Sincere apologies, I just realised I'm double booked and have to join another call. Will return here if time allows.

What does ON HOLD mean?

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

a challenge such as a RfR will put an application on hold

Jeff - that might indicate there is a policy issue involved - so I would take the same view as to new policy versus old.

reconsideration request

I don't understand what permanent "application support" status means.

That is in a different category in your summary. Appeal mechanisms are covered in your Item 5

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

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 .

I really support that this should be as simple and understandable as possible. There are not many strings that will be affected anyway.

Anne , we must keep this simple . KISS

There should be pressure on the prior applicants to meet new policy. That is desirable - it's not a complication.

How long do you let an application "hang out" without any pending mechanisims on it?

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?

I don't understand.

Jeff , what is the status re applications / string that have now been withdrawn , particularly closed . brand

I don’t understand.CW

I support the email with the proposal from Jeff.

As per my email, I support text Jeff sent around

So do I

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.

This was kind of where I was headed with my earlier question about how long applications hang out.

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?

Can I ask a follow up question?

@paul - yep

suggestion : only icann Board can authorise a withdrawal . it would require a board resolution and then it would trigger a refund .

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.

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.

Feb 17

@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.

Work plan here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SN8GX1nVER30p_VmX1fAEJUTRLByXhrI96kpdGw8VYk/edit?usp=sharing

agreed JN

passed initial technical evaluation .....

“Pre-Application Tested” or PAT for short :-)

Is “Milestone” a good word? @jeff

its not tested L(

:)

ok

The caveats will be important as Jeff said.

"Pre-Testing Program"?

... may receive pre-approval if they pass the required technical evaluation and testing conducted by ICANN, or their selected third party provider.

"Pre-qualification"?

i can't get off mute

I'm not quite sure I understand the desire to avoide "testing" but Ill wait and see where it goes

+1 Donna

sounds good

ok

We're not saying we have technical competence Christopher, we're just providing the guardrails.

saying that RSPs do not have technical expertise might be wrong

SSAC and ICANN not necessarily have understanding of all aspects of the inner work of Registries backends

@Maxim -

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.

agreed Donna . we need to understand the costings . perhaps there should be a fee over and above the application fee . TBD

+1 Paul good point

Agree with Paul, good amendment

Have to leave now. Thanks all.

still need to work on nomenclature so its not fully handled

sorry the proposal is for four 3 hour calls

@Jim - good point

bye all

Does the GAC know this is coming? They don't exactly turn on a dime

have to drop

really think we need to set up a couple of ( very effective) F2F ( @iCANN offices ? ) like the EDPD did .

@Jim - agreed

wt5!!!

Next meeting: Thursday, 13 February 03:00 UTC

thxxx All. thxxx @jeff

Thanks!

thanks!

bye!