Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Steve Chan
32:29
@Annebeth, all, SubPro is scheduled to meet on Sat the 7th, from 15:15-16:45 and 17:00-18:30 and also Monday the 9th from 10:30-12:00.
Annebeth Lange
33:41
Thanks, Steve
Maxim Alzoba
34:13
Hello all
bburr
34:53
hello all!
Donna Austin, Neustar
35:01
What does that mean in terms of the role of the Board Liaison?
avri doria
35:08
thanks
Donna Austin, Neustar
36:22
Thanks Avri
Donna Austin, Neustar
37:06
Thanks Becky
Susan Payne
37:18
sorry! zoom accident
Maxim Alzoba
38:55
20feb
Jim Prendergast
39:58
is there a link to this doc?
Steve Chan
41:05
@Jim, there will be. We wanted to share this first as a preview, make sure there are no major objections.
Steve Chan
41:28
We certainly welcome your detailed review.
Maxim Alzoba
45:02
@Jeff , as I understand GNSO op. procedures do not envision any special role such as Board Liaisons, so it is a kind of informal role - am I right?
Alexander Schubert
45:28
Some predictibility would be good. I am doing community outreach since over a year for several community applications and they naturally demand a TIMELINE.
Robin Gross
45:52
We have gone through these issues many time before. Time to make choices and compromises.
Maxim Alzoba
46:05
I think that expectation that WG members will be able to devote 3hours and stay in a good working condition is bit too enthusiastic
Susan Payne
47:06
there's remote participation for all icann meetings
Alexander Schubert
47:19
Currently I am forced to tell them that ICANN is not being able to provide any clear, reliable timeline. Makes ICANN look unreliable and uncoordinated.
Donna Austin, Neustar
48:41
@Robin, I agree wholeheartedly and maybe we could all confirm that we are willing to participate in the spritit of completion.
Maxim Alzoba
48:59
@Alexander , there is some degree of stability, there is the same level of predictability
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:59
QUESTION: By when does Leadership need our comments on the revised work plan to be submitted to GNSO Council?
Jim Prendergast
49:18
on the extended call proposal - I do share MAxims concerns but my greater concern is scheduling. That needs to be done well in advance as every on this call has other standing meetings and demands on their time
Steve Chan
50:10
Indeed, that’s the goal Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
50:26
potentially -10days before GNSO meeting, so it should be around middle of 10feb
Maxim Alzoba
50:50
but there could be a ‘placeholder’ paper with later update
Steve Chan
51:12
Working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#heading=h.ghi4hytcc3
Julie Hedlund
51:17
Here’s the link to the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
51:32
2.2.1 Continuing Subsequent Procedures
Julie Hedlund
51:59
Page 1
Sophie Hey
58:11
Christopher note this Board resolution for implementing CCT recommendations https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2020-01-26-en#1.e
Phil Buckingham
58:17
Christopher , ICANN stopped the metrics
Donna Austin, Neustar
59:21
Right.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:02:55
Thanks Jeff
Jim Prendergast
01:09:49
this is very abstract - is there a live example?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:10:55
The first option adds to predictability for applicants. Else applicants may be in limbo for an unknown period of time.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:30
Recommendation: preference is that ICANN publish a date.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:08
Implementation Guidance: preference is that it should not be possible to apply for a string that is still being processed from a previous application opportunity.
Susan Payne
01:13:46
+1 Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:03
Disagree that strings from last round should be prohibited. SEcond option supports the notion of Applicant freedom of expression.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:16:52
@Ann, from a process perspective it would add complications that really aren't warranted.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:25
+1 Donna
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:25
even this round was not the first one
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:18:31
@Donna - no evaluation of the new applicant would occur until the 2012 applications are resolved. The new applicants would have to accept that risk.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:02
@Alan, no ramification at all based on what has happened for getting to the next new round.
Phil Buckingham
01:19:25
Agreed Donna . we have discussed this so many times already . we need to draw the line here .
Susan Payne
01:19:38
I feel that Anne's suggested disadvantages the less sophisticated applicant/less wealthy, who does not have the benefit of advice from someone who has been engaging throughout. There's a real risk that they apply, not understanding that they will be on hold for potentially years. What is the harm in keeping a particular string closed for new apps until all the previous applicants have fallen by the wayside. Then it opens up again for all
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:04
Agree Susan.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:20:37
@ Susan- because the window for application is closed at that point and we haven't said that a new window could open if they all fail.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:28
@Anne, if there is agreement that rounds are the path forward, then if a string does not go through in one round it will become available in another round.
Susan Payne
01:21:37
I think we have - that's one of our recommendations that there will be a series of windows
Greg Shatan
01:23:40
We have to distinguish between slowpokes and those that have not gone through but have not been withdrawn.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:02
Can't live with prohibiting applications for the same string. If "shall not proceed" means new applicants can still apply, I can live with that.
Justine Chew
01:26:52
+1 Greg on this being a policy issue not IG
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:56
+1 to Greg and Justine - this is a policy issue and it will likely apply in the future to strings we are not even considering at this point.
Greg Shatan
01:29:08
I did not suggest allowing new applications for strings “in process”. Maybe that’s where the misunderstanding stands.
Greg Shatan
01:29:36
The scenario just mentioned by Donna also is foreign to what suggested.
Greg Shatan
01:30:40
@Jeff, what do you mean by “in process”? That is really the gating issue here.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:31:12
Exactly Anne, it did take 10 years, which is why I'm in favour of publishing a date for a next round.
Greg Shatan
01:31:20
This past round could take 50 years if blocked applications live on.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:12
So Anne, are you advocating that someone could apply bot .biz?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:32:24
apply for
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:32:48
@Donna - I don't think we ever considered that issue.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:33:08
If it would be possible to file applications for the same string in future rounds the door is open for gaming and unknown consequences: applicant(s) from the first round might consider future applicants in their behaviour and decisions.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:33:33
Surely, all delegated TLDs or those in process, are off limits.
Greg Shatan
01:34:44
Donna, .biz is delegated and being operated with SLDs in the root. How does that fit into this discussion???
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:35:24
I think applicant freedom of expression means you can apply for any string you want, but I don't think that extends to TLDs already in existence or those that are in process in some way.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:35:36
+1 Donna
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:36
@Donna - Agree delegated TLDs are not under discussion.
Greg Shatan
01:35:43
Delegated domains were never part of this consideration.
Jeff Neuman
01:36:08
Delegated TLDs, TLDs that have a contract......
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:36:12
Because Anne was leading me to believe that was a consideration.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:36:27
Which is why I sought clarification.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:24
I also think that old applications that were denied for a policy reason should have to step up to new policy recommendations if they are going to prevail/ proceed and they should be encouraged to do so by knowing there may be applicants standing in line who are willing to do so. (No stonewalling on new policy recommendations - no blocking based on old policy positions.)
Greg Shatan
01:38:36
Okay, glad we cleared that up, @Donna.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:39:17
@Jeff - what about the status called "Not Approved"?
Alberto Soto
01:41:21
Sorry I need leave the call, bye!
Susan Payne
01:42:03
@Anne - I really think we should agree some principles rather than get bogged down in the detail of individual statuses
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:54
How can they block?
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:25
there is no proof so far that further work on Name Collision is required
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:42
Policy can not be developed by the Board - it is not GNSO Council
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:05
NCAP is SSAC work, they do not produce policy
Greg Shatan
01:45:20
Maybe “policy” is not the right word, but the point is that the old applicant can’t meet new technical requirements.
Greg Shatan
01:45:35
That were put in place to resolve an issue.
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:56
before the requirement is set - there is no way to follow it
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:46:07
If the previous "not approved" applicants will meet the requirements specified in new policy, they should be "grandfathered" and be able to proceed. Any new applicant for that string is just "getting in line" and taking the risk.
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:44
Registries have to follow Consensus Policies, so eventually they will have to
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:48:19
An applicant from a prior round who does not want to meet new policy recommendations can block a string forever by not withdrawing a Not Approved application.
Alexander Schubert
01:50:59
when you reer
Alexander Schubert
01:51:26
when you refer to mega round: so that's 5k to 10k applications?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:38
It would be good if we could all take a leap of faith and agree that moving forward fewer changes woudl be required, if at all.
Greg Shatan
01:51:58
Mega-round is what we just had, compared to all those before it. Bigness is always relative.
Alexander Schubert
01:52:15
ok
Greg Shatan
01:52:36
@Donna, I agree with your leap of faith, at least conceptually.
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:51
Policy for Registries and Registrars, and for Apllicants - there is AGB , not policies
Martin Sutton
01:53:53
Yes Donna, the frequency and extent of changes should be minimal in future, certainly hope so.
Greg Shatan
01:54:02
Let’s not trip on the word “policy” — if an existing applicant can’t go to delegation in the new round, they’re out.
Martin Sutton
01:54:42
And we won’t know every scenario/fringe case to incorporate into policy
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:54
Are we talking about .home, .corp and .mail where the Board took the decision for security and stability reasons to not allow them to move forward, and some of those applicants have not withdrawn? So what standing do those applicants have in a future round?
Greg Shatan
01:55:43
Donna, I think that is the primary bucket we’re talking about.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:05
Yes Donna. those are not withdrawn even though "not approved". If the Board adopts new name collision policy, old applicants should be willing to step up to the new name collision policy and not be able to refuse to do so and block the string forever by not withdrawing the application.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:34
sure
Greg Shatan
01:58:43
Kathy’s comments are aligned with mine.
Greg Shatan
01:58:54
Always worth noting!
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:59:21
@Kathy, They applied in accordance with the rules of the round, but the rules changed during the evaluation process.
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:27
:-) Tx Greg!
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:46
@Donna: not the ones I am thinking of...
Greg Shatan
02:00:10
@Donna, that should not give them a free ticket into the next round, or a reservation, or however you want to think about it...
Greg Shatan
02:01:04
Donna has a point — we have a problem to solve but we may not need to write completely new policy to solve it.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:01:16
@Donna - when the denial was for policy reasons, e.g. the security and stability of the Internet, the old applicants should be required to meet the new policy. This is also true for strings not yet applied for in future rounds that may implicate similar policy issues.
Susan Payne
02:01:40
@Donna but I don't think we can kill something like Merck. Hopefully buy next round that contention will be resolved but we can't just kill all the 2012 outstanding issues
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:01:58
So, if that's the case, I am happy with the language as it currently is as it relates to policy moving forward.
Greg Shatan
02:02:18
Merck is still a contention set AFAIK, so that should move forward.
Julie Hedlund
02:02:45
1500 UTC on 10 February
Anne Aikman-Scalese
02:02:50
We could face similar issues as are raised by 2012 applications not withdrawn when it comes to future application rounds.
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:50
@Susan, I agree, but what I'm hearing is that's not our issue to deal with.
Greg Shatan
02:03:00
What Anne said.
Annebeth Lange
02:03:01
Bye for now
karen.lentz
02:03:03
Thank you
Katrin Ohlmer
02:03:03
thank you, Jeff
Robin Gross
02:03:07
Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:07
bye all
avri doria
02:03:07
bye, thanks