Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
18:19
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/g.+Draft+Final+Report
Emily Barabas
18:30
We will post Justine’s comments today :)
Jim Prendergast
19:36
thanks. And presume that if not in the form, it wont get compiled? Otherwise staff's job becomes exponentially more difficult.
Emily Barabas
20:09
Correct
Anne Aikman-Scalese
20:27
Thanks Jeff and Cheryl. Will stay tuned.
Maxim Alzoba
23:14
ICANN does not seem to contract persons, so it has to be an organization
Maxim Alzoba
25:22
I meant for applicant
Jeffrey Neuman
25:50
Ah, yes...thanks Maxim
Jeffrey Neuman
25:52
true
Maxim Alzoba
26:31
panelists need to sleep and do human things, so 5 might be bit low
Maxim Alzoba
26:52
standby ready panelists?
Justine Chew
28:43
@Christopher, you should bring that up under Applicant Support topic.
Maxim Alzoba
32:46
so far it is a third party , since 2012 and is till the same party doing tests of RSP
Maxim Alzoba
33:39
it means this third party can twist hands of RSPs
Katrin Ohlmer
34:22
And might become a competitor to the RSPs they evaluate?!
Maxim Alzoba
35:22
who knows, do we have anything against in the the AGB?
Jeffrey Neuman
35:27
Katrin - there will be a conflicts of Interest policy that we have and will talk about
Katrin Ohlmer
35:39
Thanks, Jeff!
Paul McGrady
36:32
@Jeff, when we are done with RSP Pre-Evaluation, I'd like to revisit an item above
Justine Chew
36:40
@Jeff, might there be some sort of overall recommendation or implementation guidance regarding selection of all evaluators, in the context of challenges and appeals?
Justine Chew
38:29
@Paul, then how would third parties put up a challenge?
Paul McGrady
39:53
Third parties can still make public comments
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:47
good question Justine - What if ALAC wants to challenge?
Justine Chew
41:07
@Jeff, I'll have to think a bit more on this.
Maxim Alzoba
42:14
it will create endless oportunities for bad guys with blackmail intentions
Justine Chew
42:54
I understand the concerns, it's the history of cybersquatting behaviour that I'm concerned with.
Emily Barabas
43:45
there is also a recommendation to allow non-public submission of information in relation to a background screening
Emily Barabas
44:03
(this is in addition to public comment)
Justine Chew
46:41
@Anne, for the record, it's not ALAC that I had in mind, but industry folks actually.
Paul McGrady
50:31
Agree with 15 day notice filing followed by substantive arguments 15 days later.
Justine Chew
50:34
+1 for bracketed language
Jamie Baxter
50:48
+1 for bracketed
Paul McGrady
50:59
+1 for bracketed
Annebeth Lange
51:15
+1 for bracketed
Jamie Baxter
51:22
It also gives opportunity for dialogue between the parties
Maxim Alzoba
57:34
what happens if an independent objector goes rogue and files objections against everything?
Justine Chew
58:13
It wouldn't. The ALAC would not be able to appeal without a budget from ICANN.
Paul McGrady
58:15
ALAC bake sale?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:02
We should say that ALAC budget request should include funds for appeal if needed that ALAC will return to ICANN if not used.
Emily Barabas
59:48
As a reminder, if you are having trouble following along with the screen share, the sheet we are reviewing is available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=634268874
Justine Chew
01:00:49
If we say ALAC be funded to file appeal and pay for costs if appeal dismissed. Similar to the Independent Objector. That would be great.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:28
+1 for clarity of the language about loser pays
Justine Chew
01:02:15
Exactly, @Paul. No funds means no appeals for ALAC.
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:25
unlimited funding not good too (example - challenging every application)
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:31
is not good
Justine Chew
01:02:54
"Unlimited funding" was never mentioned @Maxim.
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:16
do we have any mechanisms preventing unlimited funding?
Justine Chew
01:04:27
Yes, please! :)
Paul McGrady
01:04:31
So the IO is funded and ALAC isn't. Not my favorite outcome since IO in last round had very iffy approach and outcomes
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:47
Minus the Administration Fee
Jeffrey Neuman
01:05:50
Right
Jeffrey Neuman
01:06:17
We will use the same language as in the Guidebook
Paul McGrady
01:08:18
@Jeff - how does ALAC get the funding for the initial filing?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:08:40
ICANN paid the fees
Justine Chew
01:08:41
No approval from ICANN Board re ALAC objections or appeals. ALAC just gets funding from ICANN Org.
Justine Chew
01:09:14
We don't receive funds. We just get ICANN Org to make payment.
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:18
allowed to spend should be more like allowed to request payment , not actual funds
Paul McGrady
01:13:00
thanks
Justine Chew
01:15:22
For CPE, it's a challenge. Not appeal.
Paul McGrady
01:17:36
How do ALAC members on this call feel about the budget vs the old mechanism?
Justine Chew
01:18:31
Quantum is sort of out scope for this WG.
Justine Chew
01:19:05
@Paul, what do you mean by "old mechanism"?
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:23
could it be referred as reasonable amount?
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:33
panelist will be happy
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:04
Punt to IRT - okay with that
Paul McGrady
01:23:19
@Jeff - put "former President Obama" in brackets
Justine Chew
01:23:29
Yes, okay to punt to IRT. Maybe consider Board committee as arbiter also?
Paul McGrady
01:26:15
IRT may be the right answer, I just want to ponder
Emily Barabas
01:27:33
for some reason, in safari the page numbers appear differently
Emily Barabas
01:27:42
it’s the same text though
Justine Chew
01:32:28
Needs grounds for challenge / appeal
Paul McGrady
01:32:52
I'm not a fan of the quick look.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:06
COMMENT: I don't think Footnote 84 re "clearly erroneous" reflects my prior comments which were:
Martin Sutton
01:35:06
+1 Paul
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:35:09
In line with Paul's comment, who defines "frivolous?"?
Maxim Alzoba
01:35:12
now that’s serious
Paul McGrady
01:36:43
+1Gg, one person's frivolous is another person's last ditch effort to get a panelist to understand
Emily Barabas
01:40:09
Hi Anne, can you repost your comment in the chat?
Emily Barabas
01:40:16
I see :COMMENT: I don't think Footnote 84 re "clearly erroneous" reflects my prior comments which were:
Emily Barabas
01:40:23
but not the text following it
Emily Barabas
01:40:42
I want to make sure we capture your input
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:40:51
Clearly erroneous: On balance, in terms of the substantive determination, I would tend to leave an Objection ruling in place unless (1) the panel failed to follow the appropriate procedures or (2) failed to consider/solicit necessary material evidence or information.
Steve Chan
01:41:09
Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Annebeth Lange
01:42:01
Interesting discussion today! Bye!