Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
29:23
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Steve Chan
30:32
Correct
Anne Aikman-Scalese
31:52
Is anyone else having trouble with Jeff cutting in and out?
Donna Austin, Neustar
32:02
Audio is fine for me
martinsutton
32:02
No - sounds ok
Julie Hedlund
32:03
He sounds fine to me
Jamie Baxter
32:05
sounds perfect to me
Julie Bisland
32:37
@anne: it seems to be your connection. :(
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
33:00
im having issues too - im dialed in on phone
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:19
OK - t's my phone
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
33:23
i will try and dial back in
Gg Levine (NABP)
34:36
What time is Monday's meeting? It's not on my calendar.
Steve Chan
34:53
Bottom of page 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit
Jim Prendergast, The Galway Strategy Group
35:56
@GG - 11pm EDT
Paul McGrady
36:41
I'm very nervous about sending this on without a cap.
Phil Buckingham
37:19
I’m very nervous on this too
Paul McGrady
37:38
3 years from signing the contract?
Susan.Payne
38:03
@paul, I'd say yes, that's the easiest date to fix this to
Emily Barabas
39:14
Marc’s language: All assignments after such time shall be governed under the then-current Registry Agreement standard provisions; provided that any Assignment or Change of Control after the third year, but prior to the seventh (7th) year, shall require the applicant to repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:46
Thx Emily
Paul McGrady
40:25
10% will not be a suitable inhibitor.
Jeffrey Neuman
41:16
new language from Marc - To disincentivize “gaming” of the applicant support program by applicants who are applying on behalf of third parties, or with the intent to immediately transfer ownership to third parties, applicants who receive financial support through the ASP Program will not be permitted to assign the relevant Registry Agreement within the first five (5) years of execution of the Registry Agreement unless they repay the repay the full amount of financial support received through the ASP Program plus an additional ten percent (10%).
Susan Payne
44:44
not your turn Christopher
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:28
Feel free to type as well Christopher, so people can analyse what your saying accuratly
Phil Buckingham
45:37
it will be very unlikely that this scenario will happen . surely the applicant will fail its financial evaluation in the first place . once it finds out it will be in a contention set it will have to go back out into the market to find additional funding . also ICANN cannot be seen to be funding an applicant to enable it to win an auction
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
45:41
I think Donna is phrasing it well.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:47
That IS I think the essense of what I heard @Donna Yes
Jeffrey Neuman
46:59
We have never discussed the relationship of the string to the applicant
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:10
Indeed @Jeff
Donna Austin, Neustar
47:47
Apologies if I missed it.
Paul McGrady
47:48
I'm a little afraid that we are conflating in our minds community based applications and strings that get support.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:55
WT1 did not place limitations on the strings
Jeffrey Neuman
49:15
@Paul - yes, there does seem to be some intermixing here
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:34
Correct Community criteria also applies
Jamie Baxter
49:38
@susan .. is does if they don’t pass CPE
Jeffrey Neuman
49:53
@jamie - correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:20
Ahh and we are talking of recommendations to improve CPE @Jamie, but yes CPE is a key here as well
Paul McGrady
50:41
I'm also not in favor of a multiplier or bid credit, especially with no caps/limits.
Justine Chew
50:58
The At-Large has said that the applicant that qualifies for ASP should get priority in a contention set (therefore avoiding auction to the extent possible). We expect the criteria for ASP to be stringent in order to identify the suitable applicant in need. It has also been said that such applicant must be able to substantiate how their selected string benefits their targeted community or public benefit. We hope to see also other stringent criteria on eligibility.
Martin Sutton
51:24
losing audio
Julie Bisland
51:28
Jeff: your audio is fading
Maxim Alzoba
51:28
Jeff went somewhere
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:33
audio Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
51:39
from the PC
Maxim Alzoba
52:05
I thought it was satory of kinds
Paul McGrady
52:12
It sounded like you were in Ashburn
Greg Shatan
52:40
I was half-expecting a flush at the end....
Donna Austin, Neustar
52:48
@Justine, I find this helpful: has also been said that such applicant must be able to substantiate how their selected string benefits their targeted community or public benefit. We hope to see also other stringent criteria on eligibility.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:49
How many of the 2012 round Applicant Support applications were Community applications?
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:54
@Alan, that's hard to do/
Jeffrey Neuman
53:59
Yes, we have already settled that an auction will be the mechanism of last resort
Jeffrey Neuman
54:17
The mechanics are still up for discussion on the next call
Donna Austin, Neustar
54:37
with regard to .kids, if it was won at auction it begs the question of how they qualified for applicant support in the first place.
Greg Shatan
55:21
We could have a Go Fund Me contest instead of an auction. Whoever raises more money wins.
Alan Greenberg
55:45
Interesting idea Greg.
Maxim Alzoba
55:47
or passes the amount to ICANN
Justine Chew
56:24
@Donna, .kids qualified for ASP and I doubt it would have won at an auction, which is why it should have received priority upon qualifying for ASP.
Jamie Baxter
57:12
isn’t ASP decided before applicants even know if they are in contention?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
57:40
Thanks for clarifying that Jeff
Susan Payne
57:49
@justine, why, if it isn't a community application?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:55
@ Justine - Personally I agree any qualified ASP application should get priority. I think Jeff said this was rejected in public comment.
Phil Buckingham
58:07
agreed Christa
Justine Chew
58:25
@Kathy, which is why we ended here now
Paul McGrady
01:00:00
@Jeff, when do we get to talk about how scary this idea is without a cap?
Phil Buckingham
01:03:23
@christopher - so how much do you think ICANN needs to raise to fund the support of ( say ) 200 applicants ?
Justine Chew
01:04:18
@Phil, certainly a lot more than USD2 mil.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:05:01
Is this a good time to talk about legitimate assignments?
Paul McGrady
01:05:08
Thanks Jeff. Will react to it when I see it. Much appreciated.
Paul McGrady
01:06:35
Death and retirement generally refer to natural people and not corporations. Since natural people can't apply, how do we tighten this language up?
Paul McGrady
01:07:18
retirement of majority stakeholder
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:07:27
Mergers, name changes, entity restructuring,... the normal changes of an organization or company.
Paul McGrady
01:07:33
death of majority shareholder
Paul McGrady
01:07:59
hostile takeover
Phil Buckingham
01:10:57
think we should take out - “assignment to subsidiaries “- this is opening up a can of worms .
Paul McGrady
01:11:47
@Phil, but sometimes you have to assign things to subsidiaries and affiliates due to changes in tax laws, etc. Would not like to preclude that sort of thing.
Greg Shatan
01:12:42
Assignment to a subsidiary is probably the most harmless scenario.
Steve Chan
01:13:10
@Donna, are you able to put your suggested text here?
Greg Shatan
01:13:13
The TLD is staying under the same ultimate parent entity,
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:47
@Donna - ok, so it is another "legitimate" assignment
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:52
I got it.
Paul McGrady
01:14:03
1. Going out of business
Paul McGrady
01:14:21
2. Death or retirement of a majority shareholder
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:23
Assignments that become necessary because of death or retirement etc. shall be permitted.
Paul McGrady
01:14:36
3. Assignments to affiliates or subsidiaries
Paul McGrady
01:14:53
4. Assignments due to EBERO
Paul McGrady
01:16:06
5. Assignments required by competition authorities
Susan Payne
01:16:23
agree anne
Paul McGrady
01:16:25
6. Assignments ordered by bankruptcy courts
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:17:07
assignments and normal mergers
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:17:25
entity restructuring and realignment.
Steve Chan
01:17:40
Approximately page 42: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit#heading=h.bvrtu4hvyef1
Emily Barabas
01:20:40
Correct
Susan Payne
01:20:46
but this isn't the AGB, so applicants aren't going to be reading this document when they come to apply
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:05
375 pages was enough
Susan Payne
01:22:27
+1 Maxim
Paul McGrady
01:23:21
I agree with Kathy that we should state it here again with a cross reference. Applicants who make a change based on a comment need to know that something further down the line could happen to them and commenters need to know so that they can see if the change actually addresses the problem they raised.
Christine Willett
01:23:42
Notifications back to application commenters would require significant operational effort
Emily Barabas
01:24:22
Package 5
Emily Barabas
01:24:33
It’s out for review now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:37
current
Paul McGrady
01:25:37
@Jeff - we hear you. Will do.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:43
Not needing to add many more pages!
Justine Chew
01:25:45
@jeff, what happens if we read something in a later package that we thought might affect a topic in an earlier package?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:15
Mention it in the latest Can NOIT live with note @Justine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:25
with reference and text to note the issue
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:30
(if it happens)
Justine Chew
01:26:46
Thanks @Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:28:34
Just on the practice of using abbreviations, I suggest that we spell out the first instance of such terms in EVERY section.
Paul McGrady
01:28:39
+1 Jeff. Makes sense.
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:25
translation is not a variant
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:51
if IDN variants in the same language - only one winner should take it all (after paying)
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:31
abnormal application process?
Paul McGrady
01:33:32
Can we change "...and will be allowed for activation...". Makes the sentence less murky
Julie Bisland
01:33:52
@Jeff, audio faded
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:41
I am seeing a document on the ICANN website dated January 2019 call "IDN Variant TLD Implmentation" which was adopted after pubic comment.
Justine Chew
01:35:33
How do make it clear that only the same RO and BE RSP gets to "apply" for IDN variants of an existing TLD or an applied-for string?
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:43
it is not a policy so far
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:13
policies are for Registries and REgistrars
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:18
not for applicants so far
Justine Chew
01:36:44
@jeff, sorry, which recommendation is that please?
Steve Chan
01:37:24
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/idn-variant-tld-recommendations-analysis-25jan19-en.pdf
Justine Chew
01:38:52
I will need to go back to original text
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:59
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/projects-list-18may20-en.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:14
IDN WG is not started it’s work yet
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:40
recommendations were not a policy, so there was a scoping group
Justine Chew
01:40:44
Maybe go with, "IDN gTLDs deemed to be variants of already existing or applied for TLDs will only be allowed to the same registry operator and back-end registry service provider. This policy of cross-variant TLD bundling must be captured in relevant Registry Agreements." But I will have to check this with IDN-WG.
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:48
it means , in case where TLD_something is RO someRO, then the only winning applicant can be sameRO_as_applicant
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:16
there should be not TLD awarded without the application
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:43:20
.ORG in Chinese is registered to CONAC (the Chinese organizational oversight entity).
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:48
Chinese and English are not the same language
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:55
it is translation , not variant
Elaine Pruis
01:44:31
Maxim could you provide a couple of examples of variant and translation, I think that would help
Justine Chew
01:44:31
Ok
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:19
if _something_ in simplified Chinese belongs to CONAC, then other dialects of Chinese word _something_ should go to them too
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:19
Thanks Maxim - the ICANN work seems to say that there is no existing definition of "variant"?
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:37
please read papers of the IDN scoping team
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:40
will post in a minute
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:01
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/idn-scoping-team-final-report-17jan20-en.pdf
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:37
it has references to history of variants (other documents) and description of what can be done
Paul McGrady
01:46:42
This has to be understandable by some lawyer from Flatlandia whose client ask him to get them "one of those domain name thingies." This is confusing to even we who have no life outside of ICANNland.
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:33
variants - in same language , translations- different languages
Justine Chew
01:48:17
Let me reconfirm with the IDN-WG
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:52
it should be started
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:55
in some time
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:39
there should be IDN and variants in the same sentence (so it is variants of the same language)
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:11
not in all -> in some countries (at least two) ASCII and IDNs are in different hands
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:48
different scripts in the same language - variants
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:00
meanings - translations in different languages
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:31
if Hobbitania had south Hobbit and north Hobbit dialects - variants
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:51
if it is about Orcs and Hobbits - not variants (translations)
Paul McGrady
01:54:17
@Maxim - thanks! Helpful.
Justine Chew
01:54:52
Exactly @Alan.
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:05
if an RO has TLD .superboot in simplified Chinese, then only they can be successful applicant for the .superboot in another dialect of Chinese
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:15
Good progress today again !
Justine Chew
01:56:35
@Jeff, please let us have the amended text for consideration -- I will take that back to the IDN-WG and find out what they think,
Elaine Pruis
01:56:39
is there a plan to update the work plan given the time it is taking to get through the ‘can’t live with”
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:57
I would recommend to read across the final report of the IDN scoping team (it has references to recommendations of the previous groups)
Steve Chan
01:57:41
Here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?pli=1#gid=839727774
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:06
IN my package 4 comments, i had made a very brief Package 3 comment related to some guidance that said "may want to consider" Workstream 2 work - verus "should" consider
Julie Bisland
01:58:18
NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 16 June 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:58:46
We're getting "there"... More next week … Bye for Now...Stay Safe!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:58:55
Thank you
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:56
bye all