Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
43:47
Link to the document we are currently viewing: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit
martinsutton
48:36
Yes thx
Justine Chew
50:38
@Jeff, when would third party service providers be selected?
Justine Chew
51:33
Such as DRP
Justine Chew
51:36
CPE
Emily Barabas
54:54
Steve is at SPS
Emily Barabas
54:56
:)
Emily Barabas
55:00
But I can answer
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:29
SOIs for SPIRT have to be separately published at that site.
Rubens Kuhl
56:43
Global support didn't exist in 2012, but yes I believe the current ones are likely to fulfil the WG suggestion.
Rubens Kuhl
57:04
(Current SLAs)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
57:11
Tha'ts because SOIs for SPIRT much be must be more detailed than regular ICANN SOIs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:35
@staff - I can't seem to get a hard copy of the document with all the mark-ups to print. Is there a trick to making that happen?
Alan Greenberg
01:00:17
@Anne, if you download a WORD version, the markups should be there.
Emily Barabas
01:00:55
Thanks, Alan. @Anne, that would be my advice as well.
Julie Hedlund
01:00:58
@Anne: Convert to Word or PDF and then print.
Julie Hedlund
01:01:04
Oops, ditto :-)
Rubens Kuhl
01:02:08
Downloading as Word includes the markups, as PDF removes them
Sonigitu Ekpe
01:02:35
Good day All, sorry for being late.
Emily Barabas
01:03:57
PIRR recommendation 8.5.a,: "Consider customer service to be a critical function of the organization, and ensure that the Customer Service Center has the appropriate resources to support the ongoing and future activities of the New gTLD Program."
Emily Barabas
01:05:07
You could simply say you support it
Emily Barabas
01:05:10
or agree
Jim Prendergast
01:06:17
I think it helps the document by referring to PIRR recommendations
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:06:48
agree @jim
Rubens Kuhl
01:07:08
Note that PIRR is somewhat biased towards show how cool ICANN Org is, so sometimes you might want to stay away to criticise the 2012 implementation.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:32
sorry i joined late, is it possible to have the link to the document provided in chat please?
Rubens Kuhl
01:07:32
But in a number of times PIRR pointed to things that indeed should be supported by the WG.
Emily Barabas
01:07:48
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:58
Thanks Emily
Emily Barabas
01:08:09
Sure thing
Jim Prendergast
01:09:10
@Rubens - Agree In not doing a wholesale endorsement but in that case it works.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:10:27
Just a consistency of language issue: is there a difference between the generally agreed and wide agreement? I think it would be helpful, if there is no difference, that we maintain consistent language.
Emily Barabas
01:10:49
Donna, there isn’t a difference. We can adjust to make it consistent.
Emily Barabas
01:10:55
Does the group have a preference?
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:20
I like "wide agreement", but that's just me.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:45
No preference, just so long as its consistent.
Emily Barabas
01:12:09
We may actually want to go back and do this streamlining at the end
Justine Chew
01:12:18
On restating affirmation, not repeating is fine, and insert page number where the affirmation can be found.
Emily Barabas
01:12:23
as we are drafting the sections out of chronological order
Jim Prendergast
01:14:06
good point
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:14:12
agree that streamling at the end makes sense
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:26
sorry my zoom dropped... back now
Jim Prendergast
01:16:58
nightmarish to use
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:16
Basically, making ICANN Org follow UASG recommendations
Elaine Pruis
01:19:13
+1 Rubens
Justine Chew
01:19:15
+1 Rubens.
Justine Chew
01:19:41
Have ICANN Org support UA & EAI
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:48
Changes by any authorised user.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:22:04
i.e. payment receipt
Justine Chew
01:22:09
Also user registration prior to any submission?
Phil Buckingham
01:22:34
automated invoices - may be automated account
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:38
good practice
Annebeth Lange
01:22:51
Usually when you get an automated response, you get that every time something happens with that application, every change
Rubens Kuhl
01:24:37
Most of the times upload wasn't allowed.
Emily Barabas
01:26:34
thanks for the clarification
Phil Buckingham
01:26:48
agreed Rubens , especially financial info / documents
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:08
Jeff, what are the titles of the sections you just read off as numbers?
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:26
23 - Registry Services
Paul McGrady
01:28:28
@Jeff, are we sure the questions will keep the same #s?4
Paul McGrady
01:28:36
numbers?
Rubens Kuhl
01:29:10
The questions may have different numbers, so we should specificity these are AGB 2012 questions.
Phil Buckingham
01:30:34
keep it simple and not allow auto fill at all ?
Justine Chew
01:31:12
Could someone remind me where does PICs come in in the application system?
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:03
PICs were treated by the case-system, not by the application system.
Alexander Schubert
01:32:10
This recommendation shows that we are "inviting" portfolio applicants. Do we?
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:12
I imagine this will change in the next round.
Justine Chew
01:32:38
I would say non-auto fill for PICs.
Annebeth Lange
01:32:58
@Justine, I agree
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:59
Alexander, this text was discussed many times in order to avoid that.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:33:11
non-auto-fill for Question 18 and Question 23 and agree with Justine - no autofill for voluntary PICs.
Alexander Schubert
01:33:21
Ok .....
Phil Buckingham
01:33:24
do we need to create a new section for PICs ? . I agree Justine
Rubens Kuhl
01:34:03
Perhaps just add Voluntary PICs to this sentence.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:19
23 asks for all proposed services - some may not be standard
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:44
Need to add 22?
Phil Buckingham
01:36:52
I wouldn’t have any auto fill , because each application needs to be stand alone from an evaluation point of view
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:31
16?
Paul McGrady
01:38:32
If anyone ever wanted to spot implementation details being developed during the policy phase, here it is. :)
Jeff Neuman
01:39:04
Paul - Our charter is all about us doing implementation
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:18
16. Describe the applicant's efforts to ensure that there are no known operational or rendering problems concerning the applied-for gTLD string. If such issues are known, describe steps that will be taken to mitigate these issues in software and other applications.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:39:21
There is no sensible reason to not allow auto fill.
Phil Buckingham
01:39:39
thanks Jeff . point(s) understood and accepted
Rubens Kuhl
01:39:47
16, for ASCII TLDs this answer is always the same.
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:00
It might change a bit in IDN TLDs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:03
On geo names, it seems the applicant country of incorporation would depend on what the authorizing authority agrees to approve.
Annebeth Lange
01:40:52
What kind of genomes are you talking about here, Anne?
Rubens Kuhl
01:40:56
Auto-fill is a possibility, not an obligation. Every one that wants to taylor each question can do it.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:41:15
Agree Rubens
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:27
yes it is the option to autofill
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:28
@Rubens, the encouragement is to tell the public as much as possible
christopher wilkinson
01:41:56
Where are these numbers? 22.23 etc.
Rubens Kuhl
01:42:03
Question 16 made very little sense for ASCII TLDs.
Jim Prendergast
01:42:13
except for that whole universal acceptance thing...
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:14
new hand
Justine Chew
01:42:40
I also recall discussion (or at least concern) on the cost of implementing auto-fill for some fields and not others. Although personally I didn't think cost would be prohibitive.
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:10
Auto-fill can also be used for directors, for instance.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:12
I would proffer that UA should not *just* be an IDN thing however
Paul McGrady
01:43:19
Jeff, thus my smiling face
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:44:17
Personally, I think this is a nonsense discussion.
martinsutton
01:44:30
As Rubens mentioned, it is optional to autofill. They can all be scrutinised through public comment.
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:54
we can agree to disagree
christopher wilkinson
01:45:02
The desired outcome should be to minimise multiple applications from incumbent applicants
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:22
Christopher, this was ruled out during discussion of program goals.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:24
my comment was not regarding autofill option, rather where UA is considered in the AGB
martinsutton
01:46:24
I don’t think autofill is going to be a driver for multiple applications.
Rubens Kuhl
01:46:40
We can hear you
martinsutton
01:46:40
yes
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:46:41
yes
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:47:12
I don't think the lack of autofill is going to be a disincentive for multiple applications either.
Rubens Kuhl
01:48:24
The cost of hiring someone in Upwork to retype repetitive things is in the vicinity of USD 1/hour or less.
Justine Chew
01:49:20
+1 Donna, it's a no-brainer to me too.
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:39
cut and paste is pretty cheap :-)
christopher wilkinson
01:52:50
@ Rubens That would tend to facilitate increased dominance by incumbent large Registries/Registrars. Not advisable.
Rubens Kuhl
01:52:56
I think "associated with systems access" already specifies to which agreements this applies to.
Rubens Kuhl
01:53:34
@ CW, it's not my role to discuss that anymore, since that discussion is done.
Justine Chew
01:55:02
So that would exclude need for an acknowledgment (check box?) of mandatory PIC obligations during application phase, well ahead of contracting phase? Don't have my finger on if or where mandatory PICs appear in AGB.
Rubens Kuhl
01:55:42
Justine, there were no PICs, neither mandatory or voluntary, in AGB. They were created to address GAC Advice.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:56:38
Next Guidebook will have to cover PICs
Justine Chew
01:56:49
Yes, Rubens, I'm talking about subsequent procedures.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:52
indeed @Anne
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:25
Thanks everyone - sorry I have to drop early. Until the next call...Anne
Rubens Kuhl
01:58:35
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cybersecurity-transparency-guidelines-03aug18-en.pdf
Alexander Schubert
02:00:47
Application fees will be contested ...
Julie Hedlund
02:01:00
28 Jan 2020 at 0300 UTC
Emily Barabas
02:01:01
Next call is 28 Jan at 3:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
02:01:08
jinx LOL
Emily Barabas
02:01:09
:)
Rubens Kuhl
02:01:18
Let's agree that we pay nothing and Alexander pays USD 10 Million.
Annebeth Lange
02:01:26
Bye all
Alexander Schubert
02:01:30
Hahaha
martinsutton
02:01:36
thx, bye all
Rubens Kuhl
02:01:37
Bye all
Robin Gross
02:01:41
Bye!
Julie Hedlund
02:01:43
Bye everyone!