Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
got thrown out. Im back
The summary document being shared now is available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4TeCY/edit#heading=h.1dkvvdaktdpa
so this is a summary document of the public comment?
@Jorge, that is the intention
I feel aso many commenters from "the other side" see the 2012 Rules as a compromise
that should be made explicit in this summary... see e.g. the general comments from Spain etc. and similar comments
I'm not sure that the categorization of "many" is correct.
Relates to rec. 2-9
It would also be important to specify when specific positions are held from very specific groups and when they are held across SO/ACs
The words many and some are troublesome -- was it a majority, a large majority, a slim majority -- there's a lot nuance missing
hear yoiu know, Kavouss
If it helps, I would note that the intention is to try and provide high-level impressions, but it’s not expected to be a consensus call, where assessing the level of support is more important (for the co-leads to do).
It still provides an impression which might be misleading.
Correct @Martin this is a distillation exercise now
can whoever has their microphone open please mute it whille they aren't speaking. very distracting toi have to hear you in the background
I still have unidentified phone numbers. If you are logged into Zoom and see your number above in the list, can you please let me know your name? Thank you!
Are we doing that yet? Are we designating consensus levels, or just going through this clean document one last time to make sure we have captured public comment?
Thank for your comment @Jorge.
As a reminder, only members are allowed to join this call. If you are not a member of WT5, please disconnect.
Any non-members will be removed
@Andrea, if they want to be a member, is that still possible?
Let me check if members are being accepted.
Or observervers maybe, @Andrea?
Unfortunately, observers are not able to join this call.
even Govts are potential applicants Christopher
I trust you (co-leads and staff support) will please consider my comments: (1) we are all making a compromise when we support 2012 rules; (2) there is a difference betweensupport coming from only roups of one SOor AC, and positions supported from people coming from across SO/C;
I have been asked by new members of our community if it is possible to join
@Annebeth, I am checking on this
I would not oppose new members.
@Christopher, who would be left if registries and potential registries (those who are not yet registries) were excluded from the multistakeholder process? Seems pretty binary to me...
@Annebeth, if they want to get up to speed on all the discussion to date !
@Susan, quite a job! But if they are interested in new gTLDs, they should not be left out, in my view. This work take years, and if they join the community isn’t it natural that they are interested in what is going on?
Thank you, new members are being accepted, but they need to email email@example.com to request and fill out the appropriate documents. Thank you!
@Annebeth, yes I think people who are interested should be able to participate, but we cannot work for nearly 2 years and then have to re-open debate or explan all that has gobe before if someone new joins. The WG guideliones are quite clear that they have to get themselves up to speed
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
Thanks Jim. Message delivered
Someone's mike remains open
sorry for typos
Finding the line
this is not about a "consensus call" - but if we are summarising the public comment we have to be precise. And there is a difference between positions held by groups of one AC or SO, and positions held across SO/ACs. Those are Facts that should not be hidden with mentions of "some" think this, "some" think that
Those who would like to join can use this link as well Please do fill in the following sign-up form and we will be emailing your shortly for further steps: https://goo.gl/forms/dICXUwUZLIoHTuLZ2 [goo.gl]
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair))
I thnk you got it right
Well said Martin
That was helpful didnt realize the consensus calls on this WT would move to the larger plenary.
WT 5 is a track OF the overall PDP process @Christopher
PDP processes are managed BY the GNSO Council for Top Level Generic Names
We still have 2 unidentified numbers ending in 459 & 998.
@Cheryl: that's clear. It is also clear that twt5 was established under specific and special conditions...
In recognition of the special interests IN the topic yes Jorge
@Chris - on what basis do you believe that the GNSO Council will undo our work? Is it mere speculation or is there something brewing you should make us aware of? (Note: I'm on the Council and have heard nothing of any secret plans to topple over WT5's work)
Miguel Ignacio Estrada
+1 Annebeth comments
a general caveat: I'm seeing this document for the first time as we speak... I guess I'm not the only one - and the document may require some deeper revision
Christopher please close your mic
I'm digesting through the comments we made during the comment period and it seems that at least some are not properly classified in this document
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
Annebeth is exactly right on the ccNSO comment meaning.
@staff: please circulate such documents in advance as PDF. Not everybody can Access Google Docs
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
3166 list is dynamic.
this has been raised multiple times. noone else supports this point
The ISO 4127 doesn’t seem to care either
If somone is speeking, it is very hard to hear them...
Martin is very soft
I'm losing audio entirely
BTW, I have tp drop off for an other call
@Jorge, we can do that. We’ve been a bit reluctant to do so since these are living documents. But sure thing.
Martin - come in from the garden. :)
I also must drop off for another call - thanks Martin, staff and all
Same for me. thanks
Nick Wenban-Smith, Nominet
Currency codes whilst derived from 3166 are not geo names and hence out of scope for WT5
Thank you @Martin.
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Unfortunately , I also must drop off for another call. thanks all
@Steve: thanks, as you know Google Docs is barred for different reasons from being used in different countries, Environments etc.
There should be some time to digest this document and get back to staff with feedback until the next call.
@Nominet - I did not insist that the currency codes be discussed in WT5, (although clearly geographical),. PDP has not yet taken this up. That is why I) raised it.
Martin, HOW COMES UP THE THREE LETTERS CODE ENTERED IN THE MANDATE OF THIS GROUP
Sorry for CAP
Thanks Steve. I believe the US Government comment/position is not reflected w/r/t to 3 letter codes. It should be included under the 4th bullet point under "Make Available." Thanks.
@John, noted and thanks
3 letter codes are in scope.
I agree with Annebeth comments
Me too, have to leave for another committment
All co-leads are aligned on fact that 3-Letter codes are in scope.
3-letter codes are a good por
@Martin, this clarified the process we have gone through today. What we see today is that there are no clear and substantive view from all that the recommendations should be changed. There are still very different views.
there is still a wt5 call?
@Jorge, 2 or 3 more
@Steve, the document disappeared from the screen
i stoped sharing :)
Wednesday, 05 June 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes
My Outlook froze!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO3)
thanks everyone ... bye for now...
thanks Martin and all, and bye!
Thanks, Martin, well done, a difficult task tonight