Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
26:36
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Paul McGrady
28:20
Can the links in 2 and 3 be put into the chat?
Julie Hedlund
28:33
Noted for AOB
Emily Barabas
28:43
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit
Emily Barabas
29:05
It’s Emily
Julie Hedlund
29:07
Emily
Elaine Pruis
32:16
There isn’t a confidentiality clause in the Ts and Cs?
Paul McGrady
33:48
Then let's limit Evaluator disclosure to ICANN to only those who need to know. Problem fixed.
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
34:50
good evening everyone from Nepal
Jamie Baxter
35:11
Who at ICANN would be on the “need to know” list?
Jim Prendergast
36:25
id be ok with need to know.
Rubens Kuhl
36:33
I like it, but I wonder if this should be a general term&condition instead of specific to private settlement outcomes ?
Paul McGrady
36:45
@Jamie- that is up to ICANN. If they put people on the list who don't reasonably need to know, then they would be in breach.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:50
add "to anyone other than the applicant" and any appeal evaluators after "Shared or communicated"
Paul McGrady
37:12
That is even better.
Paul McGrady
37:20
It would be different if ICANN didn't fight like heck when applicants from the last round sued them. But they did.
Jamie Baxter
37:28
@Paul .. is no one worried about the staff exits at ICANN that could carry that info forward?
Paul McGrady
37:46
@Jamie - then that person could be sued invividually
Paul McGrady
37:55
typo
Jamie Baxter
38:05
@Paul .. as long as that is the case
Paul McGrady
38:33
@Jamie - correct. It is a corner case as most people who leave ICANN honor their commitments.
Jim Prendergast
39:00
fix in T&Cs and strike language here as I proposed?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:18
Yes - but I wonder if the applicant's determination is final as to what is confidential. I sent an email just before the meeting as to what I though should not be confidential - for reviews etc
Paul McGrady
41:00
It think we solved it too. Thanks Jeff, Jim, Alan, Anne, etc.
Rubens Kuhl
43:47
Responses to public questions are never confidential. Responses to non-public questions are always confidential.
Rubens Kuhl
44:10
The others are specified in their contexts.
Paul McGrady
46:23
But the evaluators and the ICANN need to know group would know it -
Paul McGrady
46:57
It is marked confidential but it is still disclosed to Evaluators and ICANN-NTK.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:50
Thanks Paul
Anne Aikman-Scalese
49:30
Don't think we move to IRT until we have public comment
Paul McGrady
50:19
But my primary comment is "that ICANN may consider in determining whether or not an Applicant had a bona fide intention to operate a registry at the time of the filing of the application"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:09
Lack of good faith intentt
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:28
Seems like a way forward....
Justine Chew
52:23
Since these potential factors are going out for public comment, can we also seek public comment for consequences on identifying or determining a lack of good faith?
Paul McGrady
52:40
I think these factors would prime the pump for the IRT, but trying to get buy in on all of them with the time left would be challenge.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
54:39
What about Christa's proposal?
Elaine Pruis
54:48
five is still not divisible by 2 resulting in a whole number.
Elaine Pruis
54:56
Christa’s proposal is better
Elaine Pruis
56:31
aren’t the current rules must be delegated within one year of signing?
Elaine Pruis
56:50
is this “including all extensions"
Steve Chan
01:00:59
Section c) talks about the lack of agreement on punitive measures, as Justine is pointing out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:09
Good catch @Justine, thx
Elaine Pruis
01:05:35
“Any applicant that does not withdraw"
Rubens Kuhl
01:05:50
Does not submit: bid equals 0
Susan.Payne
01:05:52
can I help
Paul McGrady
01:06:11
Let's just spell it out.
Elaine Pruis
01:06:36
Remove “in an ICANN auction fo last resort
Susan.Payne
01:06:48
Any applicant who wishes to contest the contention should submit a sealed bid
Jim Prendergast
01:07:20
so all applicants in contentions sets submit a bid. Those bid will be used if ICANN auction of last resort, If contention is settled elsehwhere, the bids are not used.
Elaine Pruis
01:07:30
that makes sense susan
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:07:46
Exactly
Annebeth Lange
01:07:52
Good idea
Annebeth Lange
01:08:30
Better to me as clear as possible to avoid misunderstandings
Paul McGrady
01:08:50
Bids can then be withdrawn if the contention set resolves itself or if the Applicant later chooses not to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort and withdraws its application instead.
Jim Prendergast
01:09:13
…...and will not be eligible to win the ICANN auction of last resort
George Sadowsky
01:09:41
Sorry, joining late
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:14
So we seem to have better clarity then
Christa Taylor
01:10:59
Withdraw & link to the refund policy
Justine Chew
01:11:34
Does a bid of zero equate to withdrawal?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:11:49
Add "Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held."
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:08
Withdraw is different from 0 bid
Paul McGrady
01:13:11
You could be a .brand applicant, bid zero, and choose to sue the other applicant instead of participating in the IAOLR
Phil Buckingham
01:13:11
but we have the flip side that an applicant can refuse to resolve a private resolution ?
Christa Taylor
01:13:31
I thought we couldn't remove a sealed bid?
Rubens Kuhl
01:13:38
A 0 bid still allows you to get the TLD if all other members get eliminated later (objections, withdrawns of applications)
Phil Buckingham
01:14:13
ok thanks
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:36
Even a community application might have to fight other applicants that prevailed in CPE.
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:04
So they should submit a bid even if they believe they will pass CPE
Justine Chew
01:15:05
I don't think so @Jamie
Elaine Pruis
01:15:18
Add that to the Factors
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:15:32
Exactly Jamie
Kurt Pritz
01:15:45
I think the way this issue is explained has the potential to discourage bona fide applicants if not made explicit and clear. (That is the goal of some but we should be thinking about how to encourage newcomers to this space by avoiding Byzantine processes.)
Christa Taylor
01:15:52
@Jamie, could hope that someone withdrawals and you'd win the string without the auction
Jamie Baxter
01:16:08
@Ruben .. very tru
Jamie Baxter
01:16:10
true
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:57
You can put 0 and expect to win LROs against everyone.
Justine Chew
01:17:12
+1 Rubens.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:17:54
+1 Paul
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:45
Also if you see who is competing in the auction of last resort, you may assume you will not win and just decide to pull out.
Jamie Baxter
01:19:16
@Christa @Rubens @Paul .. all make sense. thanks
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:58
One would imagine Google would have submitted a bid of 1 Trillion, and in fact they decided not to compete in many contention sets.
Jim Prendergast
01:20:32
ill put a comment in
Justine Chew
01:23:59
YEs
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:59
I like business days instead of hours.
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:09
I know ICANN doesn't like, but that's their problem.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:56
hrs always maked my preference
Justine Chew
01:27:21
Hours makes more sense
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:27
business works on business days
Christa Taylor
01:27:30
Hours or days doesn't matter, point is weekends and providing applicants w/ sufficient time with so much going on
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:34
and there are public holidays
Annebeth Lange
01:27:36
Agree with hours
Christa Taylor
01:27:51
3 days on a Friday = issue
Paul McGrady
01:28:07
120 hours and 72 hours
Christa Taylor
01:28:08
guess so, doesn't make much sense
Greg Shatan
01:28:19
5 calendar days....
Justine Chew
01:28:53
Correct
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:28:54
Just a note that some holidays are officially longer than a week - notably Passover and Sukkot in Israel
Paul McGrady
01:31:26
I think what Jim is putting in is a pre-public comment public comment.
Jim Prendergast
01:31:52
just a reflection of the deliberations
Justine Chew
01:32:05
Agree with Jeff and Jim.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:10
+1 Jeff important to state deliberations
Paul McGrady
01:32:38
Hand up Jeff
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:33:11
that was not me
Justine Chew
01:33:12
It's Elaine, no?
Emily Barabas
01:33:16
the text beginning with "
Justine Chew
01:34:51
So we either accept both or reject both.
Elaine Pruis
01:35:10
that’s fine
Elaine Pruis
01:35:15
Thank you
Rubens Kuhl
01:37:08
Transparency requirements will allow such conclusions down the road.
Justine Chew
01:37:21
but it says "was discussed but agreement was not possible."
Paul McGrady
01:38:41
In the dependent clause change "which would have" to :"which may have" or just strike the dependent clause as the commentary on the deliberations that it is.
Kurt Pritz
01:39:14
I would strike the dependent clause for the reasons Paul cites.
Elaine Pruis
01:41:10
I’m ok with that Jeff
Greg Shatan
01:41:51
“History is written by the winners”?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:43:03
This isn't really a minority.
Susan.Payne
01:43:09
but in other sections we have a section on deliberations which reflects better the range of views, which this doesn't
Martin Sutton
01:44:00
I would agree with Susan, these are deliberations that can be summarised and included (rather than “rationale”)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:05
I agree (personay of course) @Susan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:25
indeed @greg
Annebeth Lange
01:45:13
I agree @ Susan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:47
ime check @jeff
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:46:27
It's important to reflect the discussion as this will be helpful when people are considering their comments on the recommendations.
Julie Hedlund
01:47:45
See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit
Justine Chew
01:49:14
The earlier topic numberings are presented in this table but new numberings are used in the draft Final report. Would folks be confused?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:49:17
Sorry - Did you say, Jeff that we did NOT recommend any changes to the CPE Guidelines?
Emily Barabas
01:49:53
@Justine, we will update this table to match the report.
Justine Chew
01:50:02
Cool!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:51
beat me to that Emily ;=)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:28
The WG did not in fact discuss these at lenght
Justine Chew
01:51:32
could we say "have not" instead of "did not"?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:51:46
sure @Justine
Justine Chew
01:52:19
Thanks @Cheryl.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:52
were setting it to avoid a bug that caused some concens in the RPM PC
Julie Hedlund
01:52:54
To what Jeff is saying, staff will test the saving function in the survey to try to avoid any bugs.
Justine Chew
01:52:58
Just to be clear, I mean "...In deliberations, the Working Group considered proposals for specific changes to the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines from 2012, but HAVE not ultimately recommend any specific changes to the text of the Guidelines ...."
Julie Hedlund
01:53:29
We’ll also test to load the maximum amount of characters into the form.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:05
our staff are doing their damndest in other words... Thank you Team
Phil Buckingham
01:55:38
totally agree .
Alan Greenberg
01:55:39
Thanks to Jeff, Cheryl plus all staff involved.
Paul McGrady
01:55:41
Staff and Leadership have been fabulous. Great job!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:43
Many thanks to Steve, Julie, Emily et al!
Annebeth Lange
01:55:45
Bye for now!
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
01:55:53
thank you all
Robin Gross
01:55:54
Bye!
Martin Sutton
01:55:54
Well done all
Taylor Bentley (ISED Canada)
01:55:56
Thanks everyone, amazing effort
Annebeth Lange
01:55:57
Thanks to staff and leadership
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:01
Thnak you to Jeff and Cheryl, and staff of course!
Justine Chew
01:56:02
We want Cheryl to be happy! LOL.
Laxmi Prasad Yadav
01:56:05
well done
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:56:09
Thanks all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:22
HUGE Job Well done!!! Thanks back in Sept!!!!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:56:32
Bye all
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:38
bye all