Nope I am here in the room as well :-)

Ah, welcome, Cheryl!

hello all

Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

page 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)?

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?

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'

Seems like we can tighten "a community" to "the community to which the TLD relates"

+1 Paul - makes sense

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.

The outcome is particularly interesting given the CPE process, which was actually itself supposed to be a sort of 'extra credit'

yes

yes

i have switched and am back

OK Jeff the steering whell is all yours again (or is this a rudder (being a bohemeth of a ship)

sounds good

Better scoring does sound like a better idea than more scoring....

Yes @Jamie that is a genuine observation

How well have we evaluated the evaluators?

I suppose the question could be one of the standardisation (and credibility) of the assessors/evaluators

*Very valid* point @Jamoe

Jaime has raised an issue that seems more vital than the one raised in the agenda...

Sure thing

Correct

yes

correct

excuse tardiness

Sorry for joining late

makes sense, Jeff

RPM did not look at PICDRP

Only TM-PDDRP

No one looks at the PICDRP

@Griffin - thanks! Its been so long.

It's an unreviewed process

As someone who prosecuted a PICDRP complaint, that's not true Kathy.... although it has certainly been less effective than we had hoped

If it’s expected that the PICDRP would be updated to incorporate RVCs, would be helpful to note this in implementation guidance

Although ICANN did implement some enhancements to PICDRP (many of which were based on our experience in the process)

Correct Jeff

@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.

Also agree that if necessary, implementation guidance should say that PICDRP would apply to RVCs

@Paul - would caution against sending PICDRP to RPM Review

Thanks @Karen Noted

@Jeff, what does "and associated processes" refer to?

It seems squarely to be a Sub Pro issue

No harm in bekts and braces IMO

Good idea

so Yes to add for Implementation Guidance

hand up

I am sympathetic to Kathy's comments

See your point, Kathy

+1 Jeff - Council is the right place for that issue

But the Implementation Huidance is also important and going into any new round *is* within our mandate...

The footnote helps close the circle (pun intended) to some extent

Yes, understand. Thinking about it.

Make a note to come back in final drafting to double check this then @Jeff

Rational 6: Just for clarity, what process is meant to apply if the RVCs do not address the underlying concerns?

According to whoever evaluates them,

So the "connection" to "until the "reviewer" is satisfied that the RVC addresses their concern is missing.

So the "connection" to "until the "reviewer" is satisfied that the RVC addresses their concern" is missing

@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".

We could cross reference here though to be extra sure if that helps @Anne

I mean cross reference to the Application Change Process details

There is a cross-reference to Section xx Application Changes Requests in rationale 4

@Jeff - thanks!

@Kathy, all, the redlines are available in the working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks @Steve

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.

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.

@Anne, Jeff said earlier that was moved up. I think.

Captured in a new place was the intent

hand up

I agree with you Jeff

Thanks Elaine

However @Anne if you have sime better drafting to offer here please anyone is welcome to propose that in the Doc

some better...

Ok Cheryl thank you.

bye all, have to drop to be ready for the GNSO councillors call

GAC Communique here: https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/icann67-gac-communique

Thanks for joining @Maxime

"DNS Abuse" definition; an elusive thing...

Footnote is good way fwd then...

+1 @CLO

+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.

[letter to the Council]

Agree Jeff/Paul

+1

I support the letter to GNSO Council on this.

@Jeff, can you walk us through the release schedule?

@Jeff, so Batches will be internal to the WG, not releases to the public comment crowd, Correct?

Fill out this slip IF you have any Ï can't live with this"issues

correct @Paul

Yes @Paul internal WG use

Thanks Julie. Thanks Cheryl.

Just wondering how horrible April was going to be. :)

wow

:)

Mazel

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.

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.

This is volunteer work for many people... and that time may be taken by other obligations and aid.

Understood Kathy. I think a longer period for RPM may also be necessary

Agreed Jeff -- a longer period for everything!

+1 @Paul!

We should be prepared to entertain individual requests for more time on the upcoming documents.

@Everyone - please stay safe and healthy. Sending prayers for your friends and families during this time.

it gives some of us more time - can / would like to help to speed up the process ! I no longer have a day job .

Next call is Monday, 23 March at 2000 UTC

THank you Jeff, Cheryl, staff et al. Stay separately safe!

Thanks, good work! Bye, and take care

Thx all - keep well

@Everybody, stay safe. Stay home!

thanks. be well all.

cio

Stay safe stay sane!

Thank you all! Take care!

+1 Jeff

Bye

Thanks all

Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!