
17:19
Hi Maxim

18:01
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

18:09
I have a small SOI update

18:27
Hello everyone

19:18
I am going to update SOI on the web as soon possible

21:25
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=2136691260

25:59
yes please state the point re IRt and Predictability framework

26:21
Who are the ‘Article 19 Group’. ?

28:15
https://www.article19.org/

28:41
Thanks Emily!

33:32
it closed on Nov 23

33:50
@Emily - I'm a bit confused in that the Google doc link you sent does not appear on my screen to include Comment 6 in red?

34:21
I mean Comment 6 and 7. of Leadership are not appearing in the linked doc at all?

37:03
Hi Anne, are you on the tab for Topic 26?

37:44
yes indeed. Maybe it's just the way it is displaying on my screen. I do see it on yours. Thank you

38:24
How odd . . .

38:42
@Anne, maybe try refreshing the Google sheet?

40:07
When I set it to 75%, I can see it.

40:20
yes - have to click on the column then use the scroll bar that appears

41:06
yes - like .onion

41:09
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-015-01oct20-en.pdf

41:14
special use TLDs

41:18
Recommendations forEarly Warning for RootZone Scaling

43:55
No. So far so good @Jeff.

46:43
@Jeff - we should update the report as to the current status of Study 2. We should reflect the fact that the Board will not be acting on Study 2 until after the issuance of the Final Report and we should say our recommendations could be affected by further Board actions.

47:23
It will act one way or the other.

47:57
OK thanks

52:15
Avri and Becky said they wanted the responses in the Deliberations sections of the Report.

52:21
rationale

52:40
That's right Paul - forgot about that. So it should be in the report

56:19
ncap is not a show stopper

56:48
also it is a kind of fishing expedition - one of the answers of SSAC on the nature

57:04
there were no consesus about that

57:20
agreed maxim

57:30
there are other SGs, who do not share the opinions

58:41
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-et-al-01nov19-en.pdf

58:44
but the group actually doing that work doesn't Anne. Isn't that far more relevant?

59:57
@Susan - It all depends on Board action. And the Board will avoid making policy and delays can result where policy-making is involved. It could end up being a dependency and it will delay the next round if sp.

01:00:33
Study 1 has been done for quite some time and NCAP has moved on to the other studies.

01:00:54
I would not characterize NCAP as a “fishing expedition.”

01:01:19
those were words of Rod at the webinar

01:02:41
I suppose the question is whether this is intended to be pejorative in our discussion.

01:04:54
without a proper timeline, it makes an unpredictable delay

01:05:16
I am not saying it should be stopped, just it should not be waited for

01:05:31
I think the relevant issue for us is how do we address community efforts and recommendations that may come after we have concluded our work? Notwithstanding NCAP is the issue we are discussing now, there is potential for other subjects to collide in some way with our recommendations. So wouldn't it be prudent for us to have a high level discussion about how to account for those situations? The recommendation from leadership on this topic may be appropriate more broadly.

01:06:37
We have not said there is consensus. . There is already SAC Advice on its view of the dependency and the ALAC keeps making this point. I agree with Greg that the tenor of the discussion is not neutral. I wish we could be more practical about how we will resolve issues when the Board kicks policy back to GNSO on name collisions. Right now we make it a big open question as to how it will be handled. We have said ICANN should develop a test for which strings can be delegated How is that going to happen if not through NCAP?

01:06:45
NCAP is an approved effort, but there is no reason to stop the next round because of it

01:08:02
there are many ways to do the same thing, not limited to NCAP

01:08:26
status quo is controlled interrupt ion

01:10:40
there is no records of some issues not prevented by the controlled interruption

01:13:08
then the community will ask, if there is no new ideas - why not doing it the same time as the last time

01:13:58
How was it decided that .home .mail and .corp had a high likelihood of name collision.

01:14:06
My sense is this would have to factor into the Board's Operational Design Phase analysis.

01:14:54
there was a first bite on name collision s- JAS teport

01:14:59
report

01:15:04
I don't think all of us agree that this is an actual high risk area...

01:15:27
We can draft something to redline

01:15:31
I agree on that point Paul

01:16:19
completely agree Paul. work was done on name collisions before the 2012 round, some strings were rejected. controlled interruption has worked.

01:16:24
@Paul - there is a consensus in the Report that ICANN should have a test to avoid needless applications for high risk strings.

01:16:36
3 out of w thousands

01:17:00
it is less than 0.1% of strings

01:17:15
or around that

01:17:28
Is that a relevant statistic?

01:17:31
Seems like some of the ghosts would have shown up by now. It's been 10 years.

01:17:43
3 names out of 2 thousands

01:18:31
Thanks Jeff. Hard to make Policy on non-public data. My point is we just need to keep this issue in its proper perspective.

01:24:00
not all ICANN platforms fully UA comliant ;)

01:24:09
compliant

01:24:33
the problem is in large mail platforms

01:24:43
they use different standards

01:24:52
But most are and there is a plan for full compliance I thought Maxim

01:25:15
Here is the link to the document on display: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=123470843

01:25:20
it is an idea, not implemented same way

01:26:26
Yes UA is NOT a mere IDN issue

01:26:46
@ Donna: True -- longer TLDs have had issues with UA

01:27:47
also there is no control over how computer languages are written and libraries

01:27:58
which is highly UA relevant

01:28:06
Agree, Maxim

01:34:00
You just answered my question Cheryl. So if the metrics is already being collected can those be referred to? And I also don't think that promotion of UA readiness is a bad idea, notwithstanding Jeff's point that much of the problem is outside registries and registrars.

01:34:52
and note too that the current focus on UASG work also includes provision of a lot of education material for implementation that should be activt aroind the timing of the next round as well Data captured therefore will be usefil (and interesting to some of us)

01:34:53
Can't we compel ICANN org to ensure that it is fully or more UA-ready?

01:35:02
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS_F-5t4sU/edit#gid=1163822586

01:38:18
@Justine here is the case study on ICANN org, also describes the how work on UA-readiness is organized

01:38:20
https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/UASG_ICANN_Case_Study_UASG013C.2.pdf

01:38:47
Thanks @Karen

01:38:54
Thanks @Karen I tried to aluude to that work plan :-)

01:39:37
+1 Susan. Road well traveled, I think. Also agree that until there are real protections for .brands (i.e. ICANN has to do a trademark search before it sells a TLD to someone that contains someone else's brand) in this program, we don't want to be dictating how much "use" a .brand needs to undertake. Keeping your brand from being squatted to death is a very important use.

01:40:17
many applicants changed back ends right before the launch, so it caused some delay

01:40:27
+1 @ Susan

01:40:37
bye all, have to drop

01:40:56
Thanks for joining @Maxim

01:41:24
20:00 UTC

01:41:32
“Use” has always been a problem, very difficult to find the right solution here

01:41:37
Monday, 07 December 2020 at 20:00 UTC

01:41:52
Next topics: Topic 18: Terms and Conditions; Topic 22: Registrant Protections; Topic 7: Metrics and Monitoring; Topic 23: Closed Generics

01:41:52
Good progress team, remember to keep reviewing redlines as they come out as well and all the email interaction opportunities :-)

01:41:59
These will be sent shortly with the agenda.

01:42:39
Bye for now … Thanks again everyone!

01:43:05
Thanks Jeff, Cheryl et al