Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Jeff Neuman
31:03
thanks!
Julie Bisland
31:04
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Tuesday, 10 December 2019 at 03:00 UTC.
Steve Chan
32:40
Spreadsheet to be discussed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0
Jess Hooper
34:01
No worries! Hope it helps!
Justine Chew
35:05
@Jeff, with the 3 Alternative flow charts I hope.
Justine Chew
35:47
Yes, auctions :)
Steve Chan
37:47
Staff took a first cut at the geographic names section, but feel free of course to let us know where we got it wrong.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:32
Your doing a *fabulous job* @Steve :-)
Steve Chan
44:48
Ha, I try. thanks Cheryl
Jeff Neuman
47:39
The magic word here is "challenge"
Paul McGrady
48:40
AgreeSeems like they should have time and we should bake it in here.
Rubens Kuhl
48:51
What Paul mentioned is one notch above that: amending the application to then secure a non-objection letter.
Paul McGrady
50:03
so we should carry that forward for challenges
Justine Chew
50:17
I think it would depend on how the applicant proposes to change their application.
Justine Chew
50:49
Non-capital city name maybe
Rubens Kuhl
51:09
3 applications of 3-letter country identificadores were done by Google and then rejected.
Rubens Kuhl
51:15
identifiers
Steve Chan
51:54
@Jeff, indeed, if it was a disallowed term, it would not have been allowed to proceed.
Justine Chew
52:04
But we're talking about a string that Geonames Panel determined not to be a geoname
Justine Chew
52:36
Exactly, Paul.
Jeff Neuman
52:37
@Paul - true.....I think after talking it through to myself, I agree
Justine Chew
54:30
@Jeff, when you're done with RSP Pre-Approval, could I please go back to Background Screening - Third Party challenge and raise a question?
Rubens Kuhl
55:40
RSP + Applicants + Applications in Contention with those applicants
Rubens Kuhl
56:34
Potential Affected Parties
Rubens Kuhl
57:18
It depends on timing, yes.
Justine Chew
57:46
Yes, agree with Jeff on RSP Pre-Approval, that's what I understood from the last call.
Paul McGrady
01:02:47
the loser
Justine Chew
01:03:30
Thanks Jeff, let's think about that.
Jeff Neuman
01:04:56
That makes sense @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:16
Thanks Paul
Justine Chew
01:07:46
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.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:42
Not feasible for ALAC to ay as Looser
Justine Chew
01:11:49
Yes, in the event ALAC loses the appeal
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:39
15 days to signal intent of appeal, then more 15 days to pay and file appeal, perhaps ?
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:08
Where does the IO fits in this framework ?
Justine Chew
01:17:55
@Rubens, do you mean IO in String Confusion objection framework? IO has no standing on SCO.
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:20
In 2012 AGB, indeed it hadn't.
Rubens Kuhl
01:18:37
(But some believe it should have)
Justine Chew
01:18:50
I'm with you on that @Rubens
Paul McGrady
01:22:30
Agree
Justine Chew
01:22:36
@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.
Justine Chew
01:23:02
But same applies to IO
Justine Chew
01:23:30
Or at least on IO that's my opinion
Paul McGrady
01:23:38
agree
Paul McGrady
01:26:35
Remind us: Did ALAC actually file any? If so, did they win or lose?
Rubens Kuhl
01:26:58
Yes, to some of the .health applications.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:27:34
indeed it did
Justine Chew
01:29:28
I don't know if ICANN Org should be the entity ALAC needs to convince, plus timing would be an issue.
Steve Chan
01:29:34
One of the things the WG discussed already is the concept of a quick look for Appeals. Does that have connection here perhaps?
Alberto Soto
01:29:49
Yes, I have no background knowledge, but we must be cautious
Rubens Kuhl
01:30:19
One option would be limiting ALAC appeals to some fraction (like 1/3) of the objections it filed if they lost.
Justine Chew
01:30:23
There could be conflict of interest on ICANN Org's part
Jeff Neuman
01:30:24
@Paul - understood and happy to hear those comments
Justine Chew
01:31:27
I'm happy to take @Ruben's and @Paul's suggestion back to ALAC for input
Justine Chew
01:33:43
Is that clear though @Jeff?
Paul McGrady
01:38:31
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)
Paul McGrady
01:40:59
@Jeff - not the IO!
Paul McGrady
01:41:03
:)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:20
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.
Justine Chew
01:44:48
For 2012, the ALAC had a stringent process for determining which strings it thought should be objected to.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:41
INdeed an VERY stringent and PUBLIC one @Justine
Paul McGrady
01:45:42
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
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:00
you even had to get multiple Regions to support an such appeal
Justine Chew
01:46:03
+1 Paul
Justine Chew
01:47:21
The process is provided for in the 2012 AGB
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:40
I'm sure Staff can get that from our Staff with a simple email Please make it an AI
Paul McGrady
01:48:25
@Cheryl - that would be very helpful background
Justine Chew
01:48:37
Module 3, page 3-13 as a primer
Justine Chew
01:48:45
in the ABG
Justine Chew
01:48:47
AGB
karen.lentz
01:48:59
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.
Justine Chew
01:49:24
That's it
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:32
Yes that is the cliff notes version but thanks
Justine Chew
01:50:04
Yes, what's in the AGB is just a primer, the actual process is more detailed.
Paul McGrady
01:51:15
This call turned out to be really interesting
Steve Chan
01:51:43
Predictability framework: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12_x8zYR9r6zXqfA7dmoosSPH12NmcyJ-2FEjecGrBh4/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Bisland
01:52:10
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 12 December 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:03
Thanks everyone another good call with lots of progress... Bye for now...
Alberto Soto
01:53:13
Thanks, bye bye!
Justine Chew
01:53:16
Thanks all for a robust discussion.
Elaine Pruis
01:53:26
thank you
karen.lentz
01:53:31
Thank you