Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room

Playback Range -

Emily Barabas

43:47

Link to the document we are currently viewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit

martinsutton

48:36

Yes thx

Justine Chew

50:38

@Jeff, when would third party service providers be selected?

Justine Chew

51:33

Such as DRP

Justine Chew

51:36

CPE

Emily Barabas

54:54

Steve is at SPS

Emily Barabas

54:56

Emily Barabas

55:00

But I can answer

Anne Aikman-Scalese

56:29

SOIs for SPIRT have to be separately published at that site.

Rubens Kuhl

56:43

Global support didn't exist in 2012, but yes I believe the current ones are likely to fulfil the WG suggestion.

Rubens Kuhl

57:04

(Current SLAs)

Anne Aikman-Scalese

57:11

Tha'ts because SOIs for SPIRT much be must be more detailed than regular ICANN SOIs.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

59:35

@staff - I can't seem to get a hard copy of the document with all the mark-ups to print. Is there a trick to making that happen?

Alan Greenberg

01:00:17

@Anne, if you download a WORD version, the markups should be there.

Emily Barabas

01:00:55

Thanks, Alan. @Anne, that would be my advice as well.

Julie Hedlund

01:00:58

@Anne: Convert to Word or PDF and then print.

Julie Hedlund

01:01:04

Oops, ditto :-)

Rubens Kuhl

01:02:08

Downloading as Word includes the markups, as PDF removes them

Sonigitu Ekpe

01:02:35

Good day All, sorry for being late.

Emily Barabas

01:03:57

PIRR recommendation 8.5.a,: "Consider customer service to be a critical function of the organization, and ensure that the Customer Service Center has the appropriate resources to support the ongoing and future activities of the New gTLD Program."

Emily Barabas

01:05:07

You could simply say you support it

Emily Barabas

01:05:10

or agree

Jim Prendergast

01:06:17

I think it helps the document by referring to PIRR recommendations

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:06:48

agree @jim

Rubens Kuhl

01:07:08

Note that PIRR is somewhat biased towards show how cool ICANN Org is, so sometimes you might want to stay away to criticise the 2012 implementation.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:07:32

sorry i joined late, is it possible to have the link to the document provided in chat please?

Rubens Kuhl

01:07:32

But in a number of times PIRR pointed to things that indeed should be supported by the WG.

Emily Barabas

01:07:48

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:07:58

Thanks Emily

Emily Barabas

01:08:09

Sure thing

Jim Prendergast

01:09:10

@Rubens - Agree In not doing a wholesale endorsement but in that case it works.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:10:27

Just a consistency of language issue: is there a difference between the generally agreed and wide agreement? I think it would be helpful, if there is no difference, that we maintain consistent language.

Emily Barabas

01:10:49

Donna, there isn’t a difference. We can adjust to make it consistent.

Emily Barabas

01:10:55

Does the group have a preference?

Rubens Kuhl

01:11:20

I like "wide agreement", but that's just me.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:11:45

No preference, just so long as its consistent.

Emily Barabas

01:12:09

We may actually want to go back and do this streamlining at the end

Justine Chew

01:12:18

On restating affirmation, not repeating is fine, and insert page number where the affirmation can be found.

Emily Barabas

01:12:23

as we are drafting the sections out of chronological order

Jim Prendergast

01:14:06

good point

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:14:12

agree that streamling at the end makes sense

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:16:26

sorry my zoom dropped... back now

Jim Prendergast

01:16:58

nightmarish to use

Rubens Kuhl

01:18:16

Basically, making ICANN Org follow UASG recommendations

Elaine Pruis

01:19:13

+1 Rubens

Justine Chew

01:19:15

+1 Rubens.

Justine Chew

01:19:41

Have ICANN Org support UA & EAI

Rubens Kuhl

01:20:48

Changes by any authorised user.

Jamie Baxter | dotgay

01:22:04

i.e. payment receipt

Justine Chew

01:22:09

Also user registration prior to any submission?

Phil Buckingham

01:22:34

automated invoices - may be automated account

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:22:38

good practice

Annebeth Lange

01:22:51

Usually when you get an automated response, you get that every time something happens with that application, every change

Rubens Kuhl

01:24:37

Most of the times upload wasn't allowed.

Emily Barabas

01:26:34

thanks for the clarification

Phil Buckingham

01:26:48

agreed Rubens , especially financial info / documents

Kathy Kleiman

01:28:08

Jeff, what are the titles of the sections you just read off as numbers?

Rubens Kuhl

01:28:26

23 - Registry Services

Paul McGrady

01:28:28

@Jeff, are we sure the questions will keep the same #s?4

Paul McGrady

01:28:36

numbers?

Rubens Kuhl

01:29:10

The questions may have different numbers, so we should specificity these are AGB 2012 questions.

Phil Buckingham

01:30:34

keep it simple and not allow auto fill at all ?

Justine Chew

01:31:12

Could someone remind me where does PICs come in in the application system?

Rubens Kuhl

01:32:03

PICs were treated by the case-system, not by the application system.

Alexander Schubert

01:32:10

This recommendation shows that we are "inviting" portfolio applicants. Do we?

Rubens Kuhl

01:32:12

I imagine this will change in the next round.

Justine Chew

01:32:38

I would say non-auto fill for PICs.

Annebeth Lange

01:32:58

@Justine, I agree

Rubens Kuhl

01:32:59

Alexander, this text was discussed many times in order to avoid that.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

01:33:11

non-auto-fill for Question 18 and Question 23 and agree with Justine - no autofill for voluntary PICs.

Alexander Schubert

01:33:21

Ok .....

Phil Buckingham

01:33:24

do we need to create a new section for PICs ? . I agree Justine

Rubens Kuhl

01:34:03

Perhaps just add Voluntary PICs to this sentence.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

01:34:19

23 asks for all proposed services - some may not be standard

Kathy Kleiman

01:35:44

Need to add 22?

Phil Buckingham

01:36:52

I wouldn’t have any auto fill , because each application needs to be stand alone from an evaluation point of view

Kathy Kleiman

01:38:31

16?

Paul McGrady

01:38:32

If anyone ever wanted to spot implementation details being developed during the policy phase, here it is. :)

Jeff Neuman

01:39:04

Paul - Our charter is all about us doing implementation

Kathy Kleiman

01:39:18

16. Describe the applicant's efforts to ensure that there are no known operational or rendering problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string. If such issues are known, describe steps that will be taken to mitigate these issues in software and other applications.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:39:21

There is no sensible reason to not allow auto fill.

Phil Buckingham

01:39:39

thanks Jeff . point(s) understood and accepted

Rubens Kuhl

01:39:47

16, for ASCII TLDs this answer is always the same.

Rubens Kuhl

01:40:00

It might change a bit in IDN TLDs.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

01:40:03

On geo names, it seems the applicant country of incorporation would depend on what the authorizing authority agrees to approve.

Annebeth Lange

01:40:52

What kind of genomes are you talking about here, Anne?

Rubens Kuhl

01:40:56

Auto-fill is a possibility, not an obligation. Every one that wants to taylor each question can do it.

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:41:15

Agree Rubens

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:41:27

yes it is the option to autofill

Kathy Kleiman

01:41:28

@Rubens, the encouragement is to tell the public as much as possible

christopher wilkinson

01:41:56

Where are these numbers? 22.23 etc.

Rubens Kuhl

01:42:03

Question 16 made very little sense for ASCII TLDs.

Jim Prendergast

01:42:13

except for that whole universal acceptance thing...

Kathy Kleiman

01:42:14

new hand

Justine Chew

01:42:40

I also recall discussion (or at least concern) on the cost of implementing auto-fill for some fields and not others. Although personally I didn't think cost would be prohibitive.

Rubens Kuhl

01:43:10

Auto-fill can also be used for directors, for instance.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:43:12

I would proffer that UA should not *just* be an IDN thing however

Paul McGrady

01:43:19

Jeff, thus my smiling face

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:44:17

Personally, I think this is a nonsense discussion.

martinsutton

01:44:30

As Rubens mentioned, it is optional to autofill. They can all be scrutinised through public comment.

Kathy Kleiman

01:44:54

we can agree to disagree

christopher wilkinson

01:45:02

The desired outcome should be to minimise multiple applications from incumbent applicants

Rubens Kuhl

01:45:22

Christopher, this was ruled out during discussion of program goals.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:46:24

my comment was not regarding autofill option, rather where UA is considered in the AGB

martinsutton

01:46:24

I don’t think autofill is going to be a driver for multiple applications.

Rubens Kuhl

01:46:40

We can hear you

martinsutton

01:46:40

yes

Jamie Baxter | dotgay

01:46:41

yes

Donna Austin, Neustar

01:47:12

I don't think the lack of autofill is going to be a disincentive for multiple applications either.

Rubens Kuhl

01:48:24

The cost of hiring someone in Upwork to retype repetitive things is in the vicinity of USD 1/hour or less.

Justine Chew

01:49:20

+1 Donna, it's a no-brainer to me too.

Kathy Kleiman

01:49:39

cut and paste is pretty cheap :-)

christopher wilkinson

01:52:50

@ Rubens That would tend to facilitate increased dominance by incumbent large Registries/Registrars. Not advisable.

Rubens Kuhl

01:52:56

I think "associated with systems access" already specifies to which agreements this applies to.

Rubens Kuhl

01:53:34

@ CW, it's not my role to discuss that anymore, since that discussion is done.

Justine Chew

01:55:02

So that would exclude need for an acknowledgment (check box?) of mandatory PIC obligations during application phase, well ahead of contracting phase? Don't have my finger on if or where mandatory PICs appear in AGB.

Rubens Kuhl

01:55:42

Justine, there were no PICs, neither mandatory or voluntary, in AGB. They were created to address GAC Advice.

Anne Aikman-Scalese

01:56:38

Next Guidebook will have to cover PICs

Justine Chew

01:56:49

Yes, Rubens, I'm talking about subsequent procedures.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr

01:56:52

indeed @Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese

01:57:25

Thanks everyone - sorry I have to drop early. Until the next call...Anne

Rubens Kuhl

01:58:35

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cybersecurity-transparency-guidelines-03aug18-en.pdf

Alexander Schubert

02:00:47

Application fees will be contested ...

Julie Hedlund

02:01:00

28 Jan 2020 at 0300 UTC

Emily Barabas

02:01:01

Next call is 28 Jan at 3:00 UTC

Julie Hedlund

02:01:08

jinx LOL

Emily Barabas

02:01:09

Rubens Kuhl

02:01:18

Let's agree that we pay nothing and Alexander pays USD 10 Million.

Annebeth Lange

02:01:26

Bye all

Alexander Schubert

02:01:30

Hahaha

martinsutton

02:01:36

thx, bye all

Rubens Kuhl

02:01:37

Bye all

Robin Gross

02:01:41

Bye!

Julie Hedlund

02:01:43

Bye everyone!

Download

Upcoming Meetings