Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call
Andrea Glandon
36:57
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Steve Chan
38:37
Definitions document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CYOruGqewTsu5ejL_zoom0ol6VA1xMLX2FXW2VAy4eI/edit
olgac@fibertel.com.ar
41:56
sorry for the delay, I had some problems with password
Andrea Glandon
43:16
Jeff, you sound okay to me
Olga Cavalli
43:19
I hear you ok Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
45:08
Brands
Christopher Wilkinson
47:48
@A.A-S. I have just said that the status quo has to be changed for non AGB geo-names.
Susan Payne
48:58
What closed generic policy Kathy?
Annebeth Lange
49:08
For me, status quo is AGB 2012. However, I am sure that is different for the different issues.
Susan Payne
49:34
And haven't you been arguing throughout that closed generics were always prohibited? So, it's good to see you now accept that is not correct
Maxim Alzoba
50:00
Hello all , sorry for being late
martinsutton
50:20
+ 1 Greg
Kathy Kleiman
50:34
@Susan, disagree and will leave it at that.
Paul McGrady
50:37
I don't agree with Kathy that the negotiations over the contracts for .brand registries was "policy." That said, do we need to reach this issue in order to approve this document today?
Kathy Kleiman
51:03
The note is that was far more than "implementation" between AGB and delegrations.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:42
I disagree that we have to get through this document without providing examples. Definitional documents are extremely important.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:08
It's important in part because we are reviewing "can't live with" language.
Donna Austin, Neustar
55:58
Sorry I'm late folks. What did I miss?
Justine Chew
56:12
It was an IG
Paul McGrady
57:22
@Donna - we solved Closed Generics, Auctions, and the SPIRT with 100% agreement. :)
Justine Chew
01:00:10
Agree with Anne. "hopefully" isn't explicit enough.
Paul McGrady
01:00:25
+1 Anne - that makes sense
Paul McGrady
01:03:18
@Jeff - for auctions would it be "no agreement for changes to the status quo" (unless we get agreement)?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:04:33
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
01:04:38
@Jeff - I withdraw the question. I see the default back to status quo is the the No Agreement section
Paul McGrady
01:04:54
Thanks Jeff
Steve Chan
01:05:26
Production document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Hh8Wj3IwXvi91Am1k4Zoooct2zmPOmVe1pLmjQLuQuo/edit?usp=sharing
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:29
I'd prefer should.
Paul McGrady
01:07:44
I prefer should
Justine Chew
01:07:49
I still it should be a must
martinsutton
01:07:51
I also prefer “should” especially given the definitions
martinsutton
01:09:58
I think the recommendation and IG work well together
martinsutton
01:10:08
for this example
Justine Chew
01:10:58
Can I have some time to revisit the rationale for this IG please?
Paul McGrady
01:12:47
What does it mean?
Paul McGrady
01:14:41
So, it means that the application comments collected are not part of the overall communications plan and will be handled elsehwhere?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:53
Should it be: the impaction of comments made on applications collected through ....
Justine Chew
01:15:22
Yes
Paul McGrady
01:16:36
Thanks Donna and Justine
Steve Chan
01:16:58
Steve :)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:34
Kudos to Julie, Steve and Emily for their invisible contributions
Steve Chan
01:18:02
FYI, we are in the section on Systems
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:14
Empty answer is equal to another empty
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:32
Agree
christopher wilkinson
01:20:41
@autofill : insofar as these provisions are designed to facilitate multiple portfolio applications I would be opposed, until the PDP has agreed LIMITS on the number of applications from the same entity.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:47
lots of TLDs do not have anything added
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:21
@Cristopher, then we see lots of entities, not necessary affiliated in the begining
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:31
but merged later
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:53
it is not a bog deal to create another organization/company
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:00
*big
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:16
I have the same basic proposal
Elaine Pruis
01:22:48
please don’t make it painful to add text to the application.
Susan Payne
01:22:48
@Anne - but what does that have to do with auto-fill??
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:07
all RSEP go through the public process
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:37
is out task to make life of an applicant as complex as possible?
Elaine Pruis
01:24:13
“curse you subpro!”
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:27
hand up
Paul McGrady
01:24:27
We are really talking about data entry convenience here, right? If so, I think we can just agree with Anne and move on.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:38
we do not need to make life worse just because we think it is too simple
Susan Payne
01:25:58
@Paul - we could, but really why do we have to make this so complicated for applicanyts because 2 people think this?
Paul McGrady
01:26:09
Autofill is different from copy & paste right?
Paul McGrady
01:26:45
isn't copy & paste a hardware function? Or, am I really stupid? (please be kind)
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:18
it is software level, until you install a robot behind the keyboard or API
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:08
if PIC is empty - then it is autofilled by definition
Elaine Pruis
01:29:04
WHY !?!
Elaine Pruis
01:29:21
why are we trying to police applicant submissions
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:23
new hand
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:09
It's a good question Elaine.
Paul McGrady
01:30:19
Thanks Maxim. So, I don't get it. How is it helpful to force manually typing something in?
martinsutton
01:30:28
@Elaine - it started out as a simple process improvement……
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:36
more labour = more paid hours, it helps economy
Susan Payne
01:30:44
@Elaine - quite. Because some people think you shouldn't apply for more than one TLD and so they want hurdles
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:09
but adds lots of mistakes to the text, so the panelists have more things to do the same time
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:09
lack of autofill is highly unlikely to act as a deterrent to any applicant
Paul McGrady
01:32:11
So, if we are talking about banning block & copy (rather than just making pull-down-auto-fill unavailable for that section, I don't see how that makes sense.
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:30
copy and paste should not be forbidden
Liz Brodzinski
01:32:39
+1 Paul/Maxim
Justine Chew
01:33:08
Right. So do we really NEED this autofill improvement at all?
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:09
Mandatory PICs
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:32
Good point, Maxim. If not Voluntary PICs, empty
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:33:37
I don't believe we do Justine
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:17
then reference to formerly called voluntary is not quite right
Justine Chew
01:36:35
I didn't understand @Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:36
is adding random articles a, the counts as making a text ‘different’? if so - then we will have this
Elaine Pruis
01:37:12
at $185k no one was ‘not’ thinking about what they put in the form
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:24
system was horrible - we had to use PDF (not editable) to use as a source from where text was copied bit by bit
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:25
I think we are there...
Paul McGrady
01:37:34
+1 Elaine
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:48
nobody needs live typing when the text is prepared in advance
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:38
agreed
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:52
even if paste function if forbidden it will be walked around by type bots emulating persons
Susan Payne
01:40:04
fine,thanks
Justine Chew
01:40:54
This autofill improvement really only helps applicants who intend to submit many applications, which seems to be to be favouring those kinds of applicants. So I sitll don't understand why we need this. Oh well ..
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:21
NOTE TO STAFF: RE Question 23, we also need a better definition of "additional services", ie "other than basic pre-approved services"
Steve Chan
01:41:55
Thanks Anne. noted
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:19
OK
Paul McGrady
01:47:44
Who added this text?
Paul McGrady
01:49:10
+1 Jeff. This text would make applicants the funders of ICANN operations not just the funders of the new applicant program...
Susan Payne
01:50:05
what on earth have the costs of the EPDP got to do with new gTLDs?
Phil Buckingham
01:50:33
why is historical costs included ? they are now written off .
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:55
EPDP is cost of business , it is due to GDPR
martinsutton
01:52:09
Agree Jeff - ongoing operating fees cover BAU
Phil Buckingham
01:52:11
this is wrong terminology .
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:52:30
No it wasn't.
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:41
after application - it is a Registry and ICANN invoices those
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:52:50
The reserve funds were used for IANA Transition.
martinsutton
01:52:57
No - funds were withdrawn for other reasons!
martinsutton
01:53:02
+1Donna
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:53:20
There is still excess funds from 2012 sitting in a separate ICANN account.
Annebeth Lange
01:53:58
+1 Donna
Susan Payne
01:54:06
everyone else is saying in chat so taken my hand down - auction proceeds were plundered for IANA transition. EPDP is due to change in legislation and nothing to do with the new gTLD program.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:10
The EPDP and the CCWG on Auction Proceeds is being funding through the fees being collected by ICANN from contracted parties
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:30
ongoing
christopher wilkinson
01:59:35
Angélique texts: ICANN benefits enormously from the value of unaccounted voluntary contributions of time. E.g. this PDP: These distinctions among different categories of costs are quite fungible.
Phil Buckingham
02:01:20
the fee floor will need to be readjusted in the start of each round
Emily Barabas
02:01:52
Donna proposed a new IG
martinsutton
02:02:22
Agree - good addition from Donna
Paul McGrady
02:02:29
+1
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:30
@ Phil, I don't agree with your statement.
Annebeth Lange
02:02:41
@Donna, +1
christopher wilkinson
02:02:58
At some juncture we should have a discussion about how the costs of Application Support will be financed.
Kathy Kleiman
02:06:23
no
Kathy Kleiman
02:06:39
objection
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:06:55
Thanks
christopher wilkinson
02:07:04
Must OK
Phil Buckingham
02:07:12
yes I ll be put more on chat
Maxim Alzoba
02:08:24
bye all
Paul McGrady
02:09:09
Monday at....the appointed time
Andrea Glandon
02:09:14
Tuesday 02 June at 03:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
02:09:14
Tuesday, 02 June at 0300 UTC
Katrin Ohlmer
02:09:25
Bye All
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:09:26
Lots of good progress today team, thanks everyone! Bye for now...