Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
26:42
Sound is fine atm Jeff
Michelle DeSmyter
31:26
@Jeff - your line is cutting out
christopher wilkinson
33:06
Lost Jeff’s sound
Annebeth Lange
33:41
What happened? Awfully quiet
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
33:45
They are trying to reconnect him
Katrin Ohlmer
33:56
Sorry for being late.
Maxim Alzoba
35:01
hello all, for some reason calendar item showed wrong zoom
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:11
More Unknowns then knowns at this satge from the NCAP work So we need to draw some lines in the sand for our work re ant dependencies
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:26
audio?
Annebeth Lange
40:30
Sound gone again
Julie Hedlund
40:35
Lost Jeff?
Maxim Alzoba
40:37
it was the case with the first name collision (it was collected right after the moment there were an announcement of the new gtlds to be )
Maxim Alzoba
40:42
I do not hear Jeff
Robin Gross
40:49
Jeff is back
Robin Gross
40:53
for only a second
Maxim Alzoba
40:57
blinking Jeff
Julie Hedlund
40:57
Jeff you are going in and out
Maxim Alzoba
42:17
yes
Martin Sutton
42:18
yep
Katrin Ohlmer
42:20
yes
Martin Sutton
42:31
Zoom collision?
Rubens Kuhl
42:41
I think the lack of high-level agreements so far reflect divisions in the community and in the WG that will make us default to 2012 implementation in most of the topics.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:41
Audio Gremlins
Maxim Alzoba
43:22
SSACs work is around 3 years … and no hard justification for having another study on the same topic
Robin Gross
43:37
Yes, that is true, Rubens.
Rubens Kuhl
44:16
For instance, there is no consensus in deferring or not deferring to NCAP or SSAC.
Jim Prendergast
45:14
that’s ultimately a question to the Board
Maxim Alzoba
45:41
why should all the community be hostages of a limited number of experts?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:56
But *OUR* work must cme to completion!
Maxim Alzoba
46:13
I was talking about SSAC
Steve Chan
48:25
Hand from Christopher
Maxim Alzoba
49:40
collisions are about stings, could be real or not very real (like mixed scripts
Rubens Kuhl
50:08
Name collisions only happen "in the wire", meaning that only in ASCII, even though could be the IDNA representation of an IDN string.
Martin Sutton
51:08
lost Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
52:35
same
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:35
cjopped out again Jeff
Robin Gross
52:39
strange audio today
Maxim Alzoba
52:50
I hear Jeff again
Robin Gross
53:11
not your fault, Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:20
Don't dare move perhaps @Jeff
Jim Prendergast
56:20
has any work been don on the RYSG ask for a look at the effectiveness of the previous mitigation measures? (sorry on mobile so slower reaction time)
Rubens Kuhl
58:44
Just that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:58
Yp current state of play is that...
Jim Prendergast
59:00
so a study by the provider who developed the solution
Rubens Kuhl
59:27
The stats on the collisions were collected by ICANN Org.
Rubens Kuhl
59:41
And included the record of 0 mishaps.
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:29
no sound
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:45
they mitigated it is what @jef would be saying of we could hear hm
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:58
maybe there is an issue with the mic?
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:01:12
zero mishaps perhaps because we don’t know if controlled interruption actually worked effectively to alert us
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:01:25
sorry all
Justine Chew
01:01:53
"Let's find out what we don't know" -- I like that. That appears to apply to Jeff's situation today too.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:02:06
I am back....but happy to defer
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:02:10
to CLO
Michelle DeSmyter
01:02:25
I have alerted our IT team of Jeff’s audio issue as well.
Rubens Kuhl
01:02:31
From a evidence-driven PDP methodology, the only available data says 0.
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:48
ops
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:51
Argh!
Katrin Ohlmer
01:02:54
grrrr
Michelle DeSmyter
01:03:08
Jeff, we lost you
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:15
could it be issue with the voice ? (not mic)
Jim Prendergast
01:04:01
did we just lose CLO too?
Justine Chew
01:04:19
@Jim, I can hear CLO.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:19
no, I still hear Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:04:43
I guess it's the audio bridge that is problematic today.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:45
I invented a term for this - random audio disconnect
Michelle DeSmyter
01:04:49
I have IT alerted and hoping to have this resolved asap
Steve Chan
01:04:57
It seems there might be an issue between Zoom audio and the phone bridge
Julie Hedlund
01:05:00
Seems like a zoom teleconference problem. People on computer audio don’t seem to be getting the drop out audio.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:06:15
I joined by Computer now because yes the phone bridge was cutting in and out for Cheryl as well
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:06:23
But not through the computer
Dessalegn Mequanint Yehuala
01:08:06
Sorry I will drop off for another meeting.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:08:26
sure
Rubens Kuhl
01:08:27
This item looks like the only one with a consensus.
Rubens Kuhl
01:09:14
But it's exactly what Board already did with CHM, so it could be considered the 2012 implementation to cover it anyway.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:43
fingers crossed
Rubens Kuhl
01:11:03
Corp, Home, Mail (CHM)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:04
Of course *Someone* has to be 'in charge'of any Comntroled Interuption (CI)
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:46
I heard Jeff without interruptions. (no pun intended)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:47
Interstingly I didn't lose @Jegg at all them Michelle ?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:51
very odd indeed
Roger Carney
01:15:08
+1 Cheryl
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:09
Another item that seems to have survived divergence.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:18
and I liked the Pun @Rubins ;-)
Justine Chew
01:17:15
Didn't the NCAP DG note the materials assessed by WT4 as brought up by Rubens?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:47
WT4 discussed
Justine Chew
01:17:48
NCAP Discussion Group. I said "note"
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:51
They included some in the list for the contractor.
Justine Chew
01:18:17
Thanks @Rubens. Exactly.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:25
so it is çonsidered'@Justine
Justine Chew
01:18:49
Yes, I was attempting to clarify what @jeff said earlier.
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:19:58
Jeff it was not peer-reviewed which is why some of the registries were uncomfortable with it
Rubens Kuhl
01:20:26
"some" implies plural, but it was only one organisation.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:45
any evidence to the contrary of the JAS report?
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:20:48
LIke Jim P said, it was written by the people that designed the solution
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:57
and Yes that is a focus of NCAP P1
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:21:21
there is no evidence CI worked as it was intended
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:07
JAS work was just some paper
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:13
Only by asking all Internet users if it worked or not, there could be evidence of it having worked 100%.
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:19
no detailed explanation
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:22:45
An additional concern is that it wasn’t a vetted community driven design
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:51
But for all anybody knows, it worked. Despite some FUD on the other direction.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:54
it is another unknown as it is a risk assessment ratio risk
Justine Chew
01:24:39
+1 Cheryl. As someone said earlier, JAS came up with the solution, then themselves said it worked. I guess it's a comfort or discomfort level issue?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:25:25
But how do we know that those impacted didn't know where to report it? And how can you ever prove that people that were impacted didn't know where to report it if there is nothing out there and no one has come forward.
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:25:40
In response to Rubens…. Rubens part of the scope of Study 1 of NCAP to review the papers and results to come to an assessment - we should not be trying to do that now, as a pdp WG - NCAP will make an independent assessment as per its scope
Rubens Kuhl
01:25:58
In order to prove it worked, ICANN would have to make some representative strings not go thru controlled interruption, and see what happened in that control group compared to the full slate.
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:33
Sarah, study 1 is just a collection of published material, with no conclusion to be made.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:46
Proof of working is always complex outside of really obvious issues as well so in my food product analogy getting a headache or runny tummy is vastly different to dropping dead or dropping dead i arge numbers ;-)
Sarah Langstone, Verisign
01:27:52
Rubens we disagree here :-) There was no “baseline”….so JAS stating it worked is accepting the work without a relative "ground trut"h baseline
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:31
caution vs abundance of caution
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:42
Name collisions seem to be the "Flat Earth" of our community...
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:49
any bunny died?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:28:57
:-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:38
a ot od Deeply held dofferent views
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:03
and often differing within a part of the ICAN COmmunity
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:14
ertgh sorry about typos
Rubens Kuhl
01:31:48
My suggestion to the final report: 2012 implementation (due to lack of consensus) + substantial refund + possibility of disabling CI on a per-string basis at ICANN Org request.
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:21
Those two items seem uncontroverted, yes.
Rubens Kuhl
01:35:39
I feel sad that some interesting ideas discussed in WT4 like ICANN running CI, do-not-apply/apply-with-caution lists and mitigation frameworks didn't make it. But that's what we get when parties insist on weaponising this topic.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:00
Sorry if I added to the confusion but as SAC 90 outlines there are several differnt things in play here
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:22
and mitigation strategies don't effect all of them
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:13
I have to agree woth you here @Rubens (not suprosingly and from a persona POV I know) "... that some interesting ideas discussed in WT4 like ICANN running CI, do-not-apply/apply-with-caution lists and mitigation frameworks didn't make it
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:42:46
No audio.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:43:19
Can others hear?
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:24
can you repeat?
Rubens Kuhl
01:43:25
Gg, audio was uninterrupted for me. Are you on computer audio or phone bridge ?
Paul McGrady
01:43:26
How would that work?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:33
Yes audio id OK
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:43:38
phone bridge
Michelle DeSmyter
01:43:39
Audio is good on zoom
Paul McGrady
01:43:56
Thanks
Justine Chew
01:44:00
+1 Jamie
Michelle DeSmyter
01:44:30
If you are using your phone line and able to connect to zoom audio, please do so to ensure to a good audio connection - our IT department is looking into the audio issue via phone with zoom at this time.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:44:50
OK, I'
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:44:55
I'll try that.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:11
gremlins abound today GG sorry
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:42
Please don't give water to the gremlins.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:01
or feed them
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:06
agreed - probably another RFP
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:41
Sharing with not only ICANN Staff, but with the Community, on how Panelsits are selected?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:54
on the fly preparation of Rules may not be bad bit need to be known and clear/transaparant
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:48:24
So there does need to be a balance between transparency and flexibility. There will be some unknowns prior to the applications being submitted.
Jim Prendergast
01:48:37
agree with Jamie.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:52
goes to the predictabilit
Jim Prendergast
01:49:02
exactly
Justine Chew
01:49:05
Basically anything that is meant to apply to objection procedures must be made available upfront.
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:08
bye all, need to drop
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:26
Thanks for joining @Maxim
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:50:57
I think those that filed/responded to LPI and other objections would agree with increased transparency
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:44
Community objections were also used by community applications to try resolving their contention sets, not only by standard applications against declared as community applications.
Susan Payne
01:51:50
Do we need to make a distinction between procedural rules and the substantive criteria for assessment? Jamie appears to be raising a concern about the latter being developed on the fly. Have i understood correctly?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:52:42
@Kathy .. my point is not about CPE here, but rather about how supplemental documents for CPE were published years after ICANN accepted community applications. I simply warn that unless we are clear in subsequent procedures about supplemental materials not being permitted for objections, then we don’t have any way of preventing them from doing so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:05
I am not aware of that being done @Kathy... Robin?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:15
Time check @Jeff
Robin Gross
01:53:38
We’d need to go back and look at the record to see.
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:47
Tx Robin!
Justine Chew
01:53:52
Question: the last word on this page 3 ... "response"; what "response" is this? Is it meant to be "determination".
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:01
Thanks @Robun, we should note that as an AI
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:54:25
@Jim - Absolutely, anything we know now we should fix.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:25
ergh typo sorry Robin
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:40
old hand
Robin Gross
01:54:43
:-)
Justine Chew
01:54:56
+1 Jamie, +2 Jim. Again, basically anything that is intended to apply to objection procedures must be made available upfront.
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:05
Can we separate CPE into a separate category of objections?
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:27
Community Objections are a different discussion...
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:55:30
@Jamie - perhaps providing a list of the changed elements would assist the group (and me) in understanding the issues you are presenting.
Justine Chew
01:56:15
CPE is part of string contention resolution.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:22
Lots done today thanks everyone
Michelle DeSmyter
01:56:23
Next meeting: Thursday, 19 September at 20:00 UTC
Annebeth Lange
01:56:28
Bye, everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:29
we will hunt gremlins
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:29
By all!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:35
Bye fore now
Katrin Ohlmer
01:56:36
Bye all
Rubens Kuhl
01:56:36
Bye all!
Robin Gross
01:56:38
thanks all, bye!