Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
32:20
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 26 September 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Steve Chan
34:37
Link to the document displayed here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing
Steve Chan
36:50
Steve
Heather Forrest
37:01
Apologies for joining late! Hi, all.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:11
Welcome Heather
Maxim Alzoba
41:44
there are not limits to number of texts called GAC Advise, and to contents of those
Paul McGrady
43:12
Jeff, did you say there were no time limits on GAC Consensus Advice in the AGB? pretty sure there was a clear deadline.
Alexander Schubert
43:15
.weed and .cannabis will be examples of strong single country objection.
Heather Forrest
44:26
Paul, you're thinking of 1.1.2.7: The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that, to be considered by the Board during the evaluation process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice process.
Paul McGrady
45:05
Thanks Heather thought so.
Heather Forrest
45:08
That was a quote. But there was no time limit, just that if it was to be considered "during the evaluation process", it had to be received per Module 3.
Heather Forrest
45:31
Happy to help.
Justine Chew
45:34
Yep, AGB 3.1
Jim Prendergast
45:51
having a defined wndow for GAC advice would certinly contribute to the predictability for applicants.
Justine Chew
46:45
We can only ask nicely? :)
Paul McGrady
46:58
In a bus in India with come and go signal. sorry if I ask about things that might have already been covered. only getting about 50% of what Jeff is saying.
Robin Gross
47:27
That’s dedication, Paul!
Heather Forrest
48:08
+1 Jim - but how do we hold them to compliance with a set period?
Jim Prendergast
49:09
the board says thank you, but you missed the dealine?
Jim Prendergast
50:06
there really wont be many surrises on categories of strings in this round. There may be issues with specific applications, but the whole cateogory 1 stuff is already established
Taylor Bentley
50:34
will categories also reference possible new categories being proposed by this group?
Steve Chan
50:44
Paul from India suddenly unmuted :)
Paul McGrady
52:44
zoom showing mute. sorry, not sure what is happening
Steve Chan
53:26
No problem Paul, I muted your line on your behalf. And we’ll do that again if you unmute again.
Taylor Bentley
53:36
okay thanks Jeff, a link is appreciated
Justine Chew
01:02:13
Since GAC Early Warning came after the 2012 AGB, will the next version of the AGB refer to GAC Early Warning?
Justine Chew
01:03:14
Oh? I had trouble finding it.
Steve Chan
01:03:22
Section 1.1.2.4 of the AGB, at least
Justine Chew
01:03:38
Ah yes, thanks!
Steve Chan
01:04:45
In the AGB, it is concurrent with the application comment period (which was supposed to be 60 days)
Justine Chew
01:06:02
Maybe ask GAC?
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:06:44
for our consideration, what are the timeframe for other types of objection mechanisms meant to address issues early in the process?
Justine Chew
01:06:45
Or that too @jeff
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:07:46
okay great thanks
Steve Chan
01:07:54
Rather than a specific time period, the WG could consider some principle or period (e.g., concurrent with the application comment period)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:32
That does make sense to me @Steve
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:18:00
Or if GAC early warning as well?
Steve Chan
01:19:02
@Taylor, per the AGB in section 1.1.2.4: The GAC Early Warning is a notice only. It is not a formal objection, nor does it directly lead to a process that can result in rejection of the application.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:19:04
ah .. thanks for the clarity Jeff
Steve Chan
01:20:17
Sorry, I think I misunderstood what Taylor was taying...
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:20:18
Right, so may be considered but not an extrodinary circumstance?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:54
Correcgt @Justine that I my recollection as well
Steve Chan
01:28:45
Or maybe just recommend generally, a way to handle conflicts of interest?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:28:52
+1 having an alternative at minimum
Steve Chan
01:28:56
What Jeff is saying now :)
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:29:08
+1 as well
Alexander Schubert
01:32:08
Jamie: I think you mixed CPE evaluators and Independent Objectors in your comment?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:33:44
@alex .. the point being made was that not having alternatives is not a good strategy .. as illustrated by what happened when a reconsideration request was successful in CPE
Alexander Schubert
01:34:51
I think they only discussed alternates for the IO so far.
Alexander Schubert
01:35:18
And I agree with you regarding CPE providers!
Justine Chew
01:38:28
Gaming - look at the merit of the objection?
Robin Gross
01:39:34
yes it could be a frivolous objection
Justine Chew
01:41:14
Hence quicklook could/should be applied not only to LPIO
Justine Chew
01:41:55
Going back to the comments on "Criteria for the "quick look" at top of page 5.
Robin Gross
01:42:17
great idea
Justine Chew
01:44:12
consolidation of "common" objections to reduce resolution cost
Alexander Schubert
01:44:22
Should non-profits be able to to defend themselves at "no cost"?
Alexander Schubert
01:45:07
Non-profit applicants won't be funded well.
Justine Chew
01:45:41
"No cost" doesn't exist, because someone still has to pay the DRSPs.
Justine Chew
01:45:59
Only if DRSPs to do it on a pro-bono basis.
Justine Chew
01:46:44
Unlikely!
Justine Chew
01:50:18
@jeff the mandatory bit
Steve Chan
01:50:27
+1 to Justine
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:50:44
Thanks. @justine and steve
Steve Chan
01:53:19
I think it being mandatory in connection with the objector providing the exact PIC requirements. I say that certainly not trying to speak on their behalf…
Steve Chan
01:54:26
I.e., there should be room for negotiation there.
Julie Bisland
01:55:25
NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 01 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:56:10
thanks jeff, thanks steve, thanks all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:42
Thanks everyone LOTS of good progress today (dispite the hour for some including Jeff...
Robin Gross
01:57:04
Thanks, Jeff and all, bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:04
Bye for now
Heather Forrest
01:57:14
thanks, Jeff
Julie Hedlund
01:57:20
Thanks all!