
34:35
Sorry that I am late, had problems finding the link

35:05
NP Annabeth... Welcome

35:31
hi! @annebeth!

35:45
Hi all!

36:08
Can you live with it test is important to exercise as we try to move towards consensus

37:47
Let us work together to avoid that the SubPro will be the Never Ending Story. @Jeff, I think this is a very productive way to work

39:30
ok - thanks

43:54
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit#

44:12
We have a phone number ending in 305. Is anyone familiar with that number?

44:47
That's me - Marc Trachtenberg

44:54
Thank you, Marc!

45:03
We are on page 43 of the Google doc

45:30
Registry Services evaluation is a mix'n'match of technical and non-technical features.

48:25
Jeff said the evaluation of the application is NOT the same as the pre-evaluation (technical) rest right?

48:49
All 2 point questions were ones offering extra points for doing extra things, not that they worth more.

49:05
(compared to other criteria)

49:35
Abuse handling was 1-point if I recall correctly.

50:40
ICANN's own PIRR also recommend dropping 2 point questions.

53:28
ok - makes sense

56:24
is Jothan Frakes a member of this group? He was an evaluator and may be able to shed some light on this issue of clarifying questions and why there were so many.

57:12
All evaluators are bound to confidentiality terms, so he couldn't answer those questions.

01:03:34
The interpretation of what meet is up to the IRT.

01:04:09
So AGB gets something implementable.

01:06:01
ICANN has some data breaches in the application system, if I remember, making them extra scary to turn over your security plans. Classic example of the regulatory being less sophisticated than the regulatees.

01:06:19
had

01:10:44
Jeff, there was one IG that you skipped.

01:16:38
Priority is process-wide, so when it comes to technical evaluation, it ends up being publish priority, in order to gain from cost-savings at evaluation.

01:18:06
so the apps wouldn’t be “batched” rather, the next TLD in the queue with that RSP would get a “quick pass”

01:18:50
Elaine, no. The results would be hold until higher priority apps are evaluated.

01:19:36
yes, just shortening the amount of time the repeat RSP app spends from start to finish

01:19:46
ok, thank you Jeff and Steve

01:20:01
And also saving on person-hours to do the evaluations.

01:24:12
It truly showed how stuck ICANN was in its second-level-sales mentality.

01:24:46
lessons learned and hopefully with these recommendations remediation applied

01:26:25
currentRegistry needs a space

01:26:44
noted @rubens

01:26:53
fixed

01:28:45
It intended all options:

01:29:07
RO, Affiliate of an RO, parent company etc.

01:30:01
We just need to highlight that the italics was in addition to the 2007 policy.

01:33:19
still better than "spirit"...

01:33:57
Current list of services available in Fast Track RSEP:

01:33:58
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/fast-track-rsep-process-authorization-language-2019-06-14-en

01:36:20
Jim, it should be available to the IRT.

01:36:46
when should the examination be completed by?

01:37:04
It should be earlier than that IMHO.

01:37:15
So the IRT can use the analysis to tune AGB.

01:38:29
But this looks more like an envelope note than something to be in the policy.

01:38:57
Sounds good @Jeff

01:43:04
probing questions that 'stress test' any decent security policy

01:44:33
I believe we could read Steve's comment on COI x Registrant Protections, because depending on the COI decision, it might come into play.

01:45:02
Financial Evaluation

01:45:45
It's.

01:45:45
Haha, yes

01:46:47
Great progress Team... Thanks for this... and Bye for now...

01:46:53
@Jeff only 4 miles

01:46:56
Bye @ll!

01:47:00
lol