yes

ye

yes

Exciting call!

Gremlins!

Where ICANN is the evaluator, the Accountability Mechanisms should apply rather than instituting new appeals mechanisms. It's duplicative. But what does ICANN org say about this?

Not always a ByLaws issue. It also says "failure to take into account relevant information when making the determination". Accountability Mechanisms are not limited to ByLaws as far as I know.

agree with Jeff, also RfR and IRP are a different test

+1 Susan

What about the fact that we will have to advise clients to do BOTH?

what is your concern Anne when thinking about BOTH - the timing to bring an IRP?

Timely indeed @Susan!

+1 Susan

yes Susan - and that would be very helpful. Just trying to avoid waste.

I'm okay with flagging the issue of duplication and waste if there are two proceedings at once

Excellent Noted @Anne

+1 Anne, useful

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QY2ChMLEvTNIumpKl65XTVcSYNMaUhucE1YQsepwk-Q/edit#gid=1163822586

apologies, I have a conflict and have to drop

Hard to disagree with Christopher on this one. I know we talked about this on a number of occasions, but it is still the right thing to do.

Need to drop. Sorry.

@Christopher, with “all languages”, do you mean the UN languages? You know, there will always be so many around the world that will not have a version in their language.

Agree it's best to bring them closer

As a policy statement we could say “take measures to translate as quickly as possible” rather than debate 2 mos vs 3 mos

You can see the relevant recommendations on page 53 of the report: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/draft-final-report-new-gtld-subsequent-21sep20-en.pdf

+1 @ Kurt

Perhaps strengthen the intent to have them out *together* or as close as possible

Fine- thx Jeff

=1 Cheryl

You could always say as soon as possible, but not later than 2-3 months

"As quickly as possible" is NOT acceptable.

*+1 Cheryl

Language to the list then see what we can agree at next call

Apologies I have to drop now; will follow up re any questions

As currently stated, the “must” is no later than 2 months prior to launch. But there is implementation guidance about all translations being available as close as is practicable.

So seems we have it covered Steve.

It's hard not to use "legal jargon" or "complicated words" when talking about appeals mechanisms.

Make it as “readable” as possible for non-English speakers

leave it to the IRT

There is a term of art: “plain English” with standards for it available

If we cannot come up with examples or more guidance, we can't expect the IRT members to.

Also the Style guide used

Perhaps Steve and Emily can get to the heart of what the issue is with the comment that will be helpful for our response.

I think the term plain language is the term we use

Agree!

Excellent point Annebeth. That's good context.

the reason is - English version is the only one from the legal perspective

Even IF there was a version in German: I wouldn't even look at it. I want the original - only that one will be authorative.

+1 Maxim

HOw much MORE do we need to say

It’s a set of standards

https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/

coming back to my earlier point - yet another reason we need to define terms.

Hand up

@Jeff, agree

Sure shif the IG into the Rec might strengthen

putting the Plain Language pert into 12.4 will not be a negative though

sounds good

Agree with linking

It is about the angle bracket issue!

It caused a lot of additional work, at the last minute.

Yep, will do!

I have angle brackets in my garage Katrin, would that help? :-)

If you send them to ICANNorg, yes ;-)

Will do!

@geographical terms: Please note that some of us retain very strong reservations over the WT5 report and are very disappointed that the PDP itself never reviewed in detail the political implications of the recommended policy.

thanks all

@Jeff - maybe Staff is saying something less than how we are reading this. Can we ask them to rephrase?

I think ublikely ICANN will give on this one

I hear what you are saying but do not think they will view it that way

Agree with Donna

This is not the one to fall on the sword for

As I said, we need to discuss further within the group Jeff

Thanks everyone, good progress today, remember the preparation for next calls topics which are -> [20] Application Change Requests; [24] String Similarity Evaluations; [35] Auctions ALSO a few things to the list for deliberation on list and then review for next call as noted in the AI's from today. Next Call is 2000 UTC on Nov 2... Bye for now...

Could we adopt some language from the Temp Spec?

+1 CLO - let's tack this on to the front of next call

Bye for now, have a wonderful weekend!

Thx Jeff & Cheryl