Zoom Chat: 2020-06-15 ALS Mobilization Working Party Call

10:46:23 From Claudia Ruiz : Welcome to the ALS Mobilization Working Party Call on 15 June 2020
10:58:28 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Hello all!
10:58:44 From Amrita Choudhury : Hi Everyone
11:04:15 From Alperen Eken : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWe_tOGE1ddl2B3hOAcJ8JG9ODjpD6zMp_d2_ikc4nc/edit
11:04:34 From Alperen Eken : This is the most current document
11:04:51 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Can we see the correct part on screen please?
11:05:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Thx
11:05:11 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Thanks @Alperen
11:07:49 From Sarah Kiden : Noted
11:08:16 From Judith Hellerstein : sorry was late. what did i miss
11:09:24 From Judith Hellerstein : HI All. I put my comments on the 3.0 but do not see them in this document
11:09:35 From Judith Hellerstein : this is 3.1
11:09:47 From David Mackey : I am happy with wording
11:10:02 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Just reviewing comments on the Doc (on matters previously gone over) at the moment @Judith
11:10:09 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : yes 3.1
11:10:18 From Amrita Choudhury : Agree with Alan
11:10:23 From David Mackey : D can be included in B
11:13:01 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Probably more than 2 of you Alan
11:13:06 From Jacqueline Morris : 3 of us
11:14:40 From Sarah Kiden : @Maureen you talked about something that’s not probation. Trying to find the exact phrase
11:15:04 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : That is not consistent with the Rules of Procedure nor the role of the LAC as identified in the ByLaws Peters is constently woring on all this
11:15:43 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : wording on this is an interpretation of bit a ruling on
11:16:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : should read NOT a ruling on
11:16:46 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : LAC should read ALAC
11:17:27 From Heidi Ullrich : Apologies on behalf of staff for any inconvenience.
11:18:35 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : As @Alan says "mistakes happen" @Heidi, but this was a minor hiccup not a major issue IMO
11:23:56 From Amrita Choudhury : I think some rationale should be given for the rejection
11:24:16 From Sarah Kiden : Agree with Amrita
11:24:43 From David Mackey : Agree with Alan
11:26:50 From Sarah Kiden : +1 Nadira. The rationale helps them improve their future application
11:27:06 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Agree
11:27:11 From Amrita Choudhury : Agree with Nadira a mail giving rationale for rejection should be given
11:27:21 From Maureen Hilyard : I agree to providing a rationale
11:29:09 From Maureen Hilyard : To whatever rules we make there will inevitably be a situation that is that 1%
11:29:48 From David Mackey : Agreed Alan
11:32:32 From Yrjo Lansipuro : I agree with Alan. There may be cases where not even the rejected applicants would not want a rationale. On the other hand, the applicant can always get the rationale, if they want. A bit of flexibility here makes sense
11:33:14 From Judith Hellerstein : I agree with Maureen, Amrita, sarah, nadira and others for giving a rationale for why we are rejecting them
11:33:39 From David Mackey : Agree
11:33:46 From Nadira Al Araj : Exactly that is why I recommended to have a standard rational
11:35:34 From Peters Omoragbon : ALAC can only review an application of an ALS only if it is recommended by the RALO.
11:36:15 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Peters ALAC reviews and votes on ALL ALS applications Peters
11:36:19 From Nadira Al Araj : I liked "advisable"
11:36:32 From Jacqueline Morris : @Peters - the ALAC decides on EVERY application, whether the RALO recommends YES or NO, or nothing.
11:36:43 From Sivasubramanian Muthusamy : +1 Alan. on internal guidelines without public statement
11:37:04 From Peters Omoragbon : The general consensus is that applicants be given rationale. That is the position of the majority here. That should be respected
11:37:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Exactly @Jacquiline
11:37:32 From David Mackey : random noise
11:37:56 From Jacqueline Morris : No, I don't think that every rejected applicant should be given a rationale.
11:38:07 From Maureen Hilyard : Perhaps we provide a list of carefully worded reasons why an application might be rejected. An applicant could privately ask for additional information
11:38:12 From Judith Hellerstein : I think if people ask for a rationale they should be given one
11:38:34 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Where possible and practical I would think @Peters
11:38:36 From Sarah Kiden : +1 to Maureen’s suggestion
11:38:48 From David Mackey : +1 Cheryl
11:38:56 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : +1 @Maureen
11:39:03 From Amrita Choudhury : Agree with Maureen
11:39:14 From Nadira Al Araj : +1 Maureen it matches what I tried to say
11:40:57 From Peters Omoragbon : Majority position should pls be respected
11:44:10 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : scroll to correct place in doc please
11:45:23 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : There is a difference between documenting everything and Publishing everything of course
11:45:44 From David Mackey : +1 Cheryl
11:45:52 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : there are exceptional circumstances requiring redaction of published materials
11:45:58 From Jacqueline Morris : +1 cheryl
11:48:02 From Claudia Ruiz : Apologies
11:49:31 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : There is also a VAST difference between informing the applicant with information that explains what happened (failed criteria etc.,) and a public detailing of some commentary made in advice that might be best redacted
11:50:13 From Jacqueline Morris : I agree with Cheryl.
11:50:30 From Peters Omoragbon : But that is past. We are developing a document for the future and present. We want to improve upon what was not working well. So Maureen proposal is valid and majorly supported
11:52:09 From Peters Omoragbon : My position is not about making public the rationale But any applicant deserves to be told why their application failed. Icann is not a cult or secret society
11:55:33 From Maureen Hilyard : I cannot see a reason why there is not a list of reasons for rejection but I do realise that the wording must be carefully crafted - "* further information required" covers a lot of sins :)
11:55:45 From Amrita Choudhury : Agree Maureen
11:55:57 From Peters Omoragbon : Supported @maureen
11:56:23 From Sarah Kiden : Agree Maureen
11:56:58 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : Agree @Maureen, sins-)))
11:58:04 From Nadira Al Araj : sorry, I think it go after item 8,
11:59:42 From David Mackey : Bye All!
11:59:43 From Sarah Kiden : Thank you!
11:59:43 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye for now then
11:59:45 From Herb Waye : take care and stay safe
11:59:48 From Nadira Al Araj : bye thank you
11:59:50 From Filina Natalia (EURALO Secretary) : thank you, bye!
11:59:50 From Silvia Vivanco : Bye all
11:59:50 From Amrita Choudhury : Thanks everyone
11:59:57 From Harold Arcos : thanks all
12:00:04 From Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong : bye