Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Donna Austin, Neustar
22:37
Sincere apologies, I just realised I'm double booked and have to join another call. Will return here if time allows.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
24:54
What does ON HOLD mean?
Jim Prendergast
25:28
During deliberations, we had a debate about when a round closes. But I don't know if that was ever settled. Settling that may in fact clear a lt of this up
Susan Payne for SCA
25:42
a challenge such as a RfR will put an application on hold
Anne Aikman-Scalese
25:49
Jeff - that might indicate there is a policy issue involved - so I would take the same view as to new policy versus old.
Susan Payne for SCA
25:57
reconsideration request
Alan Greenberg
26:20
I don't understand what permanent "application support" status means.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
26:43
That is in a different category in your summary. Appeal mechanisms are covered in your Item 5
Susan Payne for SCA
28:02
appeal doesn't mean it won't proceed necessarily. For example when there was an accountability challenge on .MUSIC, all the applications in the contention set went "on hold". Ultimately, we now have one applicant allocated the .MUSIC string
Phil Buckingham
30:04
would it be possible for ICANN to do a spreadsheet on outstanding 2012 applications/ string with the current status listed today . think we need to recommend / create new status DEAD . To be defined .
Annebeth Lange
33:29
I really support that this should be as simple and understandable as possible. There are not many strings that will be affected anyway.
Phil Buckingham
35:25
Anne , we must keep this simple . KISS
Anne Aikman-Scalese
36:34
There should be pressure on the prior applicants to meet new policy. That is desirable - it's not a complication.
Jim Prendergast
38:11
How long do you let an application "hang out" without any pending mechanisims on it?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:56
The "assumption" arises from the fact that the past tells us that these types of issues will arise. Are we willing to learn from the history of the program or not?
Kathy Kleiman
41:40
I don't understand.
Phil Buckingham
41:46
Jeff , what is the status re applications / string that have now been withdrawn , particularly closed . brand
christopher wilkinson
42:40
I don’t understand.CW
Katrin Ohlmer
43:30
I support the email with the proposal from Jeff.
Martin Sutton
44:18
As per my email, I support text Jeff sent around
Annebeth Lange
44:50
So do I
Anne Aikman-Scalese
48:59
I am not talking about 6.c "Not approved" only. I am talking about most of your detailed categories - many of which prohibit back-up offers that will lock applicants out until another window opens up - perhaps much later, e.g. in the case of appeals and accountability mechanisms.
Jim Prendergast
51:10
This was kind of where I was headed with my earlier question about how long applications hang out.
Annebeth Lange
51:11
So Anne, what you mean is that in case one of the names applied for in prior round does not get through, there should be a possible for others to apply in the new round and be considered only if the prior one fails?
Paul McGrady
51:18
Can I ask a follow up question?
Jeff Neuman
51:25
@paul - yep
Phil Buckingham
53:50
suggestion : only icann Board can authorise a withdrawal . it would require a board resolution and then it would trigger a refund .
Anne Aikman-Scalese
54:00
Yes - exactly Annebeth. It's a back-up offer if prior round applicant does not go forward. The new applicant willing to meet new policy will not have to wait for another round to open.
Alexander Schubert
54:31
E.g..strings that where rejected due to objection - and can't move forward (e.g. a city or a religious community). Should be withdrawn to allow others to apply for it in the future.
Emily Barabas
01:00:23
Feb 17
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:00:24
@Annebeth - Actually given our history as to authorizing a "next round", we should not be waiting until that next round for the back-up applications. There should be pressure on prior applicants to agree to new policy provisions.
Steve Chan
01:00:49
Work plan here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing
Dietmar Lenden - SKY
01:02:23
agreed JN
Phil Buckingham
01:08:03
passed initial technical evaluation .....
Martin Sutton
01:08:08
“Pre-Application Tested” or PAT for short :-)
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:08:59
Is “Milestone” a good word? @jeff
Jeff Neuman
01:09:02
its not tested L(
Jeff Neuman
01:09:05
:)
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:09:14
ok
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:09:57
The caveats will be important as Jeff said.
Alan Greenberg
01:11:37
"Pre-Testing Program"?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:11:58
... may receive pre-approval if they pass the required technical evaluation and testing conducted by ICANN, or their selected third party provider.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:15
"Pre-qualification"?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:18
i can't get off mute
Jim Prendergast
01:13:20
I'm not quite sure I understand the desire to avoide "testing" but Ill wait and see where it goes
Phil Buckingham
01:13:45
+1 Donna
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:13:59
sounds good
Jim Prendergast
01:14:32
ok
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:58
We're not saying we have technical competence Christopher, we're just providing the guardrails.
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:24
saying that RSPs do not have technical expertise might be wrong
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:10
SSAC and ICANN not necessarily have understanding of all aspects of the inner work of Registries backends
christopher wilkinson
01:26:15
@Maxim -
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:26:57
I know it's a chicken and egg, but if the costs are prohibitive then we may not get the efficiencies that we were trying to achieve.
Phil Buckingham
01:27:19
agreed Donna . we need to understand the costings . perhaps there should be a fee over and above the application fee . TBD
Susan Payne
01:29:27
+1 Paul good point
Martin Sutton
01:30:26
Agree with Paul, good amendment
Alan Greenberg
01:34:02
Have to leave now. Thanks all.
Jim Prendergast
01:35:02
still need to work on nomenclature so its not fully handled
Jeff Neuman
01:36:35
sorry the proposal is for four 3 hour calls
Jeff Neuman
01:36:50
@Jim - good point
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:47
bye all
Jim Prendergast
01:39:49
Does the GAC know this is coming? They don't exactly turn on a dime
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:55
have to drop
Phil Buckingham
01:41:16
really think we need to set up a couple of ( very effective) F2F ( @iCANN offices ? ) like the EDPD did .
Jeff Neuman
01:42:07
@Jim - agreed
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:42:34
wt5!!!
Michelle DeSmyter
01:43:07
Next meeting: Thursday, 13 February 03:00 UTC
Javier Rúa-Jovet (ALAC)
01:43:20
thxxx All. thxxx @jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:43:40
Thanks!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:43:44
thanks!
Alfredo Calderon
01:43:44
bye!