
26:36
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

28:20
Can the links in 2 and 3 be put into the chat?

28:33
Noted for AOB

28:43
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ShY7lL07QrFKIDZybdGceXXvb_hmKGHI3qE9bxgDQOo/edit

29:05
It’s Emily

29:07
Emily

32:16
There isn’t a confidentiality clause in the Ts and Cs?

33:48
Then let's limit Evaluator disclosure to ICANN to only those who need to know. Problem fixed.

34:50
good evening everyone from Nepal

35:11
Who at ICANN would be on the “need to know” list?

36:25
id be ok with need to know.

36:33
I like it, but I wonder if this should be a general term&condition instead of specific to private settlement outcomes ?

36:45
@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.

36:50
add "to anyone other than the applicant" and any appeal evaluators after "Shared or communicated"

37:12
That is even better.

37:20
It would be different if ICANN didn't fight like heck when applicants from the last round sued them. But they did.

37:28
@Paul .. is no one worried about the staff exits at ICANN that could carry that info forward?

37:46
@Jamie - then that person could be sued invividually

37:55
typo

38:05
@Paul .. as long as that is the case

38:33
@Jamie - correct. It is a corner case as most people who leave ICANN honor their commitments.

39:00
fix in T&Cs and strike language here as I proposed?

40:18
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

41:00
It think we solved it too. Thanks Jeff, Jim, Alan, Anne, etc.

43:47
Responses to public questions are never confidential. Responses to non-public questions are always confidential.

44:10
The others are specified in their contexts.

46:23
But the evaluators and the ICANN need to know group would know it -

46:57
It is marked confidential but it is still disclosed to Evaluators and ICANN-NTK.

47:50
Thanks Paul

49:30
Don't think we move to IRT until we have public comment

50:19
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"

51:09
Lack of good faith intentt

51:28
Seems like a way forward....

52:23
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?

52:40
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.

54:39
What about Christa's proposal?

54:48
five is still not divisible by 2 resulting in a whole number.

54:56
Christa’s proposal is better

56:31
aren’t the current rules must be delegated within one year of signing?

56:50
is this “including all extensions"

01:00:59
Section c) talks about the lack of agreement on punitive measures, as Justine is pointing out.

01:01:09
Good catch @Justine, thx

01:05:35
“Any applicant that does not withdraw"

01:05:50
Does not submit: bid equals 0

01:05:52
can I help

01:06:11
Let's just spell it out.

01:06:36
Remove “in an ICANN auction fo last resort

01:06:48
Any applicant who wishes to contest the contention should submit a sealed bid

01:07:20
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.

01:07:30
that makes sense susan

01:07:46
Exactly

01:07:52
Good idea

01:08:30
Better to me as clear as possible to avoid misunderstandings

01:08:50
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.

01:09:13
…...and will not be eligible to win the ICANN auction of last resort

01:09:41
Sorry, joining late

01:10:14
So we seem to have better clarity then

01:10:59
Withdraw & link to the refund policy

01:11:34
Does a bid of zero equate to withdrawal?

01:11:49
Add "Failure to timely submit a sealed bid will result in disqualification to participate in the Auction of Last Resort if held."

01:13:08
Withdraw is different from 0 bid

01:13:11
You could be a .brand applicant, bid zero, and choose to sue the other applicant instead of participating in the IAOLR

01:13:11
but we have the flip side that an applicant can refuse to resolve a private resolution ?

01:13:31
I thought we couldn't remove a sealed bid?

01:13:38
A 0 bid still allows you to get the TLD if all other members get eliminated later (objections, withdrawns of applications)

01:14:13
ok thanks

01:14:36
Even a community application might have to fight other applicants that prevailed in CPE.

01:15:04
So they should submit a bid even if they believe they will pass CPE

01:15:05
I don't think so @Jamie

01:15:18
Add that to the Factors

01:15:32
Exactly Jamie

01:15:45
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.)

01:15:52
@Jamie, could hope that someone withdrawals and you'd win the string without the auction

01:16:08
@Ruben .. very tru

01:16:10
true

01:16:57
You can put 0 and expect to win LROs against everyone.

01:17:12
+1 Rubens.

01:17:54
+1 Paul

01:18:45
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.

01:19:16
@Christa @Rubens @Paul .. all make sense. thanks

01:19:58
One would imagine Google would have submitted a bid of 1 Trillion, and in fact they decided not to compete in many contention sets.

01:20:32
ill put a comment in

01:23:59
YEs

01:25:59
I like business days instead of hours.

01:26:09
I know ICANN doesn't like, but that's their problem.

01:26:56
hrs always maked my preference

01:27:21
Hours makes more sense

01:27:27
business works on business days

01:27:30
Hours or days doesn't matter, point is weekends and providing applicants w/ sufficient time with so much going on

01:27:34
and there are public holidays

01:27:36
Agree with hours

01:27:51
3 days on a Friday = issue

01:28:07
120 hours and 72 hours

01:28:08
guess so, doesn't make much sense

01:28:19
5 calendar days....

01:28:53
Correct

01:28:54
Just a note that some holidays are officially longer than a week - notably Passover and Sukkot in Israel

01:31:26
I think what Jim is putting in is a pre-public comment public comment.

01:31:52
just a reflection of the deliberations

01:32:05
Agree with Jeff and Jim.

01:32:10
+1 Jeff important to state deliberations

01:32:38
Hand up Jeff

01:33:11
that was not me

01:33:12
It's Elaine, no?

01:33:16
the text beginning with "

01:34:51
So we either accept both or reject both.

01:35:10
that’s fine

01:35:15
Thank you

01:37:08
Transparency requirements will allow such conclusions down the road.

01:37:21
but it says "was discussed but agreement was not possible."

01:38:41
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.

01:39:14
I would strike the dependent clause for the reasons Paul cites.

01:41:10
I’m ok with that Jeff

01:41:51
“History is written by the winners”?

01:43:03
This isn't really a minority.

01:43:09
but in other sections we have a section on deliberations which reflects better the range of views, which this doesn't

01:44:00
I would agree with Susan, these are deliberations that can be summarised and included (rather than “rationale”)

01:44:05
I agree (personay of course) @Susan

01:44:25
indeed @greg

01:45:13
I agree @ Susan

01:45:47
ime check @jeff

01:46:27
It's important to reflect the discussion as this will be helpful when people are considering their comments on the recommendations.

01:47:45
See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17oV-BTJGtm2Q6w15qxqtsvRZg6PuW9WHGPOG1KgsjZc/edit

01:49:14
The earlier topic numberings are presented in this table but new numberings are used in the draft Final report. Would folks be confused?

01:49:17
Sorry - Did you say, Jeff that we did NOT recommend any changes to the CPE Guidelines?

01:49:53
@Justine, we will update this table to match the report.

01:50:02
Cool!

01:50:51
beat me to that Emily ;=)

01:51:28
The WG did not in fact discuss these at lenght

01:51:32
could we say "have not" instead of "did not"?

01:51:46
sure @Justine

01:52:19
Thanks @Cheryl.

01:52:52
were setting it to avoid a bug that caused some concens in the RPM PC

01:52:54
To what Jeff is saying, staff will test the saving function in the survey to try to avoid any bugs.

01:52:58
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 ...."

01:53:29
We’ll also test to load the maximum amount of characters into the form.

01:54:05
our staff are doing their damndest in other words... Thank you Team

01:55:38
totally agree .

01:55:39
Thanks to Jeff, Cheryl plus all staff involved.

01:55:41
Staff and Leadership have been fabulous. Great job!

01:55:43
Many thanks to Steve, Julie, Emily et al!

01:55:45
Bye for now!

01:55:53
thank you all

01:55:54
Bye!

01:55:54
Well done all

01:55:56
Thanks everyone, amazing effort

01:55:57
Thanks to staff and leadership

01:56:01
Thnak you to Jeff and Cheryl, and staff of course!

01:56:02
We want Cheryl to be happy! LOL.

01:56:05
well done

01:56:09
Thanks all

01:56:22
HUGE Job Well done!!! Thanks back in Sept!!!!

01:56:32
Bye all

01:56:38
bye all