Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:32
Thanks Nick
PMcGrady
30:41
I'm pretty sure I already updated by SOI with this group, but just in case, my SOI reflects my new firm Taft Law
David McAuley
30:58
sorry to be a bit late
christopher wilkinson
31:06
@Nick - Which Amazon?
David McAuley
31:41
I am phone number ending in 4154
Kristina Rosette (Amazon Registry)
31:54
And I'm the 1354 phone number.
Jorge Cancio
31:59
I guess it goes withoutsaying that in case of doubt the comment itself "commands" - and in case of serious doubts te commenter would be contacted...
martinsutton
32:10
Please note that we will be reviewing the comments to ensure they are categorised and summarised appropriately. Substantive review will follow as soon as we have completed this task.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:34
Happy t9 assist
PMcGrady
32:36
@Martin, thank you.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:38
to
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
33:22
@christopher Amazon Registry - some of their gTLDs
David McAuley
43:27
good suggestion, Martin
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:44
We do read out the Question Number and details
Jorge Cancio
44:53
as said before, just for th record: I guess it goes withoutsaying that in case of doubt the comment itself "commands" - and in case of serious doubts te commenter would be contacted...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
45:21
Indeed this is the oportunity to go back to a commenter for any clarifications
Justine Chew
45:42
Line 49: Should CITC comment be divergence? Because it says "ISO should not be the only source ..."
Justine Chew
46:35
So doesn't that mean they think ISO should be ONE source ...?
Alexander
47:07
"...... not be the singular source....."
Justine Chew
47:32
Greg is raising exactly the question I raised.
Justine Chew
48:43
@Greg: Unfortunately we have been going on the basis that if the answer does not support the question then it's marked as divergence.
Kristine Dorrain
49:09
we’ve been using the word divergence to indicate disagreement all along. let’s not change it now.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:59
@MArtin perhaps we just note that clarification now in Notes
Greg Shatan
51:23
If we continue to use “divergence” to mean “non-support, disagreement, objection” we’ll just have to keep that in mind. We are not using the term “Divergence” for its common meaning in PDP-land.
Steve Chan
51:28
@Martin, it seems in line with many of the others, based on your description: Divergence (in the sense that the strings should be made generally available)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
51:48
Correct @Greg and we can of course do just that
martinsutton
52:03
@Steve, agree and that emphasis the main theme of BRG comments
Steve Chan
52:16
@Martin, done
Christopher Wilkinson
54:09
there letter currenc
Kristine Dorrain
54:23
I agree that the question is confusing but I think peoples Jews are Lear and notes capture them adequately.
Kristine Dorrain
54:31
peoples views
Kristine Dorrain
54:38
not Jews are Lear
Greg Shatan
54:52
It’s getting Shakespearean in here.
Kristine Dorrain
54:56
(apparently my iPad autocorrects things oddly
David McAuley
55:07
verily
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:10
indeed it seems an interesting auto correct style
Susan Payne
55:15
I agree that because the question is unclear, the categorisation of the comments is also unclear and a little unhelpful
Christopher Wilkinson
55:15
Three letter country codes are the competence of CCNSO. The ISO4217 currency codes are - apparently - the competence of the PDP only. They have to be reserved and protected- CW
Steve Chan
55:25
Indeed, staff tried to parse out the reasons for divergence, which are different as Greg noted.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
55:51
Thanks @Steve well noted
Greg Shatan
56:39
Two letter country codes are the competence of ccNSO. Three letter codes are not. Currency codes are not geographic terms.
Justine Chew
57:01
Just going back to f.2.2.2, Line 51 BC's comment: I actually think that their comment is agreement rather than divergence.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:38
Do we need the to clarify then @Justine?
Susan Payne
58:02
Can we just go through comments on one screen? we cannot scroll, so we cannot follow in the zoom if it's across multiple screens
Justine Chew
58:07
I think that would be wise, unless I am the only one who's reading it incorrectly.
Justine Chew
58:38
in reply to @Cheryl
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:43
OK Staff can we reach out to the BC
Christopher Wilkinson
59:04
Can't read the text on screen. Font too small.
Marita Moll
59:25
Totally driving my crazy!!!
Abdulkarim Oloyede
59:36
correct
Steve Chan
59:48
If you want to follow along in the doc itself, you can do so here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit#gid=1817602734
Greg Shatan
59:50
You should be able to “zoom” in on Zoom.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:00:30
I would enter a general reserve on all this context. The presentation of the document is totally unworkable. CW
PMcGrady
01:00:35
I feel lost whenever we lose Cheryl!
Kristine Dorrain
01:00:35
@ Steve, that doesn’t work for me on iPad - normally I have my laptop but not today
Susan Payne
01:00:49
@Greg can you though?
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:00:54
indeed on mobile - we can pinch to zoom the screen
Kristine Dorrain
01:01:41
yes, I’m finding the one advantage to iPad is the zooming function
Justine Chew
01:01:50
I can totally understand people getting lost. I have the luxury of using 2 screens :)
Kristine Dorrain
01:01:59
(autocorrect notwithstanding)
Susan Payne
01:02:16
@Steve, I understand it's possible to go to another screen, but toggling back and forward is not a quick process
Jorge Cancio
01:03:12
to add to confusion: I can only use the browser-based zoom, which may have differences to the fully-fledged version...
julie.hedlund
01:03:29
@Justine: Staff read the comment from BC in line 51 of f2.2.2 and to us it seems to be divergence in that it suggests that strings should generally made available. But please let us know what we may have missed — thanks!
Jorge Cancio
01:04:03
to Kobe? (just kidding...)
Susan Payne
01:04:29
Thanks you!!!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:04
@Steve has done quite well at moving the screen along in synch though ;-)
Justine Chew
01:05:33
@Julie: Let me think about it....
Jorge Cancio
01:06:13
hand up
David McAuley
01:06:41
yes
Steve Chan
01:08:58
@Jorge, how does it look now? Qualified agreement and a New Idea?
Steve Chan
01:09:41
@Jorge, others, please let us know if that works.
Justine Chew
01:10:06
@Julie: I agree with the assessment that BC's comment translates to "strings should be made generally available" .... although I'm still not entirely sure that it should be marked as divergence. I guess what's key is the assessement of "strings should be made generally available".
julie.hedlund
01:12:34
@Justine: Thanks for that. As Steve noted above, we’ve tried to parse the reasons for divergence and we’ll note that the use of the term “divergence” is perhaps not ideal, but that’s the categorizations we’ve been using.
Kristine Dorrain
01:12:46
@Justine, as I recall the BC comment was the same as IPC, Group of Registries and BRG at least... I can’t see it any longer but that’s my recollection.
Jorge Cancio
01:13:14
@Steve: on 15, I would say it is more "concerns&new idea"
PMcGrady
01:14:01
+1 Susan
Justine Chew
01:14:57
@Kristine, IPC's comment expressly says "The ISO is an objective standard of geo terms..." I can't seem to interpret that from BC's comment.
Kristine Dorrain
01:17:36
@Justine, I wish I could go back and look. :) Staff, did we flag it for review?
julie.hedlund
01:19:55
@All: Staff is noting where there have been requests to go back and recategorize comments and we’ll capture those as actions to do so.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:48
Thanks Julie for confriming that
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:32
Thanks @Martin
julie.hedlund
01:25:23
@Kristine: So we should change to “Agreement (Qualified)”?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:26
Thx @Kristine we can note that
David McAuley
01:25:32
Kristine - can you remind me of what line and question that was about
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:47
Line 5
David McAuley
01:25:50
i cannot seem to find it readily
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:26:03
in this section
julie.hedlund
01:26:08
@David: I think Group of Registries, line 5
julie.hedlund
01:26:26
@Paul: We’ll change IPC to “Agreement (Qualified)”
PMcGrady
01:26:29
Thanks!
Kristine Dorrain
01:26:31
@David, yes line 5
David McAuley
01:26:38
thank you
David McAuley
01:26:51
thanks - now clear, I thought you were referring to RySG
David McAuley
01:27:01
but see it is a subset of RySG
Kristine Dorrain
01:27:12
ah ok - yep
Marita Moll
01:31:50
Looks like simple agreement
Susan Payne
01:32:17
INTA: I think if you look at other comments referred to it's clear they agree
Marita Moll
01:33:05
So, now I lost track of where that was, but it should be amended to agree with other decisions
martinsutton
01:33:07
Thx Susan - was trying to look back to INTAs respomnse
Steve Chan
01:33:46
@All, for the INTA comment, it is so-called Agreement, but it just has an explanatory note.
julie.hedlund
01:34:00
@Susan: Do you mean Line 9 under Question 18 for INTA? So are you suggesting we delete the explanatory note?
Steve Chan
01:34:01
When there is a reference to another comment, it can complicate things
Steve Chan
01:34:19
We can remove the note for the INTA comment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:22
OR move the note to a column for notes
martinsutton
01:34:54
Good progress everyone, thank you. 20 mins to go so we can try to move on as far as possible
Steve Chan
01:35:11
Good suggestion Cheryl, we’ll do that
John Rodriguez
01:38:06
Thank you for reflecting "New Idea" with regards to line 7 (US comment).
martinsutton
01:38:25
Line 15 is BRG comment which does not support any restriction or requirements for approval/non-objection. So this should be “Divergent”
Steve Chan
01:40:21
As you all may have noted, that RySG overarching comment is referenced by them in a number of proposals. It’s therefore been duplicated a number of times.
Alexander
01:41:24
It's a bit problematic that "not support" doesn't indicate whether the relevant measure is too restrictive or doesn't restrict enough ....
Jorge Cancio
01:42:22
Alexander has a point...
Justine Chew
01:43:45
f.2.3.2 Line 4, ALAC's comment: can I have this marked as Agreement (qualified) please?
julie.hedlund
01:44:16
@Justine: noted!
Justine Chew
01:44:16
Because there is a proviso
Justine Chew
01:45:15
@Julie: thanks!
Steve Chan
01:45:41
Javier, hand up
julie.hedlund
01:45:45
@Justine: It’s been changed :-)
Marita Moll
01:47:12
@Julie -- thanks for changing that -- it was bothering me too. Just hard to react quickly in this new context
David McAuley
01:48:06
will be interesting to drill down into this rather complex variant (19, variant 1)
Marita Moll
01:48:08
Yes, @ Alexander, we are having some difficulty with this
martinsutton
01:48:37
Thanks Steve
Jorge Cancio
01:48:45
These summaries are just a help-tool, but what Counts are the comments themselves and the reasions behind the positions - e.g. why people diverge, especially when the reasons of disagreement are on opposite poles
Justine Chew
01:48:57
Yes, Steve is correct
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:13
Justine's hand is up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:22
Time check
Steve Chan
01:52:26
@Javier, time check. Less than 3 minutes remaining.
Steve Chan
01:52:34
Jinx Cheryl :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:38
:-)
Justine Chew
01:52:56
f.2.3.2 Line 26/3, I confirm ALAC's comment is captured completely and yes, there was both support and opposition to Proposal 19 Variant 1 but we only provided explanation to the opposition.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:09
Thanks @Justone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:16
typo sorry
Justine Chew
01:53:30
I am just one ;)
Michelle DeSmyter
01:53:34
Next meeting: Wednesday, 15 May 2019 20:00 UTC
julie.hedlund
01:53:45
15 May at 20:00 UTC
martinsutton
01:53:48
Thx Michelle
julie.hedlund
01:53:49
for 90 minutes
Susan Payne
01:53:52
Thanks Javier, good call
Alexander
01:53:56
THAANKS!
martinsutton
01:53:57
Thank you all - well done
David McAuley
01:53:57
thanks Javier and all
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
01:54:06
thanks all
Kristine Dorrain
01:54:06
well done,
David McAuley
01:54:07
bye
Justine Chew
01:54:09
Thanks, got to run
Marita Moll
01:54:09
bye
Ejikeme Egbuogu
01:54:09
bye all
John Rodriguez
01:54:12
Thanks and bye!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:13
Bye thanks
Colin O'Brien
01:54:14
bye all