Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 03:00 UTC.
Spreadsheet to be discussed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0
No worries! Hope it helps!
@Jeff, with the 3 Alternative flow charts I hope.
Yes, auctions :)
Staff took a first cut at the geographic names section, but feel free of course to let us know where we got it wrong.
Your doing a *fabulous job* @Steve :-)
Ha, I try. thanks Cheryl
The magic word here is "challenge"
AgreeSeems like they should have time and we should bake it in here.
What Paul mentioned is one notch above that: amending the application to then secure a non-objection letter.
so we should carry that forward for challenges
I think it would depend on how the applicant proposes to change their application.
Non-capital city name maybe
3 applications of 3-letter country identificadores were done by Google and then rejected.
@Jeff, indeed, if it was a disallowed term, it would not have been allowed to proceed.
But we're talking about a string that Geonames Panel determined not to be a geoname
@Paul - true.....I think after talking it through to myself, I agree
@Jeff, when you're done with RSP Pre-Approval, could I please go back to Background Screening - Third Party challenge and raise a question?
RSP + Applicants + Applications in Contention with those applicants
Potential Affected Parties
It depends on timing, yes.
Yes, agree with Jeff on RSP Pre-Approval, that's what I understood from the last call.
Thanks Jeff, let's think about that.
That makes sense @Paul
On Objections, the ALAC has made it clear that "Loser Pays (No ICANN Reimbursement)" is NOT FEASIBLE for the 2 types of Appeal that it has standing for.
Not feasible for ALAC to ay as Looser
Yes, in the event ALAC loses the appeal
15 days to signal intent of appeal, then more 15 days to pay and file appeal, perhaps ?
Where does the IO fits in this framework ?
@Rubens, do you mean IO in String Confusion objection framework? IO has no standing on SCO.
In 2012 AGB, indeed it hadn't.
(But some believe it should have)
I'm with you on that @Rubens
@Jeff, let me rephrase, on LPIO and CO, the ALAC has made it clear that "Loser Pays (No ICANN Reimbursement)" is NOT FEASIBLE where the ALAC loses the appeal. That would effectively restrict the ALAC from considering filing any appeal. I think the same applies to IO.
But same applies to IO
Or at least on IO that's my opinion
Remind us: Did ALAC actually file any? If so, did they win or lose?
Yes, to some of the .health applications.
indeed it did
I don't know if ICANN Org should be the entity ALAC needs to convince, plus timing would be an issue.
One of the things the WG discussed already is the concept of a quick look for Appeals. Does that have connection here perhaps?
Yes, I have no background knowledge, but we must be cautious
One option would be limiting ALAC appeals to some fraction (like 1/3) of the objections it filed if they lost.
There could be conflict of interest on ICANN Org's part
@Paul - understood and happy to hear those comments
I'm happy to take @Ruben's and @Paul's suggestion back to ALAC for input
Is that clear though @Jeff?
I think we are trying to find a way for ALAC to have what it needs. Doesn't sound like ALAC went wild last time (unlike arguably the IO - sorry, I know that is settled but the track record wasn't fabulous)
@Jeff - not the IO!
Jeff there is a *very HIGH * standard for any appeal to come out of the ALAC in the first place do please ensure that the WG recognises that in the development of these processes being planned to balance *whatever* it is the WG believes need balancing or mitigating.
For 2012, the ALAC had a stringent process for determining which strings it thought should be objected to.
INdeed an VERY stringent and PUBLIC one @Justine
Only a general policy comment: that the ALAC objections/appeals have to be adequately funded. Let's work on a formula to get there, but try to avoid seeking ICANN, IO, or Ombs second guessing
you even had to get multiple Regions to support an such appeal
The process is provided for in the 2012 AGB
I'm sure Staff can get that from our Staff with a simple email Please make it an AI
@Cheryl - that would be very helpful background
Module 3, page 3-13 as a primer
in the ABG
Guidebook 3.3.2: Funding from ICANN for objection filing fees, as well as foradvance payment of costs (see subsection 3.4.7 below) isavailable to the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC).Funding for ALAC objection filing and dispute resolutionfees is contingent on publication by ALAC of its approvedprocess for considering and making objections. At aminimum, the process for objecting to a gTLD applicationwill require: bottom-up development of potentialobjections, discussion and approval of objections at theRegional At-Large Organization (RALO) level, and aprocess for consideration and approval of the objection bythe At-Large Advisory Committee.
Yes that is the cliff notes version but thanks
Yes, what's in the AGB is just a primer, the actual process is more detailed.
This call turned out to be really interesting
Predictability framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit?usp=sharing
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Thanks everyone another good call with lots of progress... Bye for now...
Thanks, bye bye!
Thanks all for a robust discussion.