Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Steve Chan
24:31
Document available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0
Kathy Kleiman
25:30
new hand
Paul McGrady
26:26
+1 Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
26:34
hello all
Kathy Kleiman
29:02
Panel of evaluators (2-3?)
Kathy Kleiman
31:21
agreed
Paul McGrady
32:06
For background screening, Applicant for identical string should also have a right to appeal. There was no mechanism for this in the last round and ICANN ignored objections when someone passed who should not have passed under the clear language of the AGB
Rubens Kuhl
32:43
InterConnect Communications - String Similarity (all), Geographic Names (part), Community Priority (part).
Rubens Kuhl
33:02
Interisle Communications - DNS Stability (all), Registry Services (all)
Rubens Kuhl
33:54
JAS Advisors - Financial, Tech, Ops (a few), Quality Control (all)
Elaine Pruis
34:15
Appeal the outcome of a third party background check?
Rubens Kuhl
34:15
Economist Intelligence Unit - Geographic Names (part), Community Priority (part).
Rubens Kuhl
34:53
EY, KPMG - Financial / Tech / Ops
Elaine Pruis
36:08
doesn’t that open every single applicant up to an additional layer of delay by contestants?
Maxim Alzoba
36:42
does it mean that an applicant has to pay for bad work of the screeners of the first wave?
christopher wilkinson
36:46
Evaluators should be INDIVIDUALS with recognised personal expertise. CW
Rubens Kuhl
36:53
Echo echo
Paul McGrady
38:34
yes
Kathy Kleiman
38:57
How would a member of the public have access to the private portions of the application?
Kathy Kleiman
39:22
(How would a private party challenge that application?)
Maxim Alzoba
40:00
under NDA?
Paul McGrady
40:01
Not all background information is private
Elaine Pruis
40:47
we’re talking about background screening. It seems like clear parameters (felony, x number of UDRP losses, etc) should be established so it is not subjective
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
41:57
no problem
Kathy Kleiman
42:16
new hand
Rubens Kuhl
42:24
Have to drop now. Cya.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:43
thanks for joining @Rubens
Kathy Kleiman
43:39
Tx Paul!
Paul McGrady
43:49
@Kathy - by limiting it to only those in a contention set
christopher wilkinson
43:51
Which wrong person applying for a .brand? The same string may be a TM in multiple jurisdictions CW
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
52:17
Can we be sure to get Community Priority Evaluations added to this chart asap so it is not left behind or delayed in the discussions
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
52:59
The irony is not lost on me
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
52:59
@Jamie - yes
Carlos Vera
53:04
saludos Carlos Vera - Ecuador
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
53:05
Thanks Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
53:57
Applicable geographic location or entity...
Kathy Kleiman
57:49
Jeff: you are going to put this in writing, right?
Paul McGrady
01:03:07
@Jeff, thanks. Can you let us know when the updated version is republished along with the link? We don't want to put comments in that were already made during the call.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:17
Comments should suffice
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:36
iy should be stable
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:44
the link should be
Paul McGrady
01:03:59
+1 Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:10
What's link to this doc?
Justine Chew
01:04:43
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R4eU7C-HI5ikF5RtVhp5JRXKVVRn6R8WX8fIU0IOwu8/edit#gid=0
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:21
Tx!
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:30
String similarity evaluation appeal
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:00
can you give an example Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:16:16
@Jeff, doesn't this mean that contention sets need to be done very early so that any contention set folks can use the string similarity objectionor string non-similarity objection?
Paul McGrady
01:17:05
I hate to say this, but we need a flow chart to spot holes
Justine Chew
01:18:28
@Paul, agreed. Need an (draft) update to the evaluation flowchart in the AGB.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:45
@Paul, agreed. Need an (draft) update to the evaluation flowchart in the AGB.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:18:57
agreed @Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:18:58
@Jeff - thankful for the matrix but who doesn't love a good flowchart
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:45
(apols for tardiness in reactions in chat now as I am starting in my other overlapping call now...
Paul McGrady
01:20:01
How about a notice of appeal within 10 days and a brief within 20?
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:07
I think we did decide it's not a de novo review.
Justine Chew
01:21:58
@Paul, good approach. Plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. REMOTE.
Paul McGrady
01:22:20
@Jeff - you make me blush
Justine Chew
01:24:35
But denying only the IO the right to appeal is rather discriminatory.
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:25:16
If the Independent Objector fails, can another objection mechanism be used?
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:45
IO is an institution, not a person
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:25:46
Say if the ALAC or GAC wanted to step in
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:32
is IO paid by objections? then it is a financial interest
Justine Chew
01:27:52
@Taylor, it is unclear to me if anyone can take up an appeal of a decision against an objection filed by the IO.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:18
Yes, if we are setting up fair rules of appeal, it should be openly available.
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:29:09
thanks Justine
Paul McGrady
01:29:11
@Maxim, an interesting question - I don't know the answer to that.
Justine Chew
01:29:21
But what if it is the panel who made a mistake and not the IO?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:29:31
+1 Justine
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:48
Agree with Justine: IO should have the same rights of appeal.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:59
IO has a budget too.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:30:31
If appeals are designed to counter panelist mistakes then it does appear to discriminate against IO objections
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:52
indeed Justine (without my Co-Lead hat on)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:32:03
ALAC has no funding ability beyond that supplied b ICANN
Justine Chew
01:32:32
Agree with Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:33:22
It is not feasible for ALAC to raise funding to finance an appeal.
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:53
triple costs?
Alberto Soto
01:34:13
+1 Justine
Justine Chew
01:34:17
But again, what if it is the panel who makes the mistake, @Alan?
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:19
for team of three
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:34:28
coming in clear
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:34:47
we hear you Cheryl
Justine Chew
01:35:46
@Alan, APPEAL not objection.
Paul McGrady
01:36:05
@Justine - yep. I think that is what Alan meant
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:38:23
My apologies for the audio unmuted in this call when I was growling at my other call...
Justine Chew
01:38:38
+1 Kathy
Taylor Bentley (Canada, GAC)
01:38:50
@cheryl...I'm glad this is the calmer one
Paul McGrady
01:39:06
I would like to apply to be the IO-for-life please. :)
Paul McGrady
01:39:23
For life
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:30
See I am nce to you all :-)
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:40:44
I think it is important to give appeal options back to the IO for Community Objections as well
Paul McGrady
01:41:10
Column D feels very double negative-ish to me.
Justine Chew
01:43:47
@Kathy, (again) plus a remote possibility for extension of time under special circumstances. REMOTE possibility.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:46:26
@Kathy - we are talking about an appeal of that
Paul McGrady
01:47:34
What about 15 days from when the appealing party has knowledge of the conflict. Conflicts aren't always known up front.
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:59
OK
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:11
Good.
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:43
Good discussion today - and tx for the summary tables. They make a huge difference!!
Alberto Soto
01:49:04
There must be a notification, and the deadline is from the notification…
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:49:06
+1 Justine
Paul McGrady
01:49:30
@Kathy - agree. The charts are helpful and the conversation today really moved the ball forward. Good call!
Michelle DeSmyter
01:50:03
Next meeting: Thursday, 10 October 2019 at 03:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:04
Thanks everyone a lot covered today actually
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:08
Bye for now
Alberto Soto
01:50:16
Thanks, bye bye!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:18
and apologies again for my audio breakin