Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Steve Chan
29:07
Jeff, you sound good to me
Anne Aikman-Scalese
29:07
You are welcome. thanks Jeff for leading.
Terri Agnew
29:07
@Jeff, currently your audio is perfect
Steve Chan
32:12
Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R4zXTH3hIgfbqoxyqsSp19Bl6J96NNeV7oCgxsXKD-w/edit#
christopher wilkinson
34:58
For IDNs categories, the first requirement would be that the evaluators would have to be able to read them.
Justine Chew
34:58
+1 to adding IDNs
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
35:25
SO were are discussing 'observed' 'catagorisations'made in previous treatments as well as "catagories"as listed in the AGB as 'write'...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:18
and yes all through the later AGP development ALAC Comments spoke in support of IDN's being a çatagory'to be treated as priority over other catagories for example...
Justine Chew
36:41
Objections
Anne Aikman-Scalese
37:12
I could raise Applicant Support applications again but not sure where we went with that one.
Justine Chew
37:13
Erm ... which DRSP it goes to
Kathy Kleiman
37:35
Tx Cheryl. With its support of Global South applications, NCSG (perhaps indirectly) would support.
Tom Dale
37:56
Presumably “governmental entity” includes IGOs?
Justine Chew
38:10
Just as a bookmark at least, thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
38:35
Relates to possible diferential treatment
Justine Chew
39:14
Application evaluation process/requirements -- including Applicant Support
Terri Agnew
39:34
Reminder to mute when not speaking
Maxim Alzoba
40:27
it was called Generic
Kathy Kleiman
41:02
Can someone explain "government entities"?
Maxim Alzoba
41:09
it looks more like tags
Kathy Kleiman
41:16
What are we thinking ofhere? GEO gTLDs?
Justine Chew
42:18
just delete "should be the exception, but"
Steve Chan
42:53
Jeff, hand raised for a quick comment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:00
Good point on the need to clarity in terminology in all this @Jim agree!
Kathy Kleiman
44:09
hand up
Anne Aikman-Scalese
44:12
Agree with Justine re delete "should be the exception".
christopher wilkinson
44:21
The current definition of Geo-Names in WT5 is VERY restrictive. Accordingly there may be many geo-applications that will be differentiated that may not fall into the ‘type’ as defined.
Jim Prendergast
45:58
CW raises a very important point - the impact of the parallel track 5 on 1-4. at someoint we need to merge these for consistency sake.
Maxim Alzoba
46:50
so no interstellar TLDs then
Maxim Alzoba
48:04
any. but most probably geo
Justine Chew
48:08
@Steve: can we have as a footnote the clarification between "categories" versus "type" please? Just for internal reference.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
50:11
sorry I double tapped
christopher wilkinson
51:18
@CLO Predictability would require much clearer and all-encompassing definitions of the types, notably within WT5.
Terri Agnew
51:52
reminder to mute when not speaking
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
52:36
clarity in terminology and nomenclature is indeed a highly desirable
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:01
Indeed @Jeff we can't éxlude'absolutly
Justine Chew
53:30
@Steve, categories?
Maxim Alzoba
53:41
in the registry agreement words are :intergovernmental organizations or governmental entities (so not limited to IGO's), and applicable, for example, to GEOs ,which are municipal entities of the city itself
Steve Chan
54:10
@Justine, I might have missed that. We are switching types to categories?
Steve Chan
54:37
There is a placeholder footnote that I will need to review the transcript to complete on categories versus types
Justine Chew
55:43
@Steve, sure, please do review - because the words "categories" and "types" are present in that bullet, so I'm getting a little fuzzy between the two. Thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
56:09
e.g. consider the Global South in relation to Applicant Support and goals of the program
Maxim Alzoba
56:44
Note: the idea about variants is still not implemented by GNSO so far, so it is bit early to talk about it
christopher wilkinson
56:45
The matrix: Applicant support AND Community based.
Kathy Kleiman
56:51
Should Global South applications be added to this list -- in light of discussion above?
Kathy Kleiman
57:04
It may be more than applicant support.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:28
thx @Steve
Jim Prendergast
59:34
@Steve - there is also the distinction between Application types (standard vs community) and TLD types (generic, brands, geos, etc)
christopher wilkinson
01:01:21
Global South +1
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:18
I think Global South are a possible priority set - whether or not they need applicant support.
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:24
(many will be IDN, but not all)
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:28
So a new set...
Steve Chan
01:02:55
@Kathy, all, it’s probably helpful to think what differential treatment is needed beyond applicant support?
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:04
Diversity, Steve
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:17
We're completely dominated by Western Europe and North America
Steve Chan
01:03:28
But what would be the difference in the gTLD program? Is the process different?
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:52
perhaps as easy as prioritization in processing -- just like IDNs.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:07:04
@Kathy - That could mean that if I form an applicant entity that hails from the Global South then it doesn't matter how much Western control/money is behind it, it would get preferential treatment. Not sure the goal would accomplished that way, although it could have beneficial effect anyway I suppose.
Justine Chew
01:07:42
@Anne, I have the same misgivings
Justine Chew
01:09:11
Besides, in respect of Applicant Support, ALAC supported applications which might benefit end-users in the Global South or similar areas.
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:31
where would the registry be?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:13:07
Argh my zoomdropped ... back in now ... have lost the prior chat though :-(
Tom Dale
01:13:12
Is there a definition of the Global South that would be accepted by all stakeholders? It seems to be disputed in some academic circles.
Steve Chan
01:13:48
Hi Jeff, quick comment
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:06
Jump in @Steve
Steve Chan
01:14:12
Thanks :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:14
CW -- makes sense. Leaving room for new future types
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:26
DOn't think we close the door on that in this type of planning but any expectations of differential treatments need to be exceptional
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:55
nothing wrong I trut with still having ones application treated as 'Standard
Justine Chew
01:22:06
Also with TLD types, isn't is how/what type the applicant sees its application as falling within?
Justine Chew
01:22:55
*isn't it
Justine Chew
01:23:20
Right, thanks @Jeff
Steve Chan
01:25:26
@Jeff, all, there is a substantial amount of overlap here with other topics. You’ll see a long list of suggested referrals to other topics.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:39
GAC consensus advice calls a "verified TLD" a TLD that should be subject to "safeguards". Is that therefore a type?
Justine Chew
01:27:29
But that's not exact-match with TMCH records re RPM
Steve Chan
01:27:50
Ahhh, right, sorry confusing references…I think you’re right.
Justine Chew
01:28:08
Might it fall in with Change Request?
Jim Prendergast
01:28:17
maybe you can find someone while at INTA to clarify ;)
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:32
I think the SubPro referral may have been misunderstood by the RPM WG. Would help to clarify...
Justine Chew
01:28:43
Category I
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:08
new hand
Justine Chew
01:32:52
Hmm. Even ICANN Org asks if applicants must declare the TLD type.
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:40
@Steve, with acronyms, can we spell them out?
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:51
Things like COI have a million meanings :-)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:03
RE: Council of Europe comment in relation to differential treatment for non-profits, I have some concern that a non-profit applicant could be formed solely for the purpose of the differential treatment.
Tom Dale
01:35:38
Apologies, I have to leave for another commitment.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:35:58
Bye Tom - thanks for participating.
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:01
@Anne - handle like trademarks in round one - make them a certain age...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:37:36
@Kathy - that could work. Does that mean "non-profit" should be a type? (lots of checks on bona fides needed)
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:58
"Limit Applications ​- In a similar vein, applications by a single company, partnership or venturemust be limited. There are incumbents in this community who have the time, resources andinterest to submit thousands of new gTLD applications. Such unlimited applications are not fairto the rest of the world (still learning about the New gTLD process) or to the Community whichneeds to comment on them. Strict limits on the number of applications per company and incooperation with other companies is both fair and allows for adequate oversight and public review. We recommend that ICANN allow no more than 2 dozen applications for each company,including its parent company, subsidiaries, and affiliates.The few gTLD companies of today must not be allowed to dominate the DNS resources of tomorrow."
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:10
From Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Public Interest Community
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:25
do we really believe that big companies are not capable of creating large number of legal bodies to apply via those?
Jim Prendergast
01:39:57
@Kathy - wouldn't that then provide a barrier to any newcomer from challenging Donuts dominant poisition in new gTLDs? I forget how many they have but its north of 250
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:48
but there is no way to predict how the ownership is to be changed
Justine Chew
01:42:14
But we are not excluding references to new ideas/concerns/divergence vis a vis high-level agreement in moving forward, are we?
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:01
INTA represents many TLD applicants too.
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:16
@Jim, I don't think so...
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:18
It's a very standard telecommunications application process to a) have limits and b) show ownership via parents, subsidiaries, overlapping officers, etc.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:37
It would make an effect one assumes @JIm good observation... Then we thought (or at least I did at the time) was the larg(ish) costs of aaplication would also have a çpntrol point'effect
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:47:05
It seems it would be very difficult to determine what entity has control in relation to limiting applications. Folks could get quite creative in forming "different applicants" for the purpose of avoiding the limit.
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:05
we should not conflate corrections and particulars ideas, which are not supported in the community
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:21
it seems to be 10 years now , definetely not a few years between rounds
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:25
+1, 2, 3 CW
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:50:06
THis topic seems ripe for a Minority Statement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:41
My prediction is 20,000 applications in the next round.
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:13
applications are paid and it allows for scaling
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:46
Enjoy INTA and Boston!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:54:49
Thanks Kathy... equally as overbooked as ICANN meetings!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:52
Good interaction on complex issues tody Team, Thanks everyone, we are making progress.... Bye for now... safe travels for those doing so between conferences...
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:10
bye all
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:55:26
Thank you.