Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Sunrise Rec 2

Hand up

Perhaps inserting in parenthesis what Spec 13 and Spec 9 are?

See the document at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing

To avoid any confusion later on

The Specs actually have titles

9 is the "Registry Code of Conduct"

I believe we actually have included footnote about Spec 13 and Spec 9 in another recommendation that shows earlier in the list, but we can make reference to that

Spec 13 is ".BRAND TLD PROVISIONS"

Tx you!

I couldn't tell, but is the footnote explaining what the Specs are with the first time those Specs are mentioned in the text?

@Jeff: Yes, that’s correct.

Great

So that footnote appears before the second mention of those Specs. We will reference back to it as it will already have been seen.

This is the document we are viewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1y1MOiUU4G4_mzbte75RGXp22JT13k0Sym4OgwpCLAGk/edit?usp=sharing

How long ago!

Hand up

My understanding is that the small team is discussing something related to Sunrise Rec #2, not to PDDRP

@Phil: That is correct.

AOB question - We may have a solution for ALP in the small group do we still have more time to bring this forward?

apologies for being late - overrunning meeting

It does

The staff understanding is that the group discussing the ALP has not reached an agreement.

We have new language to share later today

We have the same issue on the ALP team

I think even the text with notes “we more or less think this, but some think that and that”

will help

We have a majority and one conern

but we have new altertive language

@Paul T: Staff has not seen agreement on text to bring to the WG. We have seen only a suggestion from one person on the team.

That person is me, no problem identifying

@Julie we have new langauge we've not shared yet

@PaulT I'm not sure that I agree with your categorisation re ALP. if you haven't shared new language with the small group yet then how can you know what level of support it has

@Paul T: Will that be shared with the Small Team and also will the team be asked to support or not?

and the earlier proposal floated in the small team on the ALP does not address the issue to be fixed - as those who dealt with ALPs in the last round have now also confirmed

Agree on the 24 hour notice!

Thanks Brian. Thanks Kathy. Thanks Phil. This is all very helpful.

@JUlie will share later today - There was a lot of background material and prior discussion

Yes it does thanks

TWill bring something forward before the next call

hand up

Not a recommendation

There was a question and the public comments were not definitive

hand up

It was on Sunrise Questions #3-#5

Agreed - Paul T has been working hard to find some solutions - based on comments.

we do have

well we may have Maxim but we aren't getting any recommendations from them in 4+ years

@Paul T, staff has provided the ICANN org document that outlines the process and requirements for ALP approval. We are not aware that the small team has discussed the document.

@Mary haev't brought it forward yet been going through everything over the last couple of days

@Maxim, I totally understand that. What I said is that we haven't seen any concrete proposals for how to address the problems from those who encountered them

@Susan, I delivered this information few times

CORE is not an anecdotal info , it is the only source of info here

it is 100% of registries participated in ALP

but Maxim what is the fix? "it takes too long" doesn't move us forward. I'm happy if you can come up with a solution

ICANN should not repeat the same questions in the process without substantial changes to the ALP (the questions were asked in circles)

old hand

@Kathy: There was suggested text from Paul T, but it was not agreed on by the Small Team.

If the agreed problem is ICANN org’s process of engagement with a registry operator on the ALP (which is not a mandatory RPM), there may also be a question about whether this is within scope for this PDP.

@Kathy: The WG did not agree on a recommendation, only to put out questions. The Small Team also has not agreed on recommendation text.

Again: I've seen a lot of work from WG members on this issue … not sure we are in the starting blocks.

hand up

Thanks Brian, staff, and all

Next call: Thursday, 17 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes

bye all