Thanks for the reminder Annebeth

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

Not really as usual for ALAC

Thanks for the intervention @Martin

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

I'm having trouble hearing Martin

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

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

@Steve field D172 is the agreement and divergence reversed?

Yes Justine, I just realized that and switched it

@Steve, cheers.

@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"

@Justine, I’ll have to look later :)

Thanks!

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

I think so too @Martin

@Martin, is the edit on screen what you had in mind?

IPC ISD VERY PROACTIVE

I don't think the blue sentence is a new idea

Correct, that’s what I was asking about

@Steve, I think the last paragraph in B13 too

I think we should leave it as black

It should be marked down as disagreement + new idea.

@All, like so?

Martin do you have suggestion to change the Lnguage

And would def appreciate an assist on the other comment Susan!

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).

@ 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

+1 Susan and Martin.

28 on the previous tab is the other one

@Susan, will take a look afterwards, thanks

I have muted the line

I understand Susan's point. Am trying to see if categorization is correct.

The full comment will hopefully be illuminating....

thank you Justine

thx Justine I think there was reserved concerns

re: ALAC item -- I think Justine has nailed it

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

well what would you have then Christopher?

We need to remember the principle of predictability and lists help immensely with that.

I guess that means we won’t use those ISO lists.....

@Susan - All Geo-names, world - wide. All languages and scripts.

unfortunately have to leave the call

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

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

order

same comment as above for this Q too

@susan, do you mean because there are concerns and divergence?

yes steve

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

I think we have muddled the comment/commentor on that item Susan

Checking now

Having the Concerns does not remove the Divergence?

line 74 -- divergence although there is also an explanation

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.

Is there also “carefree” divergence?

Divergence is always indicative of concerns, is it not/

How do you spell "Kafka"?

I have to leave for another matter, thanks Annebeth and all

So we don’t need to say it.

Kafka, Esq.

I have to drop off for an other call.

Bye

Esquire?

Is this call 60 minutes or 90? It is in my calendar as 60.

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

Weight

90 paul

Looking at it now

Thanks.

If agreement is purely conditional, I think it important to note that.

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

Hoorah!

Well done everyone

Let's hang up quickly before....

Brilliant chairmanship!

well done Annebeth!

It is good that people are happy

I agree Susan

We could call the ALAC comment Agreement (qualified)

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

Indeed well done Annabeth!

Sorry, I got kicked out of Zoom

PRTICIP

#73 is Only Divergence (not also concerns)

Participants do not have scrolling rights. Correct?

I DISAGREE

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

NO scrolling rights -- very frustrating

iAM DISCONNECTED

Sorry fior CAP

also 50 and 51

#72 from NCSG is a CONDITIONAL Agreement

I’m not on audio

34 aND 35

Yes, it is conditional agreement.

Thank you.

AND 50 AND 51

sorry for caps

am disconnected

There is nothing wrong with expanding the scope of approval, non-objection.

@kavouss, calling you back

Thanks Steve that helps

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

No please from me

Leaving now. Bye.

Do we have any more open topics?

No concerned, divergent ideas please.

Agree that it is good to spend time on the difficult issues in Marrakech.

Hope those of us who cant make it to ICANN 65 can join virtually

Remote access will be available for WT5 meetings at ICANN

okay. no travel opportunities to ICANN 65?

good to know the last 15 minutes are soapbox time

The TLD space was never intended to be a gazetteer or an atlas.

Silence does not equal assent.

Right, Paul. Same.

Quite Paul

I am assuming that silence is disagreement in this case.

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

@Steve, please note the next meeting is in the middle of the INTA meeting.

Thanks, Annabeth and Martin. Bye!

+1 Paul, Susan

thanks Annebeth

bye everyone

Bye all, thank you

Thank you and greetings from Ghana

Thanks Paul