thought you were going to say to hold a big party for getting it done!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:21
Bye for now....
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:26
Bye