
37:31
Thanks for the reminder Annebeth

38:05
Document can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR2ruagrxs/edit#gid=843000317

44:38
Not really as usual for ALAC

45:55
Thanks for the intervention @Martin

52:32
@Susan - to the last point, should we classify IPC comment just as divergent (not supported)?

53:14
I'm having trouble hearing Martin

53:29
@Susan, we flagged as Agreement (partially - first part) Divergence (with second part)

53:59
Sorry to be late. Overlapping calls and I'm not very good at doing two at once

54:32
@Steve field D172 is the agreement and divergence reversed?

54:49
Yes Justine, I just realized that and switched it

55:01
@Steve, cheers.

57:55
@Steve, sorry are D171 and D172 swapped? I'm having trouble reconcilialing the colours in B171 and B172 and what is "first part" and what is "second part"

58:20
@Justine, I’ll have to look later :)

58:26
Thanks!

01:00:39
I would just be cautious that when we refer to "governements" we aren't referring to all governments. Thanks!

01:05:41
I think so too @Martin

01:06:16
@Martin, is the edit on screen what you had in mind?

01:06:56
IPC ISD VERY PROACTIVE

01:07:12
I don't think the blue sentence is a new idea

01:07:14
Correct, that’s what I was asking about

01:07:14
@Steve, I think the last paragraph in B13 too

01:09:20
I think we should leave it as black

01:09:22
It should be marked down as disagreement + new idea.

01:10:01
@All, like so?

01:10:09
Martin do you have suggestion to change the Lnguage

01:10:27
And would def appreciate an assist on the other comment Susan!

01:11:30
Is this exact match idea anywhere else in the document? If so, I guess it wouldn't be a new idea, just support of the idea somewhere else (if it is somewhere else).

01:11:31
@ John Rodriguez - in my experience, most governments just assume that common sense will prevail, and that they can intervene in the interests of their people at a later stage. Just to be cautious. CW

01:11:57
+1 Susan and Martin.

01:12:46
28 on the previous tab is the other one

01:13:22
@Susan, will take a look afterwards, thanks

01:14:31
I have muted the line

01:16:52
I understand Susan's point. Am trying to see if categorization is correct.

01:18:07
The full comment will hopefully be illuminating....

01:19:14
thank you Justine

01:19:19
thx Justine I think there was reserved concerns

01:19:26
re: ALAC item -- I think Justine has nailed it

01:21:04
thanks Justine, I was misunderstanding your comment, but it turns out that it was wrongly categorised in a different way :)

01:22:05
well what would you have then Christopher?

01:22:10
We need to remember the principle of predictability and lists help immensely with that.

01:23:02
I guess that means we won’t use those ISO lists.....

01:23:53
@Susan - All Geo-names, world - wide. All languages and scripts.

01:24:44
unfortunately have to leave the call

01:25:13
@ Greg - I have pointed out months ago that the ISO Lits do NOT address the situation in many countries.

01:26:05
does the oredr of categorisation matter? both the last 2 appear to be Divergence for reasons specified

01:26:11
order

01:27:11
same comment as above for this Q too

01:27:16
@susan, do you mean because there are concerns and divergence?

01:27:21
yes steve

01:28:09
I think that’s up for you all to decide if it matters, whether the distinction matters for your consideration?

01:30:38
I think we have muddled the comment/commentor on that item Susan

01:30:47
Checking now

01:31:00
Having the Concerns does not remove the Divergence?

01:31:05
line 74 -- divergence although there is also an explanation

01:31:27
I would say that NCSG’s comment in #72 is closer to a “Qualified Agreement” (rather than simple Agreement) in order to not lose the point made.

01:31:28
Is there also “carefree” divergence?

01:31:51
Divergence is always indicative of concerns, is it not/

01:31:59
How do you spell "Kafka"?

01:32:00
I have to leave for another matter, thanks Annebeth and all

01:32:01
So we don’t need to say it.

01:32:30
Kafka, Esq.

01:32:33
I have to drop off for an other call.

01:32:43
Bye

01:32:46
Esquire?

01:33:32
Is this call 60 minutes or 90? It is in my calendar as 60.

01:33:33
Do these subtleties matter? If the staff summary is ambiguous it is enough to click on the original comment. Comments made on the List or in WT5 Calls carry as much wiethg

01:33:42
Weight

01:34:00
90 paul

01:34:04
Looking at it now

01:34:44
Thanks.

01:34:52
If agreement is purely conditional, I think it important to note that.

01:35:46
@Martin, we will go through the document and try to make sure any other BRG/RrSG mis-assignments are fixed

01:36:10
Hoorah!

01:36:19
Well done everyone

01:36:38
Let's hang up quickly before....

01:36:42
Brilliant chairmanship!

01:36:58
well done Annebeth!

01:37:16
It is good that people are happy

01:38:05
I agree Susan

01:38:20
We could call the ALAC comment Agreement (qualified)

01:38:35
#73 says “According, the RrSG does not support” so that is just the conclusion, not a separate comment.

01:38:52
Indeed well done Annabeth!

01:38:55
Sorry, I got kicked out of Zoom

01:39:22
PRTICIP

01:39:25
#73 is Only Divergence (not also concerns)

01:39:48
Participants do not have scrolling rights. Correct?

01:40:02
I DISAGREE

01:40:15
f.2.4 Line 87/8 ALAC comment should be Agreement (Qualified) + Concerns

01:40:19
NO scrolling rights -- very frustrating

01:40:19
iAM DISCONNECTED

01:40:34
Sorry fior CAP

01:41:02
also 50 and 51

01:41:32
#72 from NCSG is a CONDITIONAL Agreement

01:41:40
I’m not on audio

01:41:47
34 aND 35

01:42:15
Yes, it is conditional agreement.

01:42:22
Thank you.

01:42:28
AND 50 AND 51

01:42:34
sorry for caps

01:42:39
am disconnected

01:42:40
There is nothing wrong with expanding the scope of approval, non-objection.

01:42:49
@kavouss, calling you back

01:45:51
Thanks Steve that helps

01:47:14
@kavouss, I do show that you line is connected and unmuted from my end

01:47:20
No please from me

01:47:56
Leaving now. Bye.

01:48:11
Do we have any more open topics?

01:48:12
No concerned, divergent ideas please.

01:48:43
Agree that it is good to spend time on the difficult issues in Marrakech.

01:49:19
Hope those of us who cant make it to ICANN 65 can join virtually

01:50:03
Remote access will be available for WT5 meetings at ICANN

01:50:30
okay. no travel opportunities to ICANN 65?

01:52:56
good to know the last 15 minutes are soapbox time

01:53:12
The TLD space was never intended to be a gazetteer or an atlas.

01:53:16
Silence does not equal assent.

01:53:31
Right, Paul. Same.

01:53:37
Quite Paul

01:53:37
I am assuming that silence is disagreement in this case.

01:53:59
Next call is currently scheduled for: Wednesday, 22 May 2019 at 05:00 UTC for 90 minutes

01:54:19
@Steve, please note the next meeting is in the middle of the INTA meeting.

01:54:26
Thanks, Annabeth and Martin. Bye!

01:54:26
+1 Paul, Susan

01:54:27
thanks Annebeth

01:54:30
bye everyone

01:54:32
Bye all, thank you

01:54:32
Thank you and greetings from Ghana

01:54:32
Thanks Paul
Zoom would like to update your account settings. When joining a meeting or webinar by entering a meeting ID, participants will be required to enter a password. Participants joining using a meeting invite link will not be required to enter a password. Learn More
This change will be effective on . If approved or declined, the change will take effect immediately.