051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit
Justine and team redlines here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit
Here is the relevant recommendation that Jeff is speaking to: Recommendation 34.8: Letters of opposition to a community-based application, if any,must be considered in balance with documented support for the application.
No arguments against that @Jeff
noted @Justine thanks
@Justine - yes good point....we should use "documented opposition"
These are important distinctions @Justine thx
I guess my question is why do we need to distinguish between different types of non-economic communities?
From a non-economic grouping aspect, we focus on marginalized, minority, linguistic, cultural, ethnic groups; also traditional knowledge, and indigenous communities.
Which one? Sorry, missed it
Sorry, was looking for some 2012 AGB language. I know that the “double-counting” thing was considered, although perhaps not as effectively implemented as the WG would like to see.
Here: “The sequence of the criteria reflects the order in which they will be assessed by the panel. The utmost care has been taken to avoid any "double-counting" - any negative aspect found in assessing an application for one criterion should only be counted there and should not affect the assessment for other criteria.”
2012 AGB itself
For example, correcting Criteria #4 alone would have given .gay a score of 12
Thank you Alan
ttrue - very tired
Support that cause their comments are complex
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 08 October 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
considerable progress in discussion today thanks
bye for now