
32:09
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

34:18
for AOB - has there been any further activity/interaction with the ICANN Board/Org about planning for new gTLDs. I know there were meetings months ago but its been months. thanks

34:26
It was great. Appreciate the high level overview of priorities. Seemed well attended and well executed : D

34:32
hello all

34:37
Thanks Jim and noted

36:03
it was a set of Members of At-Large (they signed as such

36:42
Consider it clarified

37:21
See: : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing

43:05
10 years

45:04
with each round time gap is growing, is it going to be 15 next time?

45:46
those are good points Paul

45:49
good example with covid survivors

45:57
I’m not sure a time requirement is required for subsequent procedures and I agree that the other criteria handle the issue

46:20
@Paul - very good points you raised

46:30
i share the view of Jamie on this issue.

46:31
or for example, martian expedition starts and fans want to have .futuremartian

47:03
Also, there might be geographic communities, which just established themselves as a result from foundation of new countries. We saw that in eastern europe just a couple of years ago ...

47:20
it is ccTLD world, I think

48:06
in the first round i don't recall any case where this criteria applied.

48:09
was done last time with .krd

48:27
@Maxim: Only if they are a country, if it is just a region, it woudl be helpful for them.

48:37
@Maxim - So .futuremartian would be a Community?

48:42
That makes sense Jeff. We don't want to create speculation in possible future communities.

48:47
Personal point of view DROP it why have a window link at all!

48:54
EXACTLY @Anne!

49:02
hardly future proof here

49:03
@Marc , why not, volunteers e. t. c.

49:34
@ Maxim - so that means they get priority of another applicant just because they have a common interest?

49:56
.krd was in trouble for many other reasons then the date...

50:15
@Marc not known why not , or why yes, I think it is complicated

50:55
@Marc, it is just an example of suddenly created community

51:29
@Maxim - giving one applicant priority over another is a huge deal and could be subject to massive gaming and also objections. I don't think "why not" is sufficient justification

51:50
@Marc, it, most probably will be

53:12
@Maxim - you are saying "why not" is a sufficient justification for major aspects of the new gTLD program?

53:30
@Marc, but on the other hand, a community of people ho have limited ability might need help in priority

53:45
@Marc, I have not said that

54:18
@ Maxim - I am not just asking for clarification on what you are saying, not trying to put words in your mouth

54:27
just asking for clarification

54:56
community activities in the past (even a year I the past) is a good idea

56:51
example, launch of one of IDN cctlds had special rights for registered local media agencies, and someone created a local media of something like 'bag lovers local society' with an abbreviation equal to sex in IDN with the only purpose to grab the domain

57:07
I would argue that a good case for a "Well defined and clearly delineated organised community" would be bolstered by as MUCH evidence as possible

57:27
the degree that evidence compels may vary

57:27
+1 Paul

57:38
Exactly @Paul!

57:41
+1 Paul

58:09
so purely informal bunch of people should stay informal and most probably stay informal (no TLD)

01:02:46
LOTS of potential rabbit holes

01:02:50
community should be established at least a year ago? or something like that

01:03:18
If we take Alexander's approach, this really just becomes a Multinational Community Application. I don't think that is the idea here. Also, it doesn't work well for newer communities.

01:03:23
My concern was how the term MIGHT be understood and I wanted to avoid that. Period.

01:03:33
@Jeff - how about "demonstrable and significant activities"

01:03:57
Or just use the term "established" then burden of proof is influenced by actual evidence

01:04:10
whatever it may be as presented

01:04:18
community of Alaska fishermen can not be internal for geo reasons

01:04:22
@ Paul - I think the other elements cover whether activities are significant.....so not sure we need to do anything other than changing the time frame

01:04:26
I still propose this be sorted in specific implementation

01:04:39
this *IS* omportant

01:05:00
needs a very comprehensive consideration

01:05:07
@Jeff - good point.

01:05:14
+1 Jeff - just amend the time frame

01:05:23
we have given other implementation Guidance

01:05:34
we 88SHOULD** guide here of course

01:06:02
My apologies for joining late.

01:06:09
Say "meets the definition of community in the guidelines prior to the application window opening"

01:06:39
very specific guidance on our review of risks and concerns Principles etc.,

01:06:43
+1 #ann

01:07:02
The At-Large proposal proposes "prior to the launch of this application window" (this meaning the applicable application window).

01:07:16
there may be several interdependencies with any changes here

01:07:26
@Jeff, I think that makes sense. If the "community" forms itself just to apply, it won't have the significant use evidence that it needs.

01:08:34
OK

01:08:43
@Jeff, I agree

01:09:26
Yes Jeff

01:10:34
Here are the criteria for reference while looking at the details: 2= Clearly delineated, organized, and pre-existing community.1= Clearly delineated and pre-existing community, but not fulfilling the requirements for a score of 2.0= Insufficient delineation and pre-existence for a score of 1.

01:11:50
pre exisiting should be at least a year before , to avoid situation with 5 days prior to the launch of the application window

01:13:38
I don't recall paying a fee to be a Rodin enthusiast...Let me think.

01:13:56
Again personal opinion I agree totally on the risk of stiffeling opportunity @Jamie

01:14:33
it was a pandora box we opened :)

01:16:22
community of ex-con bike owners with the club

01:16:26
I think it makes sense to be a bit biased toward established entities, but we do need to make room for bona fide new communities, e.g. .COVIDsurvivors

01:16:57
Jeff, hand up

01:17:47
+ 1 @Justine

01:18:00
+1 @justine.

01:18:15
Jeff we have a CPWG

01:18:32
@Justine - Would a redline make sense? It's hard to review the substantive changes without a redline.

01:18:34
that is not a At-Large

01:18:36
position

01:18:41
@CLO - I thought you said earlier it was just the few members

01:18:45
But it was not formally voted on by the ALAC.

01:18:59
is IS a CPWG position paper not actually subject to a form of call

01:19:40
should read call for objection or poll for support

01:20:26
This interpretation is too restrictive and needs to be pulled back

01:20:36
COver note signatures are quite clear @Jeff

01:21:01
I will discuss with you later why you seem to need to come back to this however over and over again

01:22:29
Well stated @Greg... we don't need to do the defining in this way IMpersonalOpinion

01:23:39
@Greg: i suggested to make a distinction between Community of PROFESSIONAL AND TRADE ORGANISATIONS and other kind of communities based on social, political, recreational, ethnical, issues. to the Professional and trade association you can ask more requirements (fees, elected bodies, etc.). you cannot ask the same level to the others.

01:25:06
your hearing that from me @Steve

01:25:24
Providing “more clarity” after applications were accepted is exactly the problem that the EIU created

01:25:36
and also the tool use on the right is also problematic

01:25:47
+1 Greg

01:26:00
Exactly @Greg ++=

01:26:05
+1 Greg

01:26:41
they went wrong because they were the wrong body to do the CPE job.

01:26:58
+1 Greg

01:26:59
That's why I said EIU ended up introducing a bias towards "membership organisation type" groupings.

01:28:34
back to Implementation Gudance IMO

01:28:49
Agree, Cheryl

01:29:08
AGree with Jeff that should be possible

01:30:01
Need to make it clear that “membership” has nothing to do with organizations or joining something.

01:30:36
Sorry - need to drop off. Work call.

01:31:07
Agree with Alan.

01:31:17
indeed AGP can be changed

01:32:08
The word “membership” is permanently problematic.

01:32:29
THAT *IS* what I have been saying @Jeff and have no issue changing anything in the Left (AGP) column

01:32:39
AGB

01:33:16
It seems the issue is "membership". +1 Justine

01:33:30
+1 Justine

01:33:30
+1 Justine

01:33:49
we need to ensure intention is clear and that the AGB is as unambiguous as possible

01:34:28
+1 @Justine, and we can recommend that be looked at

01:34:43
being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community

01:34:56
I balk at the term as well

01:35:50
Agree that it can be worked out by the IRT.

01:36:02
So do I @Paul

01:36:19
the scorring issue included

01:36:24
There will not be a supplemental draft final report

01:36:36
if we properly craft the guidance

01:36:38
+1 Jamie

01:38:30
I am also supporting Justine’s point of view. CW

01:39:26
We don't want to trigger another round of public comment, so Jeff's solution seems to be the way forward.

01:40:55
terms used need to be particular not open to misinterpretation (that is no in synch with our intent) and as unambiguous as possible

01:41:13
+1 Jamie, the question is how do we effect change effectively?

01:44:39
@Anne - are you speaking about the formal community objections, or mere community opposition scored in criteria 4

01:45:03
time check 15 min

01:45:08
Great question Jamie! What is valid opposition or not?

01:45:34
I was talking about the formal Community Objection

01:46:08
this criteria applies only to PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities…

01:46:10
I don’t believe there is any impact on formal Community Objections. Standing has to be established by the objector in Community Objections

01:46:50
We should be thinking of administering and/or advocating on the behalf of a community.

01:47:43
@ Justine "or advocating" might be a good addition to the Guidelines

01:48:53
"administer and/or promote the interests of the community"

01:49:21
we need to have two tracks to deal with Community applications. For PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities you have to Apply all criteria. But for the others you need to introduce flexibility….

01:50:09
Yap. Applicant has to represent the community to some degree; which could be evidenced by widespread support. not just from 3 groupings ...

01:50:20
@Jamie - important point. The Southern Baptist Convention could apply for .Christian, but it doesn't keep track of who is a Catholic and it doesn't collect dues.

01:50:43
+1 Jamie

01:57:42
Not a fad ie. will continue to exist in the future

01:58:14
We want the community to last at least as long as the contract.

01:58:32
enduring in nature is how I characterise this

01:58:51
That's how I read it.

01:59:11
Good place to stop

02:01:19
We had asked for proposed changes to be in COMMENTS - not changes to the doc

02:01:20
@Justine: Here it is:

02:01:22
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ih_1NARViJXNNewDg-q87sQzQoC1dCtC/view?usp=sharing

02:01:35
Thanks Julie

02:01:54
we reported on that he is asking about anything more I assume

02:02:02
I have heard nothing more

02:02:16
@Justine, if there are substantial edits, which I think they will be, we can create you an additional copy?

02:02:34
Seems wise @Steve

02:02:42
please do so

02:02:57
@Steve, sure if that's the best way forward for me.

02:02:58
@Jeff: Noted for the agenda for the next call

02:03:04
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

02:03:08
thank you to all of you.