
16:46
0200 here in AU

17:23
The first working day of Feb is the most frequent for sick days!

18:23
Link to the working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit

18:23
Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

18:31
Jinx!

19:16
2.5.3 Application Submission Period — page 13

19:28
:-)

31:18
Re: the “affirmation” term, perhaps we could replace this with “Retain” so we have recommendations to a) retain, b) change/add and c) implementation guidance.

33:14
Thanks for the suggestion @Martin

33:43
+1 on the five weeks prior

33:48
For some 5 weeks might be pretty ambitious, like city or regional administration

34:26
would rather go for 8-12 weeks

35:44
Just a suggestion if there others are uncomfortable

36:30
I like Alan's suggestion to count in weeks.

36:49
agree - with Alan and Paul on Weeks as well

37:21
12 weeks

37:26
Similar concept - perhaps # of days?

37:41
+1 weeks is better, 12 weeks works fine

37:42
sounds like a bar trivia question

38:44
@Jeff: good suggestion

38:54
Must

39:19
In this particular case I'm more for a MUST. I think a lot of MUSTs in the doc could be SHOULDs, but not this one.

43:12
Maybe "not less than 90 days"?

43:38
90 business days?

43:38
The maximum length should be defined as well.

43:55
business days is not accurate, because it varies among jurisdictions.

44:08
Like a window that happens in Chinese new year.

44:23
Not just due to circumstances — it should changeable based on policy considerations and objectives.

44:34
90-120 days

44:34
Sorry for being late

44:58
I think weeks works better than days, so you know that work days can apply to both start and finish

45:05
If it's not a fixed time, then who decides and when?

45:20
agree not less than 90 nor more than 120 per Greg's suggestion

45:47
hence 12 weeks works and applies a reasonable structure

46:27
+1 Paul

46:35
This would provide structure to the implementation as well as provide predictability to applicants and the community

46:54
nothing wrong with weeks is there?

47:11
3 monnths ranges from 89 to 92 days. 12.7 - 13.14 weeks

47:34
12.7 weeks then Alan :-)

47:40
Personally, I like 90 days.

47:45
Yes 13 wk =91 days

48:32
Fair enough, Jeff. It was only a “weak” objection.

48:51
I’ll go back to being in a “daze.”

48:52
OK fols but weekends are different in different countries. Don't put it ou on a Friday in Israel.

49:05
Either way you could just state in the implementation guidance that the application period is not to end over a weekend. Let's also bear in mind that working weeks are different for some.

49:15
Agree Anne

49:47
@Anne, but ICANN loves to put things out at 5 pm California time on Fridays!

50:14
Can only be on a Wednesday

50:36
@Greg - Tha

50:53
@Greg - That's why I brought it up!

50:58
“ideally on a Wednesday”

51:12
+1 Donna

51:22
+1 Donna

51:23
+1 Donna

51:42
I think we are micromanaging here...

51:45
Unless Christmas is Wednesday...

51:54
Good idea Jeff in case of a holiday

51:57
We are, but only because people are arguing about this now.

52:27
Perhaps better just to avoid holidays, Sundays etc.

52:30
Christmas, New Years, Jewish Holidays, Eid, and other religious holidays can fall anywhere in the week.

52:34
I agree with Wednesday

52:53
Let’s leave some implementation flexibility.

53:06
Wednesdays at 4:15pm in Iceland

53:10
If an applicant is really committed, they will submit, even on Christmas Day

53:12
Why go on? Let's see if we can spend the entire 90 minutes talking about the period...

53:44
We easily could Alan and we would end up back at the original 90 days.

54:04
@Martin - Scrooge?

54:33
'be required to" is not needed.

55:06
12,600 minutes.

55:19
129,600 minutes (sorryO)

01:00:49
+1 Paul

01:01:11
I agree Paul

01:01:16
@Jeff, it may just be as good as we can get it, keeping in mind that we ultimately have to get this adopted by the Board...

01:01:42
But I don't think we should go any lighter than this.

01:06:47
Use of the term "true risk" seems editorial. Why not just use "risk"?

01:07:00
@jim - good suggestion

01:07:31
+1 Jim

01:11:03
suggestion - ICANN should provide a full refund immediately upon withdrawal of the application ( re name collision )

01:12:57
I agree with Jamie

01:14:11
Re: Name collisions - +1 to Phil's suggestion. Also, sould the word "disqualified" be "rejected" instead for purposes of consistent drafting?

01:14:59
the problem is applicants may well have incurred additional costs as well as the application fee. so what is a full refund definition

01:15:07
Agree with the suggestion to cross-reference with other section you've referred to Jeff

01:15:29
"not approved"

01:15:49
We can check the resolution wording

01:16:56
Sounds good Cheryl

01:22:42
Where a rejection is based on confidential information submitted, the reason should be confidential between applicant and ICANN?

01:23:18
@Jeff, but Applicant can choose to disclose

01:23:52
The rejection for .corp, .home and .mail seems to be outside what we're talking about now and absolutely shoudl have been public.

01:24:53
yes @donna

01:26:36
that makes sense

01:30:22
thanks

01:31:07
Next meeting: 06 February at 20:00 UTC

01:31:11
Great progress today everyone THANKS Bye for now.

01:31:31
thank you

01:31:31
tahnk you