Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
25:39
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Thursday, 12 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
25:45
welcome everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
25:55
the audio is great Jeff
Julie Bisland
26:09
agree, audio is clear, very good :)
Jim Prendergast
26:52
For AOB - I had a request for more detailed info on the SLAs that Steve sent around. Any update on that
Jim Prendergast
27:04
Donna was askign as well
Jim Prendergast
27:19
thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:26
Shall do Jeff...
Kathy Kleiman
33:30
@Steve or Julie - could you kindly repost the link of the doc?
Steve Chan
33:46
Sure, link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR4AI/edit#
Kathy Kleiman
34:01
Tx!
Rubens Kuhl
35:34
Just attach a virus that wipes out evaluators computers... problem solved.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
40:27
i think the key point here is that the verification process currently in place does not tackle the larger issue of gaming during public comment, although I realize that it helps reduce automated commenting.
Steve Chan
51:29
The ICANN org comments quotes this text from the AGB: “In cases where consideration of the comments has impacted the scoring of the application, the evaluators will seek clarification from the applicant.”
Steve Chan
51:41
I think that goes at least part of the way?
Kathy Kleiman
52:01
what does that mean - comments that should not have been there?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
53:14
@Kathy .. comments that resulted from organized gaming .. the same comments posted by multiple people in an effort to derail a community applicant.
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:11
@Jamie - is one person's gaming another person's organized opposition?
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:30
I know you have specific examples in mind. How do we protect legitimate (organized) comment?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:05:44
I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for an extended comment period for community applicants. it was an ICANN org decision that was made on the fly and supported with no rationale.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:07:24
The AGB did provide predictability on the comment period, but it was not followed in practice.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:08:03
A known and agreed ending is indeed essential
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:08:39
+1 Cheryl
Peter LaMantia
01:09:11
Agree an extended period is reasonable and agree it needs to have a deadline
Jim Prendergast
01:10:19
what about adding a reply period for the actuall applicant to file on the record responses to anything alledged via the comment period?
Steve Chan
01:10:55
@Jim, there is a section about responding to comments coming up shortly
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:41
It is a notice and comment very different from teh government
Paul McGrady
01:11:48
Kathy's point is one we need to consider. What is the point of a comment period if the comments aren't at least considered? How does that affect the right to make amendments to applications?
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:03
It's very hard to get the word out across the world.
Rubens Kuhl
01:12:17
Comments seem to have been considered by the independent objector at least.
Paul McGrady
01:12:33
@Rubens - good point
Justine Chew
01:17:03
+1 Jamie
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:20:50
@Kathy .. fairness
Paul McGrady
01:21:18
@kathy - the problem is that the evaluation process is already so very long
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:22:56
why should community applicants be subjected to longer comment periods just because ICANN org chose to put CPE at the end of the evaluation process. would standard applicants be open to longer comment periods if community priority is done at the beginning of subsequent procedures?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:23:22
@Jeff .. but we will never know if the amplification impacted scoring during CPE
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:07
I think we are assuming that the relevant people know upfront...
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:10
It was much more than amplification...
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:38
OK, longer comment periods might be a reasonable compromise...
Justine Chew
01:27:56
Right of reply?
Christopher Wilkinson
01:28:42
@Jamie - I rather assume that on the basis of several specialised phases to the next round that the community applications will come in earlier than the residual generics. CW
Rubens Kuhl
01:28:51
Sounds like too much back and forth
Paul McGrady
01:31:49
@Jeff - for clarity, we are only talking about community applications. Also, could an application fail if an applicant failed to reply? If so, yuck
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:07
Paul, this applies wholesale.
Paul McGrady
01:32:27
@Rubens - thanks.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:34:23
@Jeff - in that case either the moment impacts, or ICANN should tell the commentator to enter an objection. CW
Christopher Wilkinson
01:36:08
@Jeff - in that case either the moment impacts, or the comments impacts …
Justine Chew
01:36:29
Applicants have the option to respond or not to comments -- if the comment is positive, there is less reason the respond, if the comment is negative, then evaluators may rely on that omission as a presumption of some sort.
Justine Chew
01:36:48
+1 Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:37:04
@Jeff - thanks. I'm not sure what I think about that, but at least it is predictable
Paul McGrady
01:38:40
@Kathy - what if there are 300 comments? Would be a bad outcome for an application to fail due to a "Denial of Service" comment orchestration
Justine Chew
01:39:22
Rewrite: Applicants have the option to respond or not to comments -- if the comment is positive, there is less reason TO respond, if the comment is negative, then evaluators may rely on that omission TO RESPOND as a presumption of some sort or not.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:54
Peronsl opinion from me... That makes sense @Greg
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:41:10
X number of days for public comment, plus 7 days for Applicant's reponse, and then 5 days for Commenters response?
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:31
Tx Greg - a balance...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:48
deffinatley @Jamie and predictability *is* our main aim
Justine Chew
01:42:54
Sorry why less than 7 days? And not 7 days also?
Justine Chew
01:43:24
Okay, thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:43
agreed @Justine
Paul McGrady
01:43:46
What if there are gobs of comments?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:46
hopefully Move ON with our work to *closure* !!!
Paul McGrady
01:48:18
+1 Cheryl. We only want family and friendships to last forever, not PDPs. :)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:50:51
Time Check
Christopher Wilkinson
01:52:32
Why are we spending time on this? ICANN.org should just say which strings are not available for Name Collision, Period. In all languages and scripts. CW
Jim Prendergast
01:54:21
we're out of time so I can follow up with my comments via email.
Paul McGrady
01:55:24
Interesting conversation, but think we need more time
Julie Bisland
01:55:31
NEXT CALL: Monday, 16 September 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:38
LOTS done today people!! good progress :-0 Thank you all... more on Monday next and Bye for now then...
Greg Shatan
01:55:53
Bye all