Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:22
Nope I am here in the room as well :-)
Andrea Glandon
30:34
Ah, welcome, Cheryl!
Maxim Alzoba
32:01
hello all
Julie Hedlund
32:23
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
33:14
page 32
Paul McGrady
34:32
What does that mean? Who is "a community"? Does that mean the specific community to which the TLD is directed, or does it mean the ICANN community (or subcommunity)?
Heather Forrest
35:10
Has there been any analysis of all of the community applications that were submitted to determine whether the cause was a difficulty of applicants in answering the community-specific AGB questions, or the cause occurred through scoring?
Heather Forrest
35:47
If the cause of low numbers is that applicants had difficulty with answering the community criteria, then we need to provide guidance, not 'extra credit'
Paul McGrady
35:57
Seems like we can tighten "a community" to "the community to which the TLD relates"
Heather Forrest
36:49
+1 Paul - makes sense
Paul McGrady
37:59
Can we make it clear that what we are after is innovation, not just "the problem is that all the good domain name real estate is gone" or some of the more garden variety "let's sell more SLDs" use cases.
Heather Forrest
38:06
The outcome is particularly interesting given the CPE process, which was actually itself supposed to be a sort of 'extra credit'
Christa Taylor
39:48
yes
Maxim Alzoba
39:53
yes
Jeffrey Neuman
41:06
i have switched and am back
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:01
OK Jeff the steering whell is all yours again (or is this a rudder (being a bohemeth of a ship)
Jeffrey Neuman
42:13
sounds good
Greg Shatan
43:08
Better scoring does sound like a better idea than more scoring....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:09
Yes @Jamie that is a genuine observation
Greg Shatan
43:59
How well have we evaluated the evaluators?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:02
I suppose the question could be one of the standardisation (and credibility) of the assessors/evaluators
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:05
*Very valid* point @Jamoe
Paul McGrady
45:37
Jaime has raised an issue that seems more vital than the one raised in the agenda...
Steve Chan
51:00
Sure thing
Steve Chan
51:33
Correct
Julie Hedlund
51:33
yes
Emily Barabas
51:35
correct
Javier Rúa-Jovet
52:20
excuse tardiness
Justine Chew
53:22
Sorry for joining late
Heather Forrest
55:47
makes sense, Jeff
Griffin Barnett
57:15
RPM did not look at PICDRP
Griffin Barnett
57:18
Only TM-PDDRP
Kathy Kleiman
57:29
No one looks at the PICDRP
Paul McGrady
57:46
@Griffin - thanks! Its been so long.
Kathy Kleiman
58:01
It's an unreviewed process
Griffin Barnett
58:03
As someone who prosecuted a PICDRP complaint, that's not true Kathy.... although it has certainly been less effective than we had hoped
Karen Lentz
58:06
If it’s expected that the PICDRP would be updated to incorporate RVCs, would be helpful to note this in implementation guidance
Griffin Barnett
58:48
Although ICANN did implement some enhancements to PICDRP (many of which were based on our experience in the process)
Griffin Barnett
59:06
Correct Jeff
Paul McGrady
59:24
@Jeff, I think we need to note this in implementation guidance. This may need to be sent to RPMs Phase 2, since the PICDRP is a (sort of?) RPM.
Griffin Barnett
59:55
Also agree that if necessary, implementation guidance should say that PICDRP would apply to RVCs
Griffin Barnett
01:00:08
@Paul - would caution against sending PICDRP to RPM Review
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:14
Thanks @Karen Noted
Justine Chew
01:00:27
@Jeff, what does "and associated processes" refer to?
Griffin Barnett
01:00:28
It seems squarely to be a Sub Pro issue
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:45
No harm in bekts and braces IMO
Annebeth Lange
01:00:49
Good idea
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:59
so Yes to add for Implementation Guidance
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:04
hand up
Paul McGrady
01:03:09
I am sympathetic to Kathy's comments
Annebeth Lange
01:03:34
See your point, Kathy
Heather Forrest
01:04:30
+1 Jeff - Council is the right place for that issue
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:08
But the Implementation Huidance is also important and going into any new round *is* within our mandate...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:40
The footnote helps close the circle (pun intended) to some extent
Justine Chew
01:06:19
Yes, understand. Thinking about it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:03
Make a note to come back in final drafting to double check this then @Jeff
Justine Chew
01:10:56
Rational 6: Just for clarity, what process is meant to apply if the RVCs do not address the underlying concerns?
Justine Chew
01:11:28
According to whoever evaluates them,
Justine Chew
01:16:10
So the "connection" to "until the "reviewer" is satisfied that the RVC addresses their concern is missing.
Justine Chew
01:16:35
So the "connection" to "until the "reviewer" is satisfied that the RVC addresses their concern" is missing
Paul McGrady
01:17:55
@Jeff, so "adequately" and "usable", etc. aren't gatekeepers to bounce RVCs? Just want to be sure since we are saying "must" instead of "strive" or "really ought to".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:52
We could cross reference here though to be extra sure if that helps @Anne
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:17
I mean cross reference to the Application Change Process details
Julie Hedlund
01:19:18
There is a cross-reference to Section xx Application Changes Requests in rationale 4
Paul McGrady
01:20:27
@Jeff - thanks!
Steve Chan
01:22:18
@Kathy, all, the redlines are available in the working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:05
Thanks @Steve
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:24:23
Page 7 of the redline completely deletes the previous recommendation xx in the last section related to Rationale 7. That section said all RVCs must be subject ot public comment and also said all RVC post-application must be considered as an application change request. That's why I was looking for a clear statement of these two principles in the redraft.
Paul McGrady
01:24:30
Among other fixes which I plan to be ready to present on the next call, I think we need to globally change GAC Advice to GAC Consensus Advice, since that is what the Bylaws call it.
Justine Chew
01:25:34
@Anne, Jeff said earlier that was moved up. I think.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:58
Captured in a new place was the intent
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:09
hand up
Elaine Pruis
01:26:51
I agree with you Jeff
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:00
Thanks Elaine
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:02
However @Anne if you have sime better drafting to offer here please anyone is welcome to propose that in the Doc
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:16
some better...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:30
Ok Cheryl thank you.
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:57
bye all, have to drop to be ready for the GNSO councillors call
Steve Chan
01:33:32
GAC Communique here: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann67-gac-communique
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:12
Thanks for joining @Maxime
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:36:36
"DNS Abuse" definition; an elusive thing...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:17
Footnote is good way fwd then...
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:39:40
+1 @CLO
Paul McGrady
01:40:43
+1 - I like the idea to the Council. This is already on their radar, so they won't be surprised by that. If we try to deal with it, this WG meeting its deadline is doomed.
Paul McGrady
01:40:58
[letter to the Council]
martinsutton
01:41:19
Agree Jeff/Paul
Katrin Ohlmer
01:41:20
+1
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:41:20
I support the letter to GNSO Council on this.
Paul McGrady
01:44:40
@Jeff, can you walk us through the release schedule?
Paul McGrady
01:46:59
@Jeff, so Batches will be internal to the WG, not releases to the public comment crowd, Correct?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:04
Fill out this slip IF you have any Ï can't live with this"issues
Julie Hedlund
01:47:10
correct @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:24
Yes @Paul internal WG use
Paul McGrady
01:47:37
Thanks Julie. Thanks Cheryl.
Paul McGrady
01:48:00
Just wondering how horrible April was going to be. :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:25
wow
Karen Lentz
01:50:31
:)
Jim Prendergast
01:50:35
Mazel
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:51:21
I feel I've been in turmoil since 2017 with hurricane Maria a Cat5, then a 6.4 Richter quake beginning of 2019 and now viral pandemics. Feels kind of normal now.
Paul McGrady
01:52:23
Let's be committed to both moving ahead expeditiously and also baking in necessary flexibility. I think we can do it! If we didn't have a high tolerance for ambiguity, we wouldn't be anywhere near this kind of work.
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:26
This is volunteer work for many people... and that time may be taken by other obligations and aid.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:52:58
Understood Kathy. I think a longer period for RPM may also be necessary
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:24
Agreed Jeff -- a longer period for everything!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:53:27
+1 @Paul!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:53:36
We should be prepared to entertain individual requests for more time on the upcoming documents.
Paul McGrady
01:54:16
@Everyone - please stay safe and healthy. Sending prayers for your friends and families during this time.
Phil Buckingham
01:54:18
it gives some of us more time - can / would like to help to speed up the process ! I no longer have a day job .
Julie Hedlund
01:55:24
Next call is Monday, 23 March at 2000 UTC
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:44
THank you Jeff, Cheryl, staff et al. Stay separately safe!
Annebeth Lange
01:55:53
Thanks, good work! Bye, and take care
martinsutton
01:55:55
Thx all - keep well
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:55:58
@Everybody, stay safe. Stay home!
avri doria
01:56:00
thanks. be well all.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:56:01
cio
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:03
Stay safe stay sane!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:05
Thank you all! Take care!
Griffin Barnett
01:56:09
+1 Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:09
Bye
Griffin Barnett
01:56:11
Thanks all
Robin Gross
01:56:12
Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!