0200 here in AU

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

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

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

Jinx!

2.5.3 Application Submission Period — page 13

:-)

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.

Thanks for the suggestion @Martin

+1 on the five weeks prior

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

would rather go for 8-12 weeks

Just a suggestion if there others are uncomfortable

I like Alan's suggestion to count in weeks.

agree - with Alan and Paul on Weeks as well

12 weeks

Similar concept - perhaps # of days?

+1 weeks is better, 12 weeks works fine

sounds like a bar trivia question

@Jeff: good suggestion

Must

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.

Maybe "not less than 90 days"?

90 business days?

The maximum length should be defined as well.

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

Like a window that happens in Chinese new year.

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

90-120 days

Sorry for being late

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

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

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

hence 12 weeks works and applies a reasonable structure

+1 Paul

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

nothing wrong with weeks is there?

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

12.7 weeks then Alan :-)

Personally, I like 90 days.

Yes 13 wk =91 days

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

I’ll go back to being in a “daze.”

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

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.

Agree Anne

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

Can only be on a Wednesday

@Greg - Tha

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

“ideally on a Wednesday”

+1 Donna

+1 Donna

+1 Donna

I think we are micromanaging here...

Unless Christmas is Wednesday...

Good idea Jeff in case of a holiday

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

Perhaps better just to avoid holidays, Sundays etc.

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

I agree with Wednesday

Let’s leave some implementation flexibility.

Wednesdays at 4:15pm in Iceland

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

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

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

@Martin - Scrooge?

'be required to" is not needed.

12,600 minutes.

129,600 minutes (sorryO)

+1 Paul

I agree Paul

@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...

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

Use of the term "true risk" seems editorial. Why not just use "risk"?

@jim - good suggestion

+1 Jim

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

I agree with Jamie

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

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

Agree with the suggestion to cross-reference with other section you've referred to Jeff

"not approved"

We can check the resolution wording

Sounds good Cheryl

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

@Jeff, but Applicant can choose to disclose

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

yes @donna

that makes sense

thanks

Next meeting: 06 February at 20:00 UTC

Great progress today everyone THANKS Bye for now.

thank you

tahnk you