Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Hedlund
28:44
I’ll do my best everyone but apologies if I’m a bit slow in responding :-)
Julie Hedlund
29:47
hahaha Jeff
Julie Hedlund
29:54
:-)
Maxim Alzoba
33:43
Hello All, sorry for being late
Rubens Kuhl
40:40
A similar thing was done in 2012 for .kerrylogistics, BTW.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
42:02
If .delta raised no string confusion issues, then what would the likelihood of .deltapipes create string confusion
Maxim Alzoba
43:14
just prior to submission - applicants can do anything
Jim Prendergast
43:21
are we talking about only letting .BRANDs change? Not other applicants? (im still working through the call recording from Thurday evening but bu a lot of time between then and this call if you took some time off.)
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
43:53
@Kavous - we talked about the high level change process the last time and came out with the high level agreements on Page 5
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
43:59
We are not jumping
Justine Chew
44:55
I don't see why we need to allow for ANY change for no reason.
Rubens Kuhl
48:43
Perhaps this could be only allowed for direct contention instead of all possible contentions ?
martinsutton
48:44
@Trang - that is a sensible timing approach
Donna Austin, Neustar
49:14
Sorry all, I have to step away for a time.
Rubens Kuhl
49:26
For instance, .unicorn wouldn't be allowed to change to .unicornmagicalbeing .
Rubens Kuhl
49:49
Because it was only found to be in contention with .unicom after string similarity evaluation.
Buckingham
51:02
@ Trang , I agree . We need to determine a critical path with timings pre and post Reveal Day
Kathy Kleiman
52:08
Coming in late - Hi All - Could someone share the link to the doc on screen?
Julie Hedlund
52:27
Here is the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit?usp=sharing
Kathy Kleiman
52:35
Tx!
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
53:23
As we discussed the last time, changes have to be allowed to be made at all times (at any time) given the nature of the length of the process. Changes like changes to personnel, entity ownership structure, entity employees, etc. happen all the time.
Jim Prendergast
54:26
The problem with doing this work sequentially, and the reason that at somepoint we need to do a consensus call on the document as a whole as opposed to section by section, is that there are other proposed changes/improvement under discussion that may render this whole section moot, alter it or support it. For example - there was support for the Vickery Auction model when we were doing comment triage. That would solve contention sets at the get go and potentilly free up a ton of other applicants beyond brands who might want to swtich.
Rubens Kuhl
56:39
If a topic has already been discussed, any new comment should be made via the mailing list.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
57:45
@Jim - understood
Jim Prendergast
58:31
.SWISS was also a good one from last go around. could have changed to .SWISSAIR
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:52
Noted @Jeff
Kathy Kleiman
59:51
Otherwise the default is no string change, right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
59:52
perhaps we need to loop back to this again as a "general Matter of changes to Strings proposed"after Auctions matter is settled??
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:15
Re @Jimms point above?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:00:25
sorry @Jim
Rubens Kuhl
01:00:50
.dotafrica -> .africa
Rubens Kuhl
01:01:50
But this one wouldn't fit criteria, because there was already a .africa application and this created a contention set that previously hasn't existed.
Julie Hedlund
01:03:09
apologies all, but I had been forgetting to set the timer. Will apply it from this point on.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:03:19
Thanks Julie
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:10
I have to drop now.
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:12
Bye...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:26
THanks for joining @Rubens
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:25
Agree with Susan
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:25
it would be easier to install spellchecker in the next version of the platform
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:09
not necessary paid one
Jim Prendergast
01:10:38
^+1
christopher wilkinson
01:11:23
After Reveal. I see no interest in delaying.
trang.nguyen
01:12:08
That specific check that you just spoke about was not part of the evaluation performed during the admin check period.
trang.nguyen
01:12:23
@Jeff, that’s correct.
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:29
Nice idea; don't know if it will pick up IDN Transliterations
Justine Chew
01:12:43
What is the harm if obvious error correction is allowed at any time during application or after reveal?
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:53
@Justine, good question - I think it could be gamed to change a string after the "reveal" and contentions are shown
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:14:16
My question is should there be an error correction period just after submission of the application or just after the reveal. If before reveal, then we would really get just the typos and error. If after reveal, there could be some manipulation or "gaming"
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:21
Only two "errors in strings" that we know of in Round 1 - 1930 applications. That's not a bad ratio.
Buckingham
01:14:28
I would do all these ( minor) changes pre Reveal Day . Major changes ( such as a material change to the business plan) would be after reveal day . We would need to list and define in the AGB .
Susan Payne
01:14:39
If it's an applicant error you'd like to think they could pick it up before Reveal.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:14:59
I think here we are specifically referring to error in the string
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:15:13
other errors can be subject to normal change process
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:42
grammar mistakes
Justine Chew
01:17:24
@Jeff, agreed with your answer. @Kathy, I am referring to OBVIOUS error in string.
Susan Payne
01:20:35
@Jeff - are you still talking about changing the string (in response to comments) or other changes?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:20:45
All changes
Buckingham
01:23:53
The follow up question is what/ which change request(s) would require a complete technical and financial reevaluation
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:24:08
@Phil - We are getting there....
trang.nguyen
01:25:04
All change requests were posted for a 30-day comment period.
trang.nguyen
01:26:52
Change request statistics are posted at: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/change-requests
trang.nguyen
01:27:05
We did not track reasons for changes.
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:11
Can you imagine a change, and a change, and a change and a change.
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:20
You could wear out the Community if you did that.
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:23
Need reasons!
trang.nguyen
01:29:02
@Kathy, applicants need to provide the necessary rationale for the change request so as to provide enough information for ICANN to evaluate the change request against the 7 criteria at the link I posted above. However, ICANN does not track or report on the reasons/rationales provided by applicants.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:12
No substantive changes absent public reason.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:31:51
@kathy - Is that realistic if the time for evaluation takes longer than a year?
Justine Chew
01:32:59
@Susan, what you described sounds to me like reason exists. Just a question of reasonableness of change?
Justine Chew
01:34:45
@Kathy, what concerns do you have with the 7 criteria?
Susan Payne
01:36:36
Perhaps we need a practical recommendation - that it is possible to subscribe to an application to keep track on any proposed changes, be notified of a comment period and so on
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:36:58
Interesting oportunity @Susan
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:10
I like that!
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:19
all changes tracking?
Jim Prendergast
01:38:33
thats a good idea
Jim Prendergast
01:39:02
yes
Jim Prendergast
01:39:35
Could include PIC tracking once launched as well (but thats not the topic currently being discussed.)
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:48
Huh?
Justine Chew
01:40:08
That could be captured within Criteria 1.
Susan Payne
01:40:18
not without checking back
Justine Chew
01:40:57
@Jeff, I meant something like that would be addressed by Criteria 1 already.
Justine Chew
01:44:04
@Kathy, exactly!
Susan Payne
01:49:41
regarding IPC Comment on the seven criteria - reviewing quickly all the comments about change requests that IPC made, it seems this was a comment about changes to resolve a contention set
Susan Payne
01:50:01
comments on the Spplemental Initial Report specifically
Julie Hedlund
01:52:41
Thanks Susan and noted!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:40
Lots done today though people... Good discussion... Talk again soon... Thanks everyone... Bye for now then...
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:48
Tx!