
35:18
Congrats Phil!

35:48
hello

35:55
Congrats. Updating the wiki makes it ICANN-official

37:57
"The Plan Going Forward: the extraordinary life and times of Jeff Neuman" in bookstores now.

40:49
GDS = Global Domains & Strategy

43:47
and of course Time Line..... ….. …. …. ….

44:49
Nope - that was helpful

46:58
Noted CW we only speak to Our PDP completion timeline not any implementation timelining/plan... But your point is well taken for Board consideration no doubt...

47:30
the internet is one industry that has done just fine through Covid

48:46
Link to the WG Guidelines here: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf

48:51
What's folk's best guess: when will the 2nd round application window close (doesn't matter when it opens, right)?

49:21
thx for the zoom in @Steve

52:23
We have mode no call on consensus of course

52:47
I doubt your alone in that @Jamie

53:07
+1 Jamie

53:24
but we also need to progress to an end of our work (perhaps not *all* work on some matters...

53:26
+ Jamie

54:28
So where is the transparency around why it was rejected if no one spoke out against it?

54:49
rejected is strong terms here

58:41
perspective is indeed a key here thus I believe @Jeff's reference to "case by case"earlier @Jamie

59:05
+1 Jamie - there is probably almost nobody who did or will do Community Apps.

59:46
hello all, sorry for being late

01:00:28
For example I am assured that the told experiences of those who did engage in Community Applications and CPE in last round have deeply influenced at least AC views and opinions, that I assume we will see in PC's received

01:00:55
should read PC's when rec'd

01:00:57
Here is the link to the doc on screen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/edit

01:01:42
And Justine’s redline here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS13a70f3BGx0b1gOyjvvRCoAKvxtlfO/edit

01:01:51
BUT, talking about the former at the moment

01:06:47
Like Tampa and Tampanians: The community of Tampa consists of Tampanians and not "Tampas".

01:07:40
So "tampa" doesn't describe community members but the community

01:08:18
Tampa is a city in Florida

01:08:25
Support that change in Implementation Guidelines

01:08:39
I was wondering @Alexander ;-)

01:09:23
Yes :)

01:10:29
I did 5 month community outreach in Tampa this winter 🤗

01:11:45
applicants will not deal with text of WG directly

01:12:02
+1 Christopher

01:13:51
Maybe this time we can show them the AGB BEFORE we finalize it - so the EIU can point out if they need more input?

01:15:07
@Alexander, it is not certain that EIU will be reappointed as CPE evaluator. Any guidlelines we recommend is intended to apply to ANY evaluator appointed to do CPE

01:16:07
I think this is excellent guidance

01:16:57
Justine: agreed

01:17:31
That is what I am hearing @Jeff

01:19:45
+1 Jamie. What At-Large has produced here have been done so to ensure things like "Community" definition is kept flexible throughout the Guidelines.

01:20:05
the problem was not EIU but having somebody that cannot understand what Community are and that doesn't deal with communitities in its normal activity.

01:21:03
well noted @Giacomo

01:23:01
correct Justine you recall well what was the problem...

01:23:25
+Justine

01:23:55
+1 Justine

01:24:20
We should make clear that there should be independence between evaluation / scoring of each Criterion and sub-criterion.

01:24:41
Noted @Justine

01:28:57
Correct community description - but EUI said it's not the "right name"....

01:29:14
But that was the string the community wanted....

01:29:16
yes .. not a contest among possible community names

01:30:04
For example, if the Southern Baptist Convention applied for .Christian, we don't want the evaluator to tell them they aren't Christians and can't have it. Right?

01:30:44
Or tell them they have to amend their application to .Baptists

01:31:36
+1 Jeff … you have stated that correctly

01:32:11
Especially: The community itself needs to associate the name; cause THEY will use the domains.

01:32:16
Well, there are many Christian denominations

01:32:38
Correct Christopher and they could all apply and then we could have an auction.

01:33:07
Of course it is hard to imagine the Quakers outbidding the Holy See...

01:33:52
@Paul Nightmare scenario. Nooo

01:34:16
@Christopher - for sure.

01:35:00
that would give opportunity for Community Objection

01:35:04
@Jeff - but all the denominations could pass and then its auction time.

01:35:31
it will be a disaster of world scale

01:35:37
I would suspect we might see some objections here.

01:35:39
I think Paul and cw have effectively buried .christian

01:36:02
No Paul: just one to pass is mission impossible - but two for 1 string doesn't work on real life

01:36:18
Can you imagine a CPE evaluator favoring the Anglicans over the Greek Orthodox Church? Disaster. Surely the evaluator would pass everyone under the test and let the auction sort it out.

01:36:35
It really depends on EACH APPLICATION. And remember we are not evaluating an application just on the Uniqueness sub-criterion alone.

01:36:52
Paul: this would be sorted out via objections

01:37:38
i think that the CPE evaluators need to have the power to ask all pretenders to find an agreement among them using the stick not to assign it at all.

01:38:34
@Jeff, understood.

01:38:40
@Giacomo - that is a scary thought. We should talk it through since, until now, the only way out is an auction or private resolution.

01:40:13
hot button issue indeed for many @Jeff

01:40:16
ICANN should not decide for the congregations

01:41:33
Back in 2012 the concept was oriented on the .xxx case I have the impression

01:44:37
Especially a SIZEABLE community will have a network of organizations

01:45:43
Is all of this really easier than timestamping the application submission and giving it to the first filer?

01:46:30
First come first serve priority over community?

01:46:50
Yes. That is the error Jeff.

01:47:44
@Steve, it's the "the" in bullet a.

01:48:13
Correct

01:48:17
I know, but the allowance for there being multiple institutions is already there

01:48:27
So, it seems like it’s a matter of emphasizing that aspect?

01:48:53
@Alexander - it was a rhetorical question. :-)

01:49:01
is ghere a problem with the "the" to á'edit @Jeff suggested though @Steve?

01:49:28
Paul: you never know 🤗

01:49:29
It may be worth noting that opposition cannot be considered when scoring 4A

01:52:52
Justine & Colleagues have put an enormous amount of effort into this. Even if we don't end up adopting all or even some of this, I think it is important to recognize the heavy lifting that went into this. Thanks Justine.

01:52:58
10 min left time check

01:53:12
+1 Paul

01:57:09
+1 Paul

02:01:50
Lots of great work today people Good discussions and views shared... Thank you all ! and special kudos to the work prepared for us in this by @Justine... and sharing of experience by @Jamie B.... Bye for now until next week...

02:01:52
+1 Jamie, that is why At-Large has proposed a major change to the source (documents) for Criterion #4: Community Endorsement evaluation.

02:02:41
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 01 October 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

02:02:44
so 3 meetings the week of ICANN? we received a calendar item for Monday the 19th

02:03:22
Bye