Hello all

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

I made some updates to my SOI

I have changed from ALAC to ccNSO, that's it.

Noted @Javier Thank you

Javier, congrats!

Welcome to the cc-world, Javier!

thx @Maxim.

Thx @annebeth! meeting 2morrow!

like obligation to use only green palette on the websites for .green

Annebeth that should be a T-Shirt "Welcome to cc-World!" I like it

Suggest it, Javier!

in after f2f world - instead of T-shirt, T-shirt.gif :)

Here is the link to the review tool for RVCs/PICs

lol

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=1163822586

ok

I think the third option makes the most sense.

thanks

Can we go topic by topic (RVC)? DNS Abuse, Verified TLDs, abolishing PICS entirely, etc.

great!

Sorry I kept dropping so I have established an old ADSL connection again fingers crossed

old hand sorry

We can raise the issue as a hypothetical

and Avri at least usually attends our calls

But our discussion right now is the mandatory PICs, right?

so she is well aware

Who should be included? and whether they should be expanded (e.g., to DNS Abuse)?

Is this issue contingent on DNS Abuse decisions?

Emily

I believe it is in the rationale

Absent some language referring to Spec. 13, I'm going to +1 Martin. I don't see a strong push to change anything either

It’s not in 9.2 rationale

Is it timely to go through this stuff before our call with Becky and Avri?

it is a question of enforciable by whom? could be by registry, registry and registrar

lightweight

Spent 30 minutes trying to get on, now NO sound

@Christopher, would you like me to dial out to you?

OK. +3284345332

ICANN can not enforce exclusion by jurisdictions, most probably

at least GAC will be enraged

@kathy, I believe NABP are asking for something very different to that if you read the comment. they refer to Spec 11 3 (a)

@Kathy, I don't think so.

Sorry to be late.

new hand

Welcome @Alan

@Christopher, I see your phone connected; are you able to hear now?

Yes I can hear on the phone, but it is extremely inconvenient.

@Christopher, I’m sorry. You may need to check your speakers on your computer. I have not heard of any other issues from participants.

I agree with Susan also.

+1 Susan

:-) Yup

+1

Registrar could do that if allowed

too

by Registry policies / RRA

And the registries don't have direct relationships with registrants.

It makes no sense for Compliance to just check off a RO's compliance just by confirming that the relevant clause has been inserted in the RRA.

formally Registries do not force anyone to get accredited, so if the policies are not up to expectations, probably it is up to a registrar - to get accredited or not

I do not see how it can be prevented

Registries can enforce...

+1 Alan, take down is different from vetting registrants

WHOIS is dead - RDAP is a new thing

.BANK similarly

Interesting.

PICDRP is not THAT accessible

PICDRP requires that you show harm

if no harm done, what is the harm?

Concrete examples would help in these discussion -- even made up examples.

did we ever hear back on that letter?

thanks

That was all of them

The council received it but not formally replied

nor did we ask them to

Sorry, so what are we doing with the NABP comment?

Kathy - here is a hypothetical: Bad guy gets .pharmacy second level domain name. Bad guy sells opioids to restricted jurisdiction from less restricted jurisdiction. Isolated incident. Someone gets addicted. Local police department files Cat1DRP complaint against registrant (not registrar, registry, ICANN, no involvement of ICANN). Domain name deleted. Thoughts?

Here is the link to the document currently being displayed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1163822586

I think it's worthy of consideration. Perhaps Gg could indicate what NABP had in mind for a solution?

14 out of 16 I thought

@Kathy and Justine: happy to discuss on the list.

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

@Gg, please? That would be helpful. Thanks,

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP

@Jeff, I acknowledge that we have discussed the CPE Guidelines, we need to review the output for completeness.

Thus the sessions

I think our prior conversations on this topic should take precedent. we’ve discussed this

Noted @Jamie

Except for (1) (i)-(iv)

I think we should support it if we want it. Silence should not be enough

random method with low participation does not seem to work

Its OK to address something by not changing anything without anyone calling out for change. And not just for this topic...

+1 Paul

I do not see the downside of community participation in this process

+1 Alan

+1 Jeff -

were looking for compelling arguments that you the WG can support (or not)

I don't know what "greater community participation" means. Isn't that what we are doing now and what the IRT will do? Haven't we already developed analogous mechanisms like the selectors for the IRP standing panel?

@Anne, we are talking about (1)(i)-(iv) now

+1 Paul. We have asked the community if what the WG has presented as recommendations can be accepted - or not. If there had been a huge, overwhelming number of opposition, this should be a sign that we are on the wrong track. However, if there is one or two or a few not supporting the work of the WG, it is difficult to see how we then could just change the result WG has presented after years of work

Agree Annebeth.

@Annebeth, unfortunately the years of work didn't produce the level of detail that At-Large was comfortable with.

I think public comment needs to be considered. If it's not considered and discussed, there is no reason for issuing a draft Final Report.

@Anne - I agree

were actioning discussion on these see the notes set of sesions

Yes Jeff - I agree that is what we are doing now. Leadership is correct in its approach

Just for the record, I think if the At-Large/ALAC did not submit the work that we produced in our 2 papers, this WG may not even have undertaken the discussions held in those 3 calls that staff/Jeff referred to. ALAC isn't the only the party who raised concerns.

@Justine, I understand. But many of these different issues have to be a certain compromise.

I agree, Paul

@Annebeth, sure, if you could let me know what compromise we have to consider?

Tuesday, 17 November at 0300 UTC

+1 Jamie

We link the work plan with the agenda

Keep up the good work eam!

Team

bye all

thanks

Bye for now

Thanks all!

@Justine, I mean this generally. There is a lot of issues.Send me a mail!