Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
17:19
Hi Maxim
Michelle DeSmyter
18:01
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Maxim Alzoba
18:09
I have a small SOI update
Laxmi Yadav
18:27
Hello everyone
Maxim Alzoba
19:18
I am going to update SOI on the web as soon possible
Emily Barabas
21:25
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=2136691260
Anne Aikman-Scalese
25:59
yes please state the point re IRt and Predictability framework
christopher wilkinson
26:21
Who are the ‘Article 19 Group’. ?
Emily Barabas
28:15
https://www.article19.org/
Anne Aikman-Scalese
28:41
Thanks Emily!
Jim Prendergast
33:32
it closed on Nov 23
Anne Aikman-Scalese
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?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:21
I mean Comment 6 and 7. of Leadership are not appearing in the linked doc at all?
Emily Barabas
37:03
Hi Anne, are you on the tab for Topic 26?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:44
yes indeed. Maybe it's just the way it is displaying on my screen. I do see it on yours. Thank you
Emily Barabas
38:24
How odd . . .
Emily Barabas
38:42
@Anne, maybe try refreshing the Google sheet?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:07
When I set it to 75%, I can see it.
Jim Prendergast
40:20
yes - have to click on the column then use the scroll bar that appears
Jim Prendergast
41:06
yes - like .onion
Emily Barabas
41:09
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-015-01oct20-en.pdf
Jim Prendergast
41:14
special use TLDs
Emily Barabas
41:18
Recommendations forEarly Warning for RootZone Scaling
Justine Chew
43:55
No. So far so good @Jeff.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:23
It will act one way or the other.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
47:57
OK thanks
Paul McGrady
52:15
Avri and Becky said they wanted the responses in the Deliberations sections of the Report.
Paul McGrady
52:21
rationale
Jim Prendergast
52:40
That's right Paul - forgot about that. So it should be in the report
Maxim Alzoba
56:19
ncap is not a show stopper
Maxim Alzoba
56:48
also it is a kind of fishing expedition - one of the answers of SSAC on the nature
Maxim Alzoba
57:04
there were no consesus about that
Susan Payne
57:20
agreed maxim
Maxim Alzoba
57:30
there are other SGs, who do not share the opinions
Jeffrey Neuman
58:41
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/chalaby-to-drazek-et-al-01nov19-en.pdf
Susan Payne
58:44
but the group actually doing that work doesn't Anne. Isn't that far more relevant?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
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.
Greg Shatan
01:00:33
Study 1 has been done for quite some time and NCAP has moved on to the other studies.
Greg Shatan
01:00:54
I would not characterize NCAP as a “fishing expedition.”
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:19
those were words of Rod at the webinar
Greg Shatan
01:02:41
I suppose the question is whether this is intended to be pejorative in our discussion.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:54
without a proper timeline, it makes an unpredictable delay
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:16
I am not saying it should be stopped, just it should not be waited for
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
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.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
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?
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:45
NCAP is an approved effort, but there is no reason to stop the next round because of it
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:02
there are many ways to do the same thing, not limited to NCAP
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:26
status quo is controlled interrupt ion
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:40
there is no records of some issues not prevented by the controlled interruption
Maxim Alzoba
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
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:13:58
How was it decided that .home .mail and .corp had a high likelihood of name collision.
Jim Prendergast
01:14:06
My sense is this would have to factor into the Board's Operational Design Phase analysis.
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:54
there was a first bite on name collision s- JAS teport
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:59
report
Paul McGrady
01:15:04
I don't think all of us agree that this is an actual high risk area...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:27
We can draft something to redline
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:15:31
I agree on that point Paul
Susan Payne
01:16:19
completely agree Paul. work was done on name collisions before the 2012 round, some strings were rejected. controlled interruption has worked.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:36
3 out of w thousands
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:00
it is less than 0.1% of strings
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:15
or around that
Greg Shatan
01:17:28
Is that a relevant statistic?
Paul McGrady
01:17:31
Seems like some of the ghosts would have shown up by now. It's been 10 years.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:43
3 names out of 2 thousands
Paul McGrady
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:00
not all ICANN platforms fully UA comliant ;)
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:09
compliant
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:33
the problem is in large mail platforms
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:43
they use different standards
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:52
But most are and there is a plan for full compliance I thought Maxim
Emily Barabas
01:25:15
Here is the link to the document on display: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=123470843
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:20
it is an idea, not implemented same way
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:26
Yes UA is NOT a mere IDN issue
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:26:46
@ Donna: True -- longer TLDs have had issues with UA
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:47
also there is no control over how computer languages are written and libraries
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:58
which is highly UA relevant
Annebeth Lange
01:28:06
Agree, Maxim
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
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)
Justine Chew
01:34:53
Can't we compel ICANN org to ensure that it is fully or more UA-ready?
Emily Barabas
01:35:02
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PglquKDd8amHiqI6Wfko0Plb80RPpbEjTMS_F-5t4sU/edit#gid=1163822586
Karen Lentz
01:38:18
@Justine here is the case study on ICANN org, also describes the how work on UA-readiness is organized
Karen Lentz
01:38:20
https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/UASG_ICANN_Case_Study_UASG013C.2.pdf
Justine Chew
01:38:47
Thanks @Karen
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:54
Thanks @Karen I tried to aluude to that work plan :-)
Paul McGrady
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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:17
many applicants changed back ends right before the launch, so it caused some delay
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:40:27
+1 @ Susan
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:37
bye all, have to drop
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:56
Thanks for joining @Maxim
Michelle DeSmyter
01:41:24
20:00 UTC
Annebeth Lange
01:41:32
“Use” has always been a problem, very difficult to find the right solution here
Michelle DeSmyter
01:41:37
Monday, 07 December 2020 at 20:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
01:41:52
Next topics: Topic 18: Terms and Conditions; Topic 22: Registrant Protections; Topic 7: Metrics and Monitoring; Topic 23: Closed Generics
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:52
Good progress team, remember to keep reviewing redlines as they come out as well and all the email interaction opportunities :-)
Julie Hedlund
01:41:59
These will be sent shortly with the agenda.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:39
Bye for now … Thanks again everyone!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:05
Thanks Jeff, Cheryl et al