Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
16:46
0200 here in AU
martinsutton
17:23
The first working day of Feb is the most frequent for sick days!
Steve Chan
18:23
Link to the working document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit
Julie Hedlund
18:23
Here is the link to the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Steve Chan
18:31
Jinx!
Julie Hedlund
19:16
2.5.3 Application Submission Period — page 13
Julie Hedlund
19:28
:-)
martinsutton
31:18
Re: the “affirmation” term, perhaps we could replace this with “Retain” so we have recommendations to a) retain, b) change/add and c) implementation guidance.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:14
Thanks for the suggestion @Martin
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:43
+1 on the five weeks prior
Katrin Ohlmer
33:48
For some 5 weeks might be pretty ambitious, like city or regional administration
Katrin Ohlmer
34:26
would rather go for 8-12 weeks
martinsutton
35:44
Just a suggestion if there others are uncomfortable
Paul McGrady
36:30
I like Alan's suggestion to count in weeks.
Jim Prendergast
36:49
agree - with Alan and Paul on Weeks as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:21
12 weeks
Steve Chan
37:26
Similar concept - perhaps # of days?
martinsutton
37:41
+1 weeks is better, 12 weeks works fine
Jim Prendergast
37:42
sounds like a bar trivia question
Katrin Ohlmer
38:44
@Jeff: good suggestion
Gg Levine (NABP)
38:54
Must
Rubens Kuhl
39:19
In this particular case I'm more for a MUST. I think a lot of MUSTs in the doc could be SHOULDs, but not this one.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
43:12
Maybe "not less than 90 days"?
Gg Levine (NABP)
43:38
90 business days?
Rubens Kuhl
43:38
The maximum length should be defined as well.
Rubens Kuhl
43:55
business days is not accurate, because it varies among jurisdictions.
Rubens Kuhl
44:08
Like a window that happens in Chinese new year.
Greg Shatan
44:23
Not just due to circumstances — it should changeable based on policy considerations and objectives.
Greg Shatan
44:34
90-120 days
Annebeth Lange
44:34
Sorry for being late
martinsutton
44:58
I think weeks works better than days, so you know that work days can apply to both start and finish
Gg Levine (NABP)
45:05
If it's not a fixed time, then who decides and when?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:20
agree not less than 90 nor more than 120 per Greg's suggestion
martinsutton
45:47
hence 12 weeks works and applies a reasonable structure
Gg Levine (NABP)
46:27
+1 Paul
martinsutton
46:35
This would provide structure to the implementation as well as provide predictability to applicants and the community
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:54
nothing wrong with weeks is there?
Alan Greenberg
47:11
3 monnths ranges from 89 to 92 days. 12.7 - 13.14 weeks
martinsutton
47:34
12.7 weeks then Alan :-)
Greg Shatan
47:40
Personally, I like 90 days.
Alan Greenberg
47:45
Yes 13 wk =91 days
Greg Shatan
48:32
Fair enough, Jeff. It was only a “weak” objection.
Greg Shatan
48:51
I’ll go back to being in a “daze.”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:52
OK fols but weekends are different in different countries. Don't put it ou on a Friday in Israel.
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:05
Either way you could just state in the implementation guidance that the application period is not to end over a weekend. Let's also bear in mind that working weeks are different for some.
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:15
Agree Anne
Greg Shatan
49:47
@Anne, but ICANN loves to put things out at 5 pm California time on Fridays!
martinsutton
50:14
Can only be on a Wednesday
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:36
@Greg - Tha
Anne Aikman-Scalese
50:53
@Greg - That's why I brought it up!
martinsutton
50:58
“ideally on a Wednesday”
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:12
+1 Donna
Annebeth Lange
51:22
+1 Donna
martinsutton
51:23
+1 Donna
Greg Shatan
51:42
I think we are micromanaging here...
Paul McGrady
51:45
Unless Christmas is Wednesday...
Elaine Pruis
51:54
Good idea Jeff in case of a holiday
Donna Austin, Neustar
51:57
We are, but only because people are arguing about this now.
Annebeth Lange
52:27
Perhaps better just to avoid holidays, Sundays etc.
Greg Shatan
52:30
Christmas, New Years, Jewish Holidays, Eid, and other religious holidays can fall anywhere in the week.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
52:34
I agree with Wednesday
Greg Shatan
52:53
Let’s leave some implementation flexibility.
Paul McGrady
53:06
Wednesdays at 4:15pm in Iceland
martinsutton
53:10
If an applicant is really committed, they will submit, even on Christmas Day
Alan Greenberg
53:12
Why go on? Let's see if we can spend the entire 90 minutes talking about the period...
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:44
We easily could Alan and we would end up back at the original 90 days.
Greg Shatan
54:04
@Martin - Scrooge?
Alan Greenberg
54:33
'be required to" is not needed.
Greg Shatan
55:06
12,600 minutes.
Greg Shatan
55:19
129,600 minutes (sorryO)
martinsutton
01:00:49
+1 Paul
Phil Buckingham
01:01:11
I agree Paul
Paul McGrady
01:01:16
@Jeff, it may just be as good as we can get it, keeping in mind that we ultimately have to get this adopted by the Board...
Paul McGrady
01:01:42
But I don't think we should go any lighter than this.
Jim Prendergast
01:06:47
Use of the term "true risk" seems editorial. Why not just use "risk"?
Jeff Neuman (co-chair)
01:07:00
@jim - good suggestion
Paul McGrady
01:07:31
+1 Jim
Phil Buckingham
01:11:03
suggestion - ICANN should provide a full refund immediately upon withdrawal of the application ( re name collision )
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:12:57
I agree with Jamie
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:14:11
Re: Name collisions - +1 to Phil's suggestion. Also, sould the word "disqualified" be "rejected" instead for purposes of consistent drafting?
Phil Buckingham
01:14:59
the problem is applicants may well have incurred additional costs as well as the application fee. so what is a full refund definition
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:07
Agree with the suggestion to cross-reference with other section you've referred to Jeff
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:15:29
"not approved"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:49
We can check the resolution wording
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:16:56
Sounds good Cheryl
Jeff Neuman (co-chair)
01:22:42
Where a rejection is based on confidential information submitted, the reason should be confidential between applicant and ICANN?
Paul McGrady
01:23:18
@Jeff, but Applicant can choose to disclose
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:23:52
The rejection for .corp, .home and .mail seems to be outside what we're talking about now and absolutely shoudl have been public.
Jeff Neuman (co-chair)
01:24:53
yes @donna
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:26:36
that makes sense
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:22
thanks
Julie Hedlund
01:31:07
Next meeting: 06 February at 20:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:11
Great progress today everyone THANKS Bye for now.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:31:31
thank you
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:31:31
tahnk you