Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:20
aspirational :-)
christopher wilkinson
31:35
Regarding application periods, please confirm that translation delays are OUTSIDE the 3 or 6 month periods. CW
Jim Prendergast
34:19
CW raises a point. does the window start with English only or all languages?
Jim Prendergast
35:01
that’s what I remember
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
35:14
I believe that was correct Jeff
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
37:57
i would support that high level agreement with a description as to why
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
38:43
Will the communication period change(reduce) for subsequent application rounds?
PMcGrady
39:38
@Jeff, thanks. Seems like notice period could be longer, but data entry period of 3 months seems like a bunch of time.
Katrin Ohlmer
39:47
From my experience in supporting community applicants, raising awareness among the community takes years, so the communication/application period is just a small part of the whole process. I'm not sure if extending the communication/application period is really necessary.
Justine Chew
39:59
Communications period aside, specific target audience (read Global South and middle applicant folks) reached is a factor in appropriate timelines
Martin Sutton
40:32
@Katrin - I think you have raised a good point and tend to agree
Donna Austin, Neustar
40:48
I agree with Katrin as well.
PMcGrady
40:56
@Jeff, as a practical matter, we need a substantially sure window at least 1 year in advance for budgetary purposes.
Katrin Ohlmer
40:57
+1 Justine, it is more about appropriate and efficient measures
PMcGrady
41:30
Yes
Donna Austin, Neustar
41:31
@Paul, whose budgetary purposes?
Flip Petillion
41:57
Aren’t we trying to be more efficient this time? So why would we set a longer total period?
Flip Petillion
42:28
It is in my opinion
Justine Chew
43:20
If awareness of and about pertinent aspects of the new round is "sufficient" then practically speaking the communications period can be limited to 6 months.
Flip Petillion
43:21
There is awareness this time… after 7, 8 years. No?
Justine Chew
43:24
+1 Jamie
PMcGrady
44:14
+1 - Jamie
Martin Sutton
44:35
And in terms of communications, we should also remember that information about new gTLDs has been spread since before the 2012 round
Justine Chew
44:48
....and application period possibly limited to 3 months.
Flip Petillion
44:51
@Martin - indeed
Martin Sutton
45:01
And many will decide not to apply
Katrin Ohlmer
45:10
@Justine: Exactly
Martin Sutton
45:43
A low number of applications does not necessarily mean that communications is the problem
Donna Austin, Neustar
46:28
Agreed Martin
Justine Chew
47:04
@Martin, @Flip, I don't think it's just about "there will be another round" but more importantly, "how will the next round look like" which is a question that still being resolved through this WG and Council and Board etc
Justine Chew
47:25
"what will the next round look like"
Martin Sutton
47:43
@Justine - correct, but that in itself does not demand months/years of communication
Martin Sutton
48:34
we already have experiences to work from and the finer details of applying will be important, but I don’t think that means we need to drag out communication periods
Justine Chew
48:38
@Martin, to incumbent players, maybe, but to new potential entrants and less advantaged applicants?
Flip Petillion
48:38
@Michelle - need to step out for a client call and will come back.. i hope
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:06
noted Flip
Flip Petillion
49:10
@Justine - you can turn that around
PMcGrady
49:19
Important point raised by @Alexander. We need a date certain in order to get teams on boad, but enough runway to raise funds, etc.
Alexander Schubert
50:03
Some industries (communities) are so incredibly slow that you need to build up support and funding more than 1 year ahead.
Martin Sutton
50:27
Regular application rounds will also take the pressure off the need to apply in the immediate next round
Martin Sutton
52:33
@Alexander - there is some predictions you can already make to assume budget requirements, certainly within a reasonable range. I don’t think the budget estimate is the problem but trying to get the funding solution organised
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:02
I support what you propose Jeff
Katrin Ohlmer
53:06
support
Gg Levine (NABP)
53:16
support
Justine Chew
53:19
The period should not be shorter than 90 days.
Martin Sutton
53:35
Support
Donna Austin, Neustar
53:41
And no longer than 90 days @Justine
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
53:59
I support
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
54:04
I support
Martin Sutton
54:09
90 days is good :-)
Jeff Neuman
57:27
Important point @Donna
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
58:21
i concur with Donna that the communication period does not have to stop during the application period, however a designated communication period should be identified separately as a period prior to the application window.
Justine Chew
01:04:48
+1 Jamie. And if a new applicant is made aware at the point of application that their selected string has already been applied for in the previous round and has not been resolved.
Martin Sutton
01:07:08
Should the system refuse the application before submission?
PMcGrady
01:07:44
@Martin - that would make sense.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:08:01
Is it possible to just have a list of strings that cannot be applied for?
Martin Sutton
01:08:44
@Donna - that should be a starting point, if someone still applies for a string on the list, I would deduct an admin fee.....
PMcGrady
01:09:01
@Donna - that would make sense.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:10:23
The proposal from @Donna is probably cheaper than implementing features to the application system if we expect only very few cases.
Justine Chew
01:10:56
It might matter also why an application is determined as not to move forward. Like if it gets added to a reserved names list for eg.
Justine Chew
01:11:21
Then a new application for the same string shouldn't be considered at all.
Rita Houkayem
01:13:09
GAC - the Underserved Regions Working Group :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:31
and ALAC At-Large Meetings at several meetings
Justine Chew
01:13:45
JAS - Joint SO/AC Applicant Support WG
Justine Chew
01:16:41
Any entity that has submitted an application
Katrin Ohlmer
01:17:21
Proposal for policy goal: Enable potential applicants to make an informed decision whether to apply for a TLD based on the applicant support program.
Justine Chew
01:17:28
That would be a potential applicant
Jim Prendergast
01:17:57
you pay the fee you are an applicant.
Justine Chew
01:18:02
but if they don't submit they're not an applicant
Justine Chew
01:20:17
@Vivek, successful applicants are applicants that gets through to delegation IMO.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:21
So the problem is with the metrics
Justine Chew
01:20:43
Ah
Emily Barabas
01:20:45
hand up
Justine Chew
01:21:13
Number of total ASP applicants? etc
Rita Houkayem
01:21:24
could we call them "Underserved Applicants"?
Jeff Neuman
01:22:16
@Rita - I am not sure yet that we have decided to limit Applicant Support to only underserved regions
Justine Chew
01:22:17
I would say the first two @Emily
Rita Houkayem
01:22:41
@Jeff Ok
Rita Houkayem
01:26:34
Totally agree.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:58
@Rita it may be an underserved and disadvantaged (in some way) sector within a normally well served and economically developed ecnomy for example
christopher wilkinson
01:28:28
@writing fees should include costs of translations.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:29:47
I'm in favour of letting applicants, which do not meet the requirements of the ASP, moving to the regular track.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:51
you could not apply at all A risk too great to take for some aspiring applicants it is believed
Alexander Schubert
01:29:56
why not having the support application upfront?
Justine Chew
01:30:08
@CW I think writing fees would include anything to do with writing up the application, I don't see benefit in being so specific
Alexander Schubert
01:30:12
the application for applicant support ..
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:54
an important part of outreach and communication planning I believe
Alexander Schubert
01:33:51
Just receiving financial support shouldn't create any priority by itself
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:35:49
Thanks Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:37:29
Or choose to withdraw their application altogether
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:50
Yes @Justine noting last time there was no choice at ll they could NOY continue in application
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:54
NIT
Alexander Schubert
01:38:18
If an applicant had financial support for a .web (.app; .genericword) application ........ why should they have been prioritized? Doesn't make any sense.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:25
argh NOT (hey it is 0217 and I don't have a backlit keyboard
Buckingham
01:38:31
why not keep it simple . Just give an agreed fixed amount of funding / money . The Applicant support programme would be a separate eligibility process prior to doing a full applicatiion like everyone else .
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:59
Correct @Donna and that was another inhibition to last times efforts
Justine Chew
01:40:14
@Alexander, the string in question matters (.web wouldn't make the cut IMO) because the applicant has to meet the ASP criteria.
Justine Chew
01:40:40
which includes connection between string and community etc
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:41:40
@Justine, have we decided that there has to be a connection between the string and community?
Buckingham
01:42:55
Agreed CW
Alexander Schubert
01:44:00
agreed CW!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:35
Noted thanks Trang...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:04
good place to break here then @Jeff
Buckingham
01:48:48
Thanks Trang.
Michelle DeSmyter
01:49:02
Monday, 29 July at 20:00 UTC
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:49:34
Enjoy your vacation Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:37
Good progress again today people... Thanks everyone Bye for now.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:49:38
Thanks, Jeff
Martin Sutton
01:49:43
Thx Jeff