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

Any comments on the latest version of the redlined draft Final Report are due on Thursday, 10 December at 0300 UTC.

But we do have a little wriggle room :-)

5th

the Doc should freeze more like the 18th in a perfect world … We shall see

Do we still meet our Council deadline?

Call open on 23rd open to 5th

6th we publish our assessment(s) and challenes to the 8th...

So are we doing this as a package, as opposed to individual recommendations?

REALLY like to have any Minority Reports by the 6th though ;-)

I'm pushy

I know ;-)

Minority reports are not mandatory, though. Its OK to not consense (a word I just made up) without writing a minority report).

How can you do minority statements if we don't have leadership designations?

11th is the doc deadline for Jan GNSO Council Call

Absolutly @Paul, but we assume some will want to lodge them

I think what you just laid out should be sent to the entire working group as a separate email from the typical summary emails from a call. Needs to be on its own for people to react to apart from an actions item email.

Batches of topics

it was only smoothed out a short while ago @Jim, it will go to list

See the WG Guidelines at: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf

In that see: 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions

Sec 3,6 and/or 3.7 of the 3.0 Guidelines if memory serves

Will whatever is submitted be transparent to the WG?

and the methodology is also outlined in the Consensus Playbook

section 3.6

Good to know I'm not crazy (yet) @Justine

contentious will be segregated out

Good point @Jim, so we know to look out for and react accordingly (if we wished)

ok thanks

Here as grouping could work, if a group doesn’t have consensus then we can sub-divide them and make a separate call on each. So no matter what the grouping, the grouping process will still create efficiencies.

Exactly @Kurt

@CLO - could you clarify something. I thought we were bound by PDP3.0 as council approved that but not bound by the Playbook as that was not part of that effort. it hasn't been approved by council. is that accurate?

@Jim, the Consensus Playbook is not binding

True Jim but both @Jeff and I are using the playbook in our methodlogy where we can, so if you want an insite into our likely mechanics ;-)

Apologies for joining late.

Welcome @Heather

Hi, but doesn't Topic 4 go down this route by presupposing that IGOs and Governments as a predefined applicant type? That is something that goes where topics 21.1 and 21 does not

nono, very important thanks Jeff

It seems that everyone that needs the link already has it, but here is the link in a belated fashion: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=1091535370

14 Systems

We talked about this for a long while in WT5. It always begs the question which is notified by who and also how that who decides what should be notified. I don't think we should be second guessing this at this late stage.

it only seems to be workable if it is an 'opt in' notification

Just checking if there is any desire for any IG at this stage... If not so be it...

I am in support of what Jeff is proposing to include an implementation guidance on notifications.

I support that as well

It really isn't hard to read the list of strings applied for on reveal day. Why would we build a system designed to create a notice to be read if a list can't be read?

I agree with Paul.

@Paul, @Donna, you don't have to subscribe if you don't want to, it's opt-in.

+1 to Paul. More useful to have notification system for public comments on individual applications rather than having to monitor the individual application page

It will be difficult to find a system that works completely, so Paul has good points here

I can't imagine it being a "giant" system

And not all who raised comments in support are on this call.

At best this is a "nice to have". Let's focus on critical things

The problem is building a system to do what can be done just by reading the source material available to all.

"opt-in for updates"

Also, there is nothing keeping ICANN Org from doing this voluntarily of their own free will. I don't think we should codify this in the report in any way.

Exactly Jeff. There is no policy issue if Org can just do it

+1 Jeff. Let's move on.

@Justine - understood but everyone was invited to the call.

This true of any issue

+1 Marc

+1 Marc - we can't paralyze decision making because folks have other priorities besides this call (for example, sleep).

I reiterate my support for the "opt-in updates" mechanism.

If we worried that there were people who were not on the call for every issue we could never move forward

I

The agenda was out there, and we all knew that geonames should be discussed today

Agree, Annebeth, and we're not in a position to re-open WT5's proposals

Exactly, Heather

(and I'm sure Annebeth and Martin will scream if we try to re-open WT5 :) )

Would have been an interesting question 2 years ago...

yes Heather!

+1 Paul - but we'd have to reconvene WT5 to raise a new issue at this stage. Let's make sure the record notes this point, though, so we don't lose it. Can it be mentioned in the Final Report as a new point that entered discussion at this late stage?

+1 Jeff, it was an opt-in updates for anyone interested

Exactly - that doctrine has a more nuanced and limited scope

which is why this is actually a new issue, albeit one raised at a late stage

@Jeff - I think we should send this to the IDN group as you suggest for consideration. That make sense.

@Jeff, could the substance fall under the scope of the EPDP on IDN Variants?

+1 Paul - let's do that. Makes more sense.

Just important not to lose the point.

Good idea

That is where I would send it @Justine (personal POV)

Well, let's do that then.

Cool!

A little basket of issues for the IDN pdp to possibly explore :-)

With end of year holiday greetings from SubPro PDP

:-)

Another one for the basket to IDN PDP gift basket

Comment sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11HrbnRk2Sf5FvdOuynJyXfkLrzQAD1jkYpRyaAE1ctI/edit#gid=53966201

Thanks Jeff. Appreciate you walking us through it

:-) you took the words out of my mouth @Jeff :-)

they asked us to define what Exceptional Circumstances were

@Jeff - right. If we knew what might happen, we would include them here.

Like a TLD where all of the domains could be owned by the registry operator so they could be assigned to devices or other innovative business models?

good old unknown unknowns

Like a closed generic maybe?

Points to Donna

and it should be manageable via the Predictability Framework if it gets threshold of support to do so

Yep. A long time

SPIRT would likely be faster and less frustrating

Ya, that is a good news story : D

What the Anthony Lee comment from before?

that flexibility built in

NEXT CALL: Monday, 14 December 2020 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes

light at the end of the tunnel at least... Really impressed with the dedicated progress you have all made in this last push to Final Reporting

No more topic emails

Friday, yes

Friday, 11 December 1500 UTC

Sure, thanks @Jeff

Just to have a pin in it

the outcome of that call may (or not) produce something on the topic but we do have the tie to finalise that even in this plan

We're all counting on Paul ;)

Magic eight ball says …….

"The future is decidedly so....."

(Isn't that what the Magic 8 Ball usually says?)

Thanks everyone … Until next week … Bye for now!

Good work, Jeff

don’t crash the plane Paul

Happy flying ?

thanks everyone

thank everyone

Bye all, thanks! Have a nice weekend.

Thanks Jeff. Thanks CLO!

thx all