Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
32:09
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Jim Prendergast
34:18
for AOB - has there been any further activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs. I know there were meetings months ago but its been months. thanks
Taylor Bentley (Canada)
34:26
It was great. Appreciate the high level overview of priorities. Seemed well attended and well executed : D
Maxim Alzoba
34:32
hello all
Julie Hedlund
34:37
Thanks Jim and noted
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:03
it was a set of Members of At-Large (they signed as such
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:42
Consider it clarified
Julie Hedlund
37:21
See: : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing
Gg Levine (NABP)
43:05
10 years
Maxim Alzoba
45:04
with each round time gap is growing, is it going to be 15 next time?
Elaine Pruis
45:46
those are good points Paul
Maxim Alzoba
45:49
good example with covid survivors
Jamie Baxter
45:57
I’m not sure a time requirement is required for subsequent procedures and I agree that the other criteria handle the issue
Annebeth Lange
46:20
@Paul - very good points you raised
Giacomo Mazzone
46:30
i share the view of Jamie on this issue.
Maxim Alzoba
46:31
or for example, martian expedition starts and fans want to have .futuremartian
Katrin Ohlmer
47:03
Also, there might be geographic communities, which just established themselves as a result from foundation of new countries. We saw that in eastern europe just a couple of years ago ...
Maxim Alzoba
47:20
it is ccTLD world, I think
Giacomo Mazzone
48:06
in the first round i don't recall any case where this criteria applied.
Maxim Alzoba
48:09
was done last time with .krd
Katrin Ohlmer
48:27
@Maxim: Only if they are a country, if it is just a region, it woudl be helpful for them.
Marc Trachtenberg
48:37
@Maxim - So .futuremartian would be a Community?
Paul McGrady
48:42
That makes sense Jeff. We don't want to create speculation in possible future communities.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:47
Personal point of view DROP it why have a window link at all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:54
EXACTLY @Anne!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:02
hardly future proof here
Maxim Alzoba
49:03
@Marc , why not, volunteers e. t. c.
Marc Trachtenberg
49:34
@ Maxim - so that means they get priority of another applicant just because they have a common interest?
Giacomo Mazzone
49:56
.krd was in trouble for many other reasons then the date...
Maxim Alzoba
50:15
@Marc not known why not , or why yes, I think it is complicated
Maxim Alzoba
50:55
@Marc, it is just an example of suddenly created community
Marc Trachtenberg
51:29
@Maxim - giving one applicant priority over another is a huge deal and could be subject to massive gaming and also objections. I don't think "why not" is sufficient justification
Maxim Alzoba
51:50
@Marc, it, most probably will be
Marc Trachtenberg
53:12
@Maxim - you are saying "why not" is a sufficient justification for major aspects of the new gTLD program?
Maxim Alzoba
53:30
@Marc, but on the other hand, a community of people ho have limited ability might need help in priority
Maxim Alzoba
53:45
@Marc, I have not said that
Marc Trachtenberg
54:18
@ Maxim - I am not just asking for clarification on what you are saying, not trying to put words in your mouth
Marc Trachtenberg
54:27
just asking for clarification
Maxim Alzoba
54:56
community activities in the past (even a year I the past) is a good idea
Maxim Alzoba
56:51
example, launch of one of IDN cctlds had special rights for registered local media agencies, and someone created a local media of something like 'bag lovers local society' with an abbreviation equal to sex in IDN with the only purpose to grab the domain
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:07
I would argue that a good case for a "Well defined and clearly delineated organised community" would be bolstered by as MUCH evidence as possible
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:27
the degree that evidence compels may vary
Jamie Baxter
57:27
+1 Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:38
Exactly @Paul!
Annebeth Lange
57:41
+1 Paul
Maxim Alzoba
58:09
so purely informal bunch of people should stay informal and most probably stay informal (no TLD)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:46
LOTS of potential rabbit holes
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:50
community should be established at least a year ago? or something like that
Paul McGrady
01:03:18
If we take Alexander's approach, this really just becomes a Multinational Community Application. I don't think that is the idea here. Also, it doesn't work well for newer communities.
Alan Greenberg
01:03:23
My concern was how the term MIGHT be understood and I wanted to avoid that. Period.
Paul McGrady
01:03:33
@Jeff - how about "demonstrable and significant activities"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:57
Or just use the term "established" then burden of proof is influenced by actual evidence
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:10
whatever it may be as presented
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:18
community of Alaska fishermen can not be internal for geo reasons
Jeffrey Neuman
01:04:22
@ Paul - I think the other elements cover whether activities are significant.....so not sure we need to do anything other than changing the time frame
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:26
I still propose this be sorted in specific implementation
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:39
this *IS* omportant
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:00
needs a very comprehensive consideration
Paul McGrady
01:05:07
@Jeff - good point.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:05:14
+1 Jeff - just amend the time frame
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:23
we have given other implementation Guidance
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:34
we 88SHOULD** guide here of course
Justine Chew
01:06:02
My apologies for joining late.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:06:09
Say "meets the definition of community in the guidelines prior to the application window opening"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:39
very specific guidance on our review of risks and concerns Principles etc.,
Giacomo Mazzone
01:06:43
+1 #ann
Justine Chew
01:07:02
The At-Large proposal proposes "prior to the launch of this application window" (this meaning the applicable application window).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:16
there may be several interdependencies with any changes here
Paul McGrady
01:07:26
@Jeff, I think that makes sense. If the "community" forms itself just to apply, it won't have the significant use evidence that it needs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:08:34
OK
Annebeth Lange
01:08:43
@Jeff, I agree
Justine Chew
01:09:26
Yes Jeff
Steve Chan
01:10:34
Here are the criteria for reference while looking at the details: 2= Clearly delineated, organized, and pre-existing community.1= Clearly delineated and pre-existing community, but not fulfilling the requirements for a score of 2.0= Insufficient delineation and pre-existence for a score of 1.
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:50
pre exisiting should be at least a year before , to avoid situation with 5 days prior to the launch of the application window
Paul McGrady
01:13:38
I don't recall paying a fee to be a Rodin enthusiast...Let me think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:56
Again personal opinion I agree totally on the risk of stiffeling opportunity @Jamie
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:33
it was a pandora box we opened :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:22
community of ex-con bike owners with the club
Paul McGrady
01:16:26
I think it makes sense to be a bit biased toward established entities, but we do need to make room for bona fide new communities, e.g. .COVIDsurvivors
Steve Chan
01:16:57
Jeff, hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:47
+ 1 @Justine
Giacomo Mazzone
01:18:00
+1 @justine.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:15
Jeff we have a CPWG
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:32
@Justine - Would a redline make sense? It's hard to review the substantive changes without a redline.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:34
that is not a At-Large
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:36
position
Jeffrey Neuman
01:18:41
@CLO - I thought you said earlier it was just the few members
Alan Greenberg
01:18:45
But it was not formally voted on by the ALAC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:59
is IS a CPWG position paper not actually subject to a form of call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:40
should read call for objection or poll for support
Jamie Baxter
01:20:26
This interpretation is too restrictive and needs to be pulled back
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:36
COver note signatures are quite clear @Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:01
I will discuss with you later why you seem to need to come back to this however over and over again
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:29
Well stated @Greg... we don't need to do the defining in this way IMpersonalOpinion
Giacomo Mazzone
01:23:39
@Greg: i suggested to make a distinction between Community of PROFESSIONAL AND TRADE ORGANISATIONS and other kind of communities based on social, political, recreational, ethnical, issues. to the Professional and trade association you can ask more requirements (fees, elected bodies, etc.). you cannot ask the same level to the others.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:06
your hearing that from me @Steve
Jamie Baxter
01:25:24
Providing “more clarity” after applications were accepted is exactly the problem that the EIU created
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:36
and also the tool use on the right is also problematic
Jamie Baxter
01:25:47
+1 Greg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:00
Exactly @Greg ++=
Justine Chew
01:26:05
+1 Greg
Giacomo Mazzone
01:26:41
they went wrong because they were the wrong body to do the CPE job.
Annebeth Lange
01:26:58
+1 Greg
Justine Chew
01:26:59
That's why I said EIU ended up introducing a bias towards "membership organisation type" groupings.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:34
back to Implementation Gudance IMO
Annebeth Lange
01:28:49
Agree, Cheryl
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:29:08
AGree with Jeff that should be possible
Greg Shatan
01:30:01
Need to make it clear that “membership” has nothing to do with organizations or joining something.
Greg Shatan
01:30:36
Sorry - need to drop off. Work call.
Greg Shatan
01:31:07
Agree with Alan.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:17
indeed AGP can be changed
Greg Shatan
01:32:08
The word “membership” is permanently problematic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:29
THAT *IS* what I have been saying @Jeff and have no issue changing anything in the Left (AGP) column
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:39
AGB
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:16
It seems the issue is "membership". +1 Justine
Katrin Ohlmer
01:33:30
+1 Justine
Jamie Baxter
01:33:30
+1 Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:49
we need to ensure intention is clear and that the AGB is as unambiguous as possible
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:28
+1 @Justine, and we can recommend that be looked at
Jamie Baxter
01:34:43
being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:56
I balk at the term as well
Paul McGrady
01:35:50
Agree that it can be worked out by the IRT.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:02
So do I @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:19
the scorring issue included
Jeffrey Neuman
01:36:24
There will not be a supplemental draft final report
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:36
if we properly craft the guidance
Katrin Ohlmer
01:36:38
+1 Jamie
christopher wilkinson
01:38:30
I am also supporting Justine’s point of view. CW
Paul McGrady
01:39:26
We don't want to trigger another round of public comment, so Jeff's solution seems to be the way forward.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:55
terms used need to be particular not open to misinterpretation (that is no in synch with our intent) and as unambiguous as possible
Justine Chew
01:41:13
+1 Jamie, the question is how do we effect change effectively?
Jamie Baxter
01:44:39
@Anne - are you speaking about the formal community objections, or mere community opposition scored in criteria 4
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:03
time check 15 min
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:08
Great question Jamie! What is valid opposition or not?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:34
I was talking about the formal Community Objection
Giacomo Mazzone
01:46:08
this criteria applies only to PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities…
Jamie Baxter
01:46:10
I don’t believe there is any impact on formal Community Objections. Standing has to be established by the objector in Community Objections
Justine Chew
01:46:50
We should be thinking of administering and/or advocating on the behalf of a community.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:43
@ Justine "or advocating" might be a good addition to the Guidelines
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:48:53
"administer and/or promote the interests of the community"
Giacomo Mazzone
01:49:21
we need to have two tracks to deal with Community applications. For PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities you have to Apply all criteria. But for the others you need to introduce flexibility….
Alexander Schubert
01:50:09
Yap. Applicant has to represent the community to some degree; which could be evidenced by widespread support. not just from 3 groupings ...
Paul McGrady
01:50:20
@Jamie - important point. The Southern Baptist Convention could apply for .Christian, but it doesn't keep track of who is a Catholic and it doesn't collect dues.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:50:43
+1 Jamie
Justine Chew
01:57:42
Not a fad ie. will continue to exist in the future
Paul McGrady
01:58:14
We want the community to last at least as long as the contract.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:32
enduring in nature is how I characterise this
Paul McGrady
01:58:51
That's how I read it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:11
Good place to stop
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:01:19
We had asked for proposed changes to be in COMMENTS - not changes to the doc
Julie Hedlund
02:01:20
@Justine: Here it is:
Julie Hedlund
02:01:22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing
Justine Chew
02:01:35
Thanks Julie
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:01:54
we reported on that he is asking about anything more I assume
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:02
I have heard nothing more
Steve Chan
02:02:16
@Justine, if there are substantial edits, which I think they will be, we can create you an additional copy?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:34
Seems wise @Steve
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:42
please do so
Justine Chew
02:02:57
@Steve, sure if that's the best way forward for me.
Julie Hedlund
02:02:58
@Jeff: Noted for the agenda for the next call
Julie Bisland
02:03:04
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Giacomo Mazzone
02:03:08
thank you to all of you.