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

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

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

hello all

Thanks Jim and noted

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

Consider it clarified

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

10 years

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

those are good points Paul

good example with covid survivors

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

@Paul - very good points you raised

i share the view of Jamie on this issue.

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

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 ...

it is ccTLD world, I think

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

was done last time with .krd

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

@Maxim - So .futuremartian would be a Community?

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

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

EXACTLY @Anne!

hardly future proof here

@Marc , why not, volunteers e. t. c.

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

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

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

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

@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

@Marc, it, most probably will be

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

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

@Marc, I have not said that

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

just asking for clarification

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

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

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

the degree that evidence compels may vary

+1 Paul

Exactly @Paul!

+1 Paul

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

LOTS of potential rabbit holes

community should be established at least a year ago? or something like that

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.

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

@Jeff - how about "demonstrable and significant activities"

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

whatever it may be as presented

community of Alaska fishermen can not be internal for geo reasons

@ 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

I still propose this be sorted in specific implementation

this *IS* omportant

needs a very comprehensive consideration

@Jeff - good point.

+1 Jeff - just amend the time frame

we have given other implementation Guidance

we 88SHOULD** guide here of course

My apologies for joining late.

Say "meets the definition of community in the guidelines prior to the application window opening"

very specific guidance on our review of risks and concerns Principles etc.,

+1 #ann

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

there may be several interdependencies with any changes here

@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.

OK

@Jeff, I agree

Yes Jeff

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.

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

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

Again personal opinion I agree totally on the risk of stiffeling opportunity @Jamie

it was a pandora box we opened :)

community of ex-con bike owners with the club

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

Jeff, hand up

+ 1 @Justine

+1 @justine.

Jeff we have a CPWG

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

that is not a At-Large

position

@CLO - I thought you said earlier it was just the few members

But it was not formally voted on by the ALAC.

is IS a CPWG position paper not actually subject to a form of call

should read call for objection or poll for support

This interpretation is too restrictive and needs to be pulled back

COver note signatures are quite clear @Jeff

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

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

@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.

your hearing that from me @Steve

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

and also the tool use on the right is also problematic

+1 Greg

Exactly @Greg ++=

+1 Greg

they went wrong because they were the wrong body to do the CPE job.

+1 Greg

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

back to Implementation Gudance IMO

Agree, Cheryl

AGree with Jeff that should be possible

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

Sorry - need to drop off. Work call.

Agree with Alan.

indeed AGP can be changed

The word “membership” is permanently problematic.

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

AGB

It seems the issue is "membership". +1 Justine

+1 Justine

+1 Justine

we need to ensure intention is clear and that the AGB is as unambiguous as possible

+1 @Justine, and we can recommend that be looked at

being a member of a community is very different than having membership in a community

I balk at the term as well

Agree that it can be worked out by the IRT.

So do I @Paul

the scorring issue included

There will not be a supplemental draft final report

if we properly craft the guidance

+1 Jamie

I am also supporting Justine’s point of view. CW

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

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

+1 Jamie, the question is how do we effect change effectively?

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

time check 15 min

Great question Jamie! What is valid opposition or not?

I was talking about the formal Community Objection

this criteria applies only to PROFESSIONAL and TRADE communities…

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

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

@ Justine "or advocating" might be a good addition to the Guidelines

"administer and/or promote the interests of the community"

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….

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

@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.

+1 Jamie

Not a fad ie. will continue to exist in the future

We want the community to last at least as long as the contract.

enduring in nature is how I characterise this

That's how I read it.

Good place to stop

We had asked for proposed changes to be in COMMENTS - not changes to the doc

@Justine: Here it is:

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

Thanks Julie

we reported on that he is asking about anything more I assume

I have heard nothing more

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

Seems wise @Steve

please do so

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

@Jeff: Noted for the agenda for the next call

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

thank you to all of you.