
39:33
Hello everyone

41:56
how far in advance can we expect leadership comments to be populated in the spreadsheets? for example - we have a call Monday but I don't see any leadership comments in the document. Id like ot factor that into my preparation for the calls. thnaks

42:36
1 day in advance is tight turnaround

42:38
Link to document: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rOqfucddhWhYK8u3-O7IHg772BpjEIGhlmCT_gMRSkQ/edit?usp=sharing

43:32
And comments can be shared on the list - like SPIRT email chain

44:46
Thanks

48:07
sorry for being late

48:36
I have an update to my SOI, I stepped down from SSC RySG position.

49:17
@Maxim: Noted.

49:40
@Julie , thanks

50:13
In reviewing the comments, has an analysis been done where comments are similar across groups etc. or are they just reviewed individually.

51:03
Thanks

53:51
Hand up from Cheryl

53:51
line 24

54:41
Reducing fees is a Pandora's Box. If ICANN can lower them for certain registries what is keeping them from raising them for others? .museum is an outlier and should stay that way.

55:47
I agree Paul and maybe not a conversation for this group.

56:02
+1 to Paul

56:34
+1 Donna. If the ICANN Board wants to favor one type of speech over another type of speech by reducing or raising its prices, I'm not sure that is something this WG wants to be involved in at all.

57:49
Wouldn't that be the type of content based decisions the Board has expressed concern about?

58:49
We wanted to ensure that the comments received were well aired by the WG however

58:54
I don't think Applicant Support assessment is content based. Isn't is more about underserved regions and slower economies in the Global South etc

59:22
@Anne - the .museum example shows it isn't.

01:00:18
.museum was one of the so-called “sponsored” TLDs, was it not? With quite a few restrictions.

01:02:00
@Jeff - you said that the GAC reiterated its Advice. What Communique was that in? Where is it in this comment? Or, did you mean something else besides Advice?

01:02:34
generally speaking - its best if we, the Sub Pro WG, define any terms so they are not misconstrued during implementation

01:03:26
One would think so @Jim

01:03:32
@Jeff - thanks. Sorry to be a stickler, but in ICANNland...

01:03:54
so does anyone NOT want to be clearer in definintion of the term?

01:05:25
and doing it 8BY* the next call so we can discuss and decide/move on

01:05:47
*BY => *BY*

01:08:40
thanks

01:11:18
Here is the current document we are discussing: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Pk3SadfiropKdD387FrgELdulfZuTbUCivf1SId9ZGU/edit#gid=123470843

01:14:51
"shalt"

01:15:40
Very biblical, @Paul.