Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Can the links in 2 and 3 be put into the chat?

Noted for AOB

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit

It’s Emily

Emily

There isn’t a confidentiality clause in the Ts and Cs?

Then let's limit Evaluator disclosure to ICANN to only those who need to know. Problem fixed.

good evening everyone from Nepal

Who at ICANN would be on the “need to know” list?

id be ok with need to know.

I like it, but I wonder if this should be a general term&condition instead of specific to private settlement outcomes ?

@Jamie- that is up to ICANN. If they put people on the list who don't reasonably need to know, then they would be in breach.

add "to anyone other than the applicant" and any appeal evaluators after "Shared or communicated"

That is even better.

It would be different if ICANN didn't fight like heck when applicants from the last round sued them. But they did.

@Paul .. is no one worried about the staff exits at ICANN that could carry that info forward?

@Jamie - then that person could be sued invividually

typo

@Paul .. as long as that is the case

@Jamie - correct. It is a corner case as most people who leave ICANN honor their commitments.

fix in T&Cs and strike language here as I proposed?

Yes - but I wonder if the applicant's determination is final as to what is confidential. I sent an email just before the meeting as to what I though should not be confidential - for reviews etc

It think we solved it too. Thanks Jeff, Jim, Alan, Anne, etc.

Responses to public questions are never confidential. Responses to non-public questions are always confidential.

The others are specified in their contexts.

But the evaluators and the ICANN need to know group would know it -

It is marked confidential but it is still disclosed to Evaluators and ICANN-NTK.

Thanks Paul

Don't think we move to IRT until we have public comment

But my primary comment is "that ICANN may consider in determining whether or not an Applicant had a bona fide intention to operate a registry at the time of the filing of the application"

Lack of good faith intentt

Seems like a way forward....

Since these potential factors are going out for public comment, can we also seek public comment for consequences on identifying or determining a lack of good faith?

I think these factors would prime the pump for the IRT, but trying to get buy in on all of them with the time left would be challenge.

What about Christa's proposal?

five is still not divisible by 2 resulting in a whole number.

Christa’s proposal is better

aren’t the current rules must be delegated within one year of signing?

is this “including all extensions"

Section c) talks about the lack of agreement on punitive measures, as Justine is pointing out.

Good catch @Justine, thx

“Any applicant that does not withdraw"

Does not submit: bid equals 0

can I help

Let's just spell it out.

Remove “in an ICANN auction fo last resort

Any applicant who wishes to contest the contention should submit a sealed bid

so all applicants in contentions sets submit a bid. Those bid will be used if ICANN auction of last resort, If contention is settled elsehwhere, the bids are not used.

that makes sense susan

Exactly

Good idea

Better to me as clear as possible to avoid misunderstandings

Bids can then be withdrawn if the contention set resolves itself or if the Applicant later chooses not to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort and withdraws its application instead.

…...and will not be eligible to win the ICANN auction of last resort

Sorry, joining late

So we seem to have better clarity then

Withdraw & link to the refund policy

Does a bid of zero equate to withdrawal?

Add "Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held."

Withdraw is different from 0 bid

You could be a .brand applicant, bid zero, and choose to sue the other applicant instead of participating in the IAOLR

but we have the flip side that an applicant can refuse to resolve a private resolution ?

I thought we couldn't remove a sealed bid?

A 0 bid still allows you to get the TLD if all other members get eliminated later (objections, withdrawns of applications)

ok thanks

Even a community application might have to fight other applicants that prevailed in CPE.

So they should submit a bid even if they believe they will pass CPE

I don't think so @Jamie

Add that to the Factors

Exactly Jamie

I think the way this issue is explained has the potential to discourage bona fide applicants if not made explicit and clear. (That is the goal of some but we should be thinking about how to encourage newcomers to this space by avoiding Byzantine processes.)

@Jamie, could hope that someone withdrawals and you'd win the string without the auction

@Ruben .. very tru

true

You can put 0 and expect to win LROs against everyone.

+1 Rubens.

+1 Paul

Also if you see who is competing in the auction of last resort, you may assume you will not win and just decide to pull out.

@Christa @Rubens @Paul .. all make sense. thanks

One would imagine Google would have submitted a bid of 1 Trillion, and in fact they decided not to compete in many contention sets.

ill put a comment in

YEs

I like business days instead of hours.

I know ICANN doesn't like, but that's their problem.

hrs always maked my preference

Hours makes more sense

business works on business days

Hours or days doesn't matter, point is weekends and providing applicants w/ sufficient time with so much going on

and there are public holidays

Agree with hours

3 days on a Friday = issue

120 hours and 72 hours

guess so, doesn't make much sense

5 calendar days....

Correct

Just a note that some holidays are officially longer than a week - notably Passover and Sukkot in Israel

I think what Jim is putting in is a pre-public comment public comment.

just a reflection of the deliberations

Agree with Jeff and Jim.

+1 Jeff important to state deliberations

Hand up Jeff

that was not me

It's Elaine, no?

the text beginning with "

So we either accept both or reject both.

that’s fine

Thank you

Transparency requirements will allow such conclusions down the road.

but it says "was discussed but agreement was not possible."

In the dependent clause change "which would have" to :"which may have" or just strike the dependent clause as the commentary on the deliberations that it is.

I would strike the dependent clause for the reasons Paul cites.

I’m ok with that Jeff

“History is written by the winners”?

This isn't really a minority.

but in other sections we have a section on deliberations which reflects better the range of views, which this doesn't

I would agree with Susan, these are deliberations that can be summarised and included (rather than “rationale”)

I agree (personay of course) @Susan

indeed @greg

I agree @ Susan

ime check @jeff

It's important to reflect the discussion as this will be helpful when people are considering their comments on the recommendations.

See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit

The earlier topic numberings are presented in this table but new numberings are used in the draft Final report. Would folks be confused?

Sorry - Did you say, Jeff that we did NOT recommend any changes to the CPE Guidelines?

@Justine, we will update this table to match the report.

Cool!

beat me to that Emily ;=)

The WG did not in fact discuss these at lenght

could we say "have not" instead of "did not"?

sure @Justine

Thanks @Cheryl.

were setting it to avoid a bug that caused some concens in the RPM PC

To what Jeff is saying, staff will test the saving function in the survey to try to avoid any bugs.

Just to be clear, I mean "...In deliberations, the Working Group considered proposals for specific changes to the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) Guidelines from 2012, but HAVE not ultimately recommend any specific changes to the text of the Guidelines ...."

We’ll also test to load the maximum amount of characters into the form.

our staff are doing their damndest in other words... Thank you Team

totally agree .

Thanks to Jeff, Cheryl plus all staff involved.

Staff and Leadership have been fabulous. Great job!

Many thanks to Steve, Julie, Emily et al!

Bye for now!

thank you all

Bye!

Well done all

Thanks everyone, amazing effort

Thanks to staff and leadership

Thnak you to Jeff and Cheryl, and staff of course!

We want Cheryl to be happy! LOL.

well done

Thanks all

HUGE Job Well done!!! Thanks back in Sept!!!!

Bye all

bye all