
40:34
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

40:52
we had that yesterday in our hood.

41:05
in Zoom room now

42:31
hello all

42:48
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit

43:53
Is jeff cutting out or is it my phone?

44:04
He sounds okay to me, Anne

44:18
sound ok for me

44:32
sounds fine Jeff

44:44
gremlins @Jeff

45:20
it is better to use ICANN accredited, to distinguish between Registry accredited

45:53
noted @Maxim

48:19
honestly I don't think the language in the sentence is unclear at all

48:21
Can you remind us of the rationale, Jeff?

48:35
not the intent at all!!

48:42
Yes - Jeff - it's a language problem. It IS unclear

49:16
Move the comma: Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in registering domain names, and may not discriminate among such accredited registrars unless an exemption to the Registry Code of Conduct is granted

49:43
+1 Susan

49:45
I like the public comment aspect

49:48
The problem is the very broad nature of "unless an exemption is granted"

50:07
yep public comment bit is fine

50:23
Agreed with public comment

50:48
so does @Susan have it right with the comma move?

51:10
Would need to know that Code of Conduct will not change, however

53:16
why does it matter if the code of conduct changes Anne, for these purposes? this is talking about having to have an exemption to it, for a particular circumstance

53:22
I think referring back to Code of Conduct process should be adequate. As Jeff said, there would need to be a process to undertake changes to the code of conduct

53:34
There are registrars who are accredited for ccTLDs but not ICANN accredited

54:39
but if brands do their own registrations they aren't really acting as a registrar, i.e. they aren't selling names to third parties so they aren't a source of discrimination

55:12
the code of conduct is in the RA

55:42
ICANN accredited registrars is covered in the text

56:49
The remaining issue is the new gTLD which fails to attract support from incumbent Registrars, and should be allowed to self Register names up dot a threshold of time or numbers. Otherwise incumbents can effectively resist the new entrants. No.

57:08
But other than Brands?

57:54
@Kathy - I am thinking about small new geo names.

58:05
E.g. non EN scriopts

58:06
OK, tx!

58:34
@Kathy - Code of Conduct exemption is a only a part of Spec 13 terms

01:04:28
Beijing Communique here: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann46-beijing-communique

01:04:38
Illegible font on screen: Please revert to #18.

01:05:11
Document now being shared: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-2-05feb14-en.pdf

01:05:50
Switzerland: Implementation Guidance xx (rationale 2) : GAC Advice on categories of applications should remain possible,where emerging issues and/or unexpected concerns arise regarding a category of applications.

01:15:05
agree with Paul

01:17:29
@Jeff - thank you for all of that factual background and answering the additional questions.

01:19:26
How can the dollar be a geographic term? Looks like at least 22 countries use it. https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+countries+use+dollars&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS848US848&oq=how+many+countries+use+dollars&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.7551j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

01:20:57
@ Paul: $ is not necessarily geographic,. But I

01:22:24
.USD is geographic. There are 200+ currency codes, only a few of which are ‘plural-country’.

01:22:49
I think there is a need to affirm this NGPC framework implementation in some logical way because they highlight public interest and safety concerns.

01:23:03
+1 Justine

01:24:32
How do we rationalise that with the conclusion we've already reached not to create more categories?

01:25:44
they were investigating where gala tickets went ;)

01:26:10
I like the word Justine used..."Framework".....we would be affirming the general framework

01:26:10
@Donna - when such? Additional categories will arise on the evidence of the applications.

01:28:35
+1 Jim

01:28:38
Yes @Jim...

01:28:48
No, we would be affirming the implementation

01:28:48
+1 @ Jim.

01:29:06
+1 Jim

01:29:42
can I come back?

01:29:50
The thought of categories was actually shot down very early in the process leading to AGB 2012. My personal view is that if there had been different rules for different categories

01:29:55
If we affirm implementation of this framework in some logical way then we can try and streamline the process of dealing with strings that might fall under this framework.

01:29:56
It seems like a subjective application of predictability.

01:30:08
..we might not have had some of the problems we have today

01:30:47
So do I @Jeff

01:30:50
I agree with Jeff on that

01:31:14
+1 Jeff

01:31:31
It will save time following the view of Jeff here, in my view

01:31:43
Who will the category that a string fits into?

01:31:53
It does not seem to me that we have any public comment on this topic.

01:31:59
I agree with Jeff, we may as well lt applicants know that this is going to be an issue for them - and we know it will be

01:32:00
sorry, who will determine the category that string fits into.

01:32:40
This is what happened in 2012, so it needs to be replicated mostly as is unless we agree to change.

01:32:48
I think that's a reasonable approach from Jim, but I'm still concerned about who makes the determination.

01:32:51
Donna, if we repeat 2012, GAC.

01:33:00
@Donna - predictability is key for ALL interested parties, not only the applicant. It. Is already inevitably subjective to a degree.

01:33:13
not it is sufficiently complicated ;]

01:33:21
thanks Jim

01:33:32
*no it is

01:34:34
its not conclucive - right -- applicant beware

01:35:56
So, do we leave it to the GAC again to call out certain strings??

01:36:46
Gg, yes unless we suggest someone else does it.

01:36:49
Religious category created issues and would be helpful for future applicants

01:37:06
.COVID

01:37:08
any list we develop will not be definitive.

01:37:24
We need to provide some predictability beyond "beware."

01:37:32
GAC list was not supposed by GAC to be definitive either, but ICANN simply followed them to the letter.

01:37:34
+1 Gg

01:37:50
I don't think Chrysler thought they would have an issue applying for .RAM for trucks and having it challenged on religious basis

01:37:53
Focus on decriptions and rationale for safeguards, and use examples from this list.

01:38:33
Based on this framework

01:39:34
And explain the process that follows if an applied-for string gets called out for treatment under this framework

01:39:49
We know from the 2012-round that the GAC is able to delay the process considerably if we do not listen to their advice.

01:40:31
@Annebeth, correct, so it makes further sense to try and affirm this somehow

01:41:56
The applicant reviewers would decide if the safeguards must apply.

01:41:58
We can also specify that getting categorised implies the same refund as getting GAC EW.

01:42:00
@Justine, at least for those who want that it should be possible to apply for new gTLDs as soon as possible. Governments have a lot of considerations the rest of us don’t have

01:42:22
Gg, there is no application evaluation on safeguards.

01:42:38
So we would need to specify a new evaluation type.

01:43:04
It's in there Jeff, 10.

01:43:39
@Rubens, I like the idea of new evaluation for safeguards

01:43:42
Global Warming is not governmental in US or Brazil.

01:44:27
PAUL - you promise to be quiet????!!!!

01:44:55
@Anne - ha!

01:45:14
@Jeff - you want to adopt these PICS to prevent conflicting advice that is MORE restrictive than the 2012 implementation?

01:45:33
I think we know that the GAC did not call these out as an exhaustive list, although that is how they were treated. The GAC intended this to cover any strings in the category types. We can't rule out that there might be other types in future, but we already know that these types are a problem from the GAC perspective and would lead to this type of advice again. I think we have to try to address it contractually up front

01:46:10
+1 @ Susan

01:46:12
I am repeating -Affirm framework by focusing on decriptions and rationale for safeguards, and use examples from this list.Based on this framework Then explain the process that follows if an applied-for string gets called out for treatment under this framework, including a "safeguard evaluation".

01:46:48
@Susan, does that mean that if you have 3 strings in contention and only one of the applicants agrees to abide by certain safeguards, does that mean that is the only applicant that can prevail?

01:47:04
Self declare to a type seems like an interesting add to what is being discussed now...

01:47:28
@Martin, that is an interesting suggestion

01:47:35
what if you don't self-declare?

01:47:47
Can self-declaration be gamed?

01:47:48
Then you get called out

01:47:51
@Donna, that would be why it's better not to leave it to the applicant to decide

01:47:56
So long as applicants can't just say, "no, this doesn't apply to me," when it actually does.

01:48:06
Interesting idea Martin.

01:48:25
It's pretty easy to warn the applicants as suggested by Jim, Paul, et al. Jeff suggests we may want to make a specific policy recommendation affirming the existing PICS in order to "head off at the pass" some more restrictive PICs than these.

01:48:38
who is reviewing?

01:48:44
The applicants should have the information about the categories in advance

01:49:04
+1 Annebeth

01:49:06
I think PICs already cover self-identification. If you include the PICs from 2012 categories from start, you basically identified yourself as that.

01:49:15
worst thing is to be stuck in limbo

01:49:44
+1 Maxim

01:49:51
Exactly, Jeffr!

01:49:56
@Jeff - I think we need a strawman to work with to get to our destination. Can we get that and take it up on the next call?

01:50:53
Perhaps calling out the advisory on this issue (as opposed to a "warning"

01:51:00
give warning. point to contract, GAC advice and Board resolutions in AGB.

01:51:01
I agree on that

01:51:08
Yes, but more importantly, the GAC clearly does.

01:51:11
I believe CCT-RT mentioned something towards that.

01:51:18
I thought I have stated yes

01:51:18
+1 Jim

01:51:19
Paul’s talking again……..

01:51:25
LOL

01:51:25
Do we point to the contract or do we say these are the contractual provisions that will apply

01:51:27
:-)

01:51:44
both

01:51:46
Pointing to the contract means its optional and the GAC could negotiate with the Board more stringent provisions

01:51:54
Paul, you should be quiet ;-)

01:51:55
Jeff is suggesting it is safer to say: "The WG affirms the categories and affirms the specific PICs".

01:52:04
It's fair to the 2012 registries to include similar PICs down the road.

01:52:24
+1 Anne and Rubens

01:52:27
Noted @Rubens

01:52:35
Yes! There are strings that deserve extra protections. I work on 3 of them. Would be nice to get into communications with GAC BEFORE we apply - to factor in their input.

01:53:02
we cant anticipate what the GAC does in the AGB. (unless of course we aske for final GAC advice prior to AGB being published but I've given up on that dream)

01:53:10
@Alexander, I agree

01:53:20
@Jim - it is a great dream though.

01:53:20
Indeed @Alexander I think we're getting something towards that

01:53:35
Or are likely to apply

01:53:44
what contractual provisions?

01:54:16
I would be HAPPY about pre-apllication feedback by GAC!

01:54:52
Yes.

01:55:16
@Jeff - let's just write it down and wordsmith it then

01:55:20
Being able yo consult with GAC pre-application would save everybody a LOT of trouble.

01:55:23
Tx!

01:55:25
It would be tricky to get GAC input ahead of application - no way to protect confidentiality of your business plan prior to disclosing.

01:56:20
We can say "including but not limited to"

01:56:47
Please...

01:57:02
10 mins in the call left

01:57:04
And - the representatives from governments are changing from year to year

01:57:18
My business plans are public - already now. These are public-benefit, non-profits: owned, funded & governed by communities.

01:57:22
we haven't heard back from Council on that letter, correct?

01:58:10
discussion continues in Council

01:58:17
Annabeth: the reps might change but the issues should remain.

01:58:28
DNS Abuse is not something that will be exclusive of 2022+ TLDs. So I don't see why doing something specific in SubPro.

01:58:57
Except .con, the 2022+ TLD for everything deceptive.

01:59:03
@Alexander, I agree. But we should be aware, anyway

01:59:08
It's hard to make "real changes" to an application AFTER submission.

01:59:25
im sure the GAC does but we will find out soon enough

01:59:48
Too bad because I think this Auspicious group could solve DNS abuse once and for all. :-)

02:00:02
hahahahha

02:00:10
Always the optimist Paul

02:00:16
2100+ TLDs then.

02:00:29
Applicant Support (multipliers at auction) page 6 in 2.1 Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort & 2.2 Private Resolution of Contention Sets (Including Private Auction) -- time permitting

02:02:05
why are we starting on this with 7 minutes left? this isn't simple

02:02:14
+1 Jim.

02:02:51
thanks

02:02:53
Public procurement frequently uses weighted evaluation, it's not hard to factor a multiplier.

02:03:06
^^^^ agree

02:03:25
So, for clarity, auctions are the subject of the next call?

02:03:34
Subway contracts in São Paulo.

02:03:52
@Jeff - thanks!

02:04:12
Larger discussion as in ICANN68?

02:04:14
Good progress again today, thanks everyone... More next week of course see note from Julie in chat above... Bye for now...

02:04:15
Really great call today Jeff. Thank you.

02:04:33
Thanks, a good call!

02:04:47
We will give more time for feedback n Package 5 though

02:04:51
Thanks, all!

02:04:53
Bye!

02:04:54
Next meeting: Monday, 08 June at 1500 UTC

02:04:57
bye all

02:04:59
Thanks all

02:05:01
Bye all!

02:05:03
bye all