Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Paul McGrady
14:10
+1
Julie Hedlund
15:49
See the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
16:34
That is likely a security feature — to help prevent Zoom bombing
Greg Shatan
16:51
Still a link for me, on iPad
Greg Shatan
17:21
But probably not after the next update....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
18:57
Yes @Greg I updated in my OS last week and live links were lost then ourt of chat so back to copy and paste
Arasteh
22:10
I have a big sympathy to what raised by Christopher
Anne Aikman-Scalese
22:22
Sorry to be late... trying to arrange an appt for my cat!
Alexander Schubert
22:25
But there is a way to object for a city community - right? The brand lobby told us over and over again that cities will have to rely on post-application messures.
Alexander Schubert
23:01
If not we will have to start WT5 all over again.
Alexander Schubert
23:42
Ok.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
24:16
Christopher may be referring to GAC Early Warning - Annebeth would know for sure.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
25:22
Annabeth is an apology for today as she has to attend the NomCom Meeting calal
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
25:41
call, but we can make a note to ask her if you like @Anne
Emily Barabas
27:16
Apologies
Emily Barabas
27:19
One moment
Anne Aikman-Scalese
27:41
Thanks Cheryl. I think it was part of the compromise in work Track 5 to recognize that some GAC procedures were available even if specific objections were not established but I am not sure.
Emily Barabas
28:05
Sorry all, there was a problem with the document and I needed to reload it
Anne Aikman-Scalese
29:11
+1
Susan Payne
29:25
+1 also
Paul McGrady
29:47
Thanks Jeff!
Paul McGrady
32:03
Agree
Anne Aikman-Scalese
32:07
okay by me
Gg Levine (NABP)
34:11
Yes, separate them into the relevant section.
Emily Barabas
34:22
hand up
Anne Aikman-Scalese
34:43
Jeff - agree this is important for each section.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:53
I see an advantage to the overarching Rec approach actually, thanks @Emily
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:09
I think that as to IO, there should be an appeal on the conflict of interest issue prior to that Objection proceeding.
Paul McGrady
41:57
+1
Paul McGrady
43:23
sure
Michelle DeSmyter
44:28
@Kavouss - if you need a dial out, please let me know
Greg Shatan
46:20
Legal conflicts of interest do not refer to financial interests or nepotism. Those are Board of Director conflict principles.
Paul McGrady
50:20
+1 Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:41
yes - we need to address it. And the point was that the same language may not apply to every section on this question of appealing a conflict of interest decision. Nevertheless we could draft one overarching section if we make sure we distinguish the proceeding types in this regard.
Paul McGrady
52:23
+1 Anne. I think that would work
christopher wilkinson
52:47
@Greg - glad to see clarifications on those lines
Paul McGrady
01:04:11
Or maybe we just scratch "processes" (whatever that means. I like the rest of it.
christopher wilkinson
01:04:57
There is a background conversation.
Paul McGrady
01:05:15
+1 Alexander - no reason why the other fees can't be known sooner.
Jamie Baxter
01:06:53
+1 Alex & Paul .. this is not the first time dispute providers are being enlisted. we are not starting from scratch here so why added delays in establishing fees
Paul McGrady
01:08:34
+1 Jaime- ICANN Staff can start working on this now.
Phil Buckingham
01:09:36
totally agree Paul & Alexander
Jamie Baxter
01:10:36
Given the cost “variability” that many suffered in the 2012 round I believe it is prudent to make best efforts here to be as transparent as possible - if nothing more than to rein in the cost inflation that was allowed to happen in the 2012 round
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:11:05
Well noted @Jamie
Alexander Schubert
01:12:51
Ww should strive for an early stage - and state that finalization be delayed.
christopher wilkinson
01:14:00
I think that most of these jobs should be pro bono, including ICANN normal mission or hourly compensation.
Paul McGrady
01:14:21
Lawyers will definitely be asked what are the chances of drawing an Objection and what would it cost. Will be very awkward to say "I don't know what it will cost." From an applicant's point of view, ICANN has had 8 years to nail down this detail.
Paul McGrady
01:14:43
Publication with Guidebook gives the most predictability.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:34
+1 Paul - This should be nailed down as drafting proceeds on the new AGB
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:16:28
Can ICANN send out RFPs on the Evaluations and Objection Proceedings as soon as policy is approved?
Jamie Baxter
01:24:49
i think you’re on mute jeff
christopher wilkinson
01:24:54
Lost sound
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:56
audio
Jamie Baxter
01:33:38
i would appreciate that. thanks Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:41
makes sense
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:06
Was ICC the only Community Objection provider? Could we have more than one provider for competition purposes as to price?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:43:57
I Think ICANN wrote a letter to ICCC asking them about the nature of their charges
Jamie Baxter
01:44:42
I support both
christopher wilkinson
01:44:50
@AA-S - Yes. Quite wrong to have a monopoly provider and no caps on fees. CW
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:45:18
Agree we need competitive quotes. No on the issue of "caps" - will limit providers and competition among providers.
Jamie Baxter
01:46:06
I don’t support removing barriers
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:08
We need to qualify more than one provider in each category of Objection. That way there are choices for Objectors based on the fees established by the provider.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:55:59
There's no predictability re: GAC Advice in subsequent rounds.
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:00:12
It would consider "all applicable laws."
Greg Shatan
02:04:21
Pharmacy is Apteka (Apothecary) in Russian, but the Cyrillic P looks more like a Pi....
Paul McGrady
02:05:28
Jim's point about how the translated string will be used is an important one. AGree, lots to think about here.
Emily Barabas
02:07:41
The Subsequent Procedures PDP should consider adopting new policies to avoid the potential for inconsistent results in string confusion objections. In particular, the PDP should consider the following possibilities:1) Determining through the initial string similarity review process that singular and plural versions of the same gTLD string should not be delegated2) Avoiding disparities in similar disputes by ensuring that all similar cases of plural versus singular strings are examined by the same expert panelist3) Introducing a post dispute resolution panel review mechanism
Paul McGrady
02:09:16
.their and .there - where is the potential harm?
Emily Barabas
02:09:34
I believe that is the full recommendation: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit#gid=0
Paul McGrady
02:09:52
.pharmacy and .apothecary - where is the potential harm?
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:10:15
@Paul, would put patients at risk.
Paul McGrady
02:10:28
@Jeff- I'm fancy
Paul McGrady
02:10:38
@Gg - how?
Greg Shatan
02:12:35
Synonyms is going to a very dangerous place, in terms of stifling competition.
Alexander Schubert
02:13:30
bye
Gg Levine (NABP)
02:13:34
@Paul, they might trust a .apothecary site to be verified as .pharmacy is
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:13:39
Good progress thanks everyone Bye for now...
Steve Chan
02:13:54
20:00 UTC
Michelle DeSmyter
02:13:54
20:00 utc
Phil Buckingham
02:14:01
great job Jeff . thanks
Alexander Schubert
02:14:03
bank and banking: problem if .banking isn't regulated