Page History

Attendance & AC chat

Apologies: Katrin Ohlmer, Kristine Dorrain, Vanda Scartezini

Dial outs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Notes/ Action Items

1.  Updates to Statements of Interest (SOI’s):  No updates provided.

2.  Continue Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.5 IDNs:

2.7.5.c.5:

Lines 32-33, RySG and BRG -- Agreement

Line 34, ICANN 0rg -- New Idea

Line 35, ALAC -- Concerns Divergence

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: QUESTION:  Is that an official request that ALAC reconsider a contradictory position?  QUESTION

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): Noted @Rubens. perhaps @Justine can follow up on that

Justine Chew: Noting down

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): Thx @Justine :-)

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (@CLO PDP Co-Chair): thanks Rubens

Rubens Kuhl: Anne, I believe it's more of an alert than a request. They couldn't know at the time when they responded it was going to be contradictory; now it is, so if they want to state a position, they would need to remove the contradiction and pick one position.

Rubens Kuhl: (It was an answer to Anne's point on IDNs)

Justine Chew: @Christa: it relates to something that I have to follow up for ALAC 

2.7.5.c.6:

Line 37, BRG -- Agreement

Line 38, ALAC -- Agreement Concerns

Line 39, RySG -- Agreement New Idea

Line 40-42, ICANN Org, IPC -- New Idea

2.7.5.d.1:

Line 44 & 45, ALAC and RySG -- Agreement (to leave up to TLD operator)

Line 46, ICANN Org -- Disagreement New Idea 

2.7.5.e.1:

Lines 48-49, ALAC & RySG -- New Idea 

From the chat:

Steve Chan: Note, there is a preliminary recommendation related to 2.7.5.e.1 (2.7.5.c.3). Since we broke up this comment review into two separate meetings, just thought it might be helpful to keep that in mind (that those comments are relevant). 

2.7.5.e.2:

Lines 51-53,  RrSG, RySG, ALAC -- Agreement (to leave up to TLD operator) -- and New Idea for ALAC

Line 54, LEMARIT -- New Idea

Line 55, SSAC -- Concerns

Line 56, ICANN Org -- Divergence New Idea

2.7.5.e.3:

Lines 58-59 ALAC, RySG -- New Idea 

2.7.5.e.4:

Lines 61-64, ALAC, SSAC, RySG, ICANN Org -- New Idea (to take into account) 

3.  Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.6 Security and Stability: 

General Comments:

Lines 3-6, CCT-RT Report, ALAC, SSAC -- Concerns 

2.7.6.c.1:

Lines 8&9, BRG & Neustar -- Agreement

Lines 10&11, BC and RySG -- Agreement, New Idea

Line 12, ICANN Org -- New Idea 

2.7.6.c.2:

Lines 14-15, BRG & Neustar -- Agreement

Line 16, ICANN Org -- New Idea

Line 17, RySG -- New Idea (supports SSAC recommendations)

Line 18, Alexandar Schubert -- New Idea (related to the controlling the flow of applications and impact on the DNS)

Line 19, ALAC -- New Idea

Line 20, SSAC -- Concerns 

Steve Chan: Here is 2.5.1.e.6: Are we acknowledging and accepting of ICANN being a so-called “registry of registries” (i.e., does the community envision ICANN approving a few thousand / hundreds of thousands / millions of gTLDs to be added to the root? Should there be a cap? )

Steve Chan: Since I'm guessing like me, you all do not have these questions memorized :)

Steve Chan: @Christa, was just providing a reference to the question mentioned in the SSAC question - sorry for the confusion.

Rubens Kuhl: The description of 2.5.1.e.6 is for understanding the SSAC comment on 2.7.6.c.2 

2.7.6.e.1:

Line 22, SSAC -- [Staff note: see SSAC response to 2.7.6.c.2] Quote: [Too long to replicate] 

2.7.6.e.2:

Lines 24-28, RrSG, LEMARIT, IPC, SSAC -- Agreement

Line 29, RySG -- Agreement, New Idea

From the chat:

Anne Aikman-Scalese: I see that Alexander Schubert comment is marked "take to larger group for discussion".  Did we mark the comments in 2.7.6 at lines 3-6 in Security and Stability for "take to full WG for discussion"?   QUESTION

Steve Chan: @Anne, as I think we've said a few times, the "taking to the full WG" has created a bit of confusion. All sub group discussions, albeit in a summarized fashion and emphasizing new ideas (as it relates to agreement, new ideas, concerns, divergence), will be sent to the full WG.

Steve Chan: So to your question, yes, those elements will be provided to the main group.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: @Steve - yes - it's a bit unclear since all along we have talked about flagging issues for discussion in the full WG.

Rubens Kuhl: We are just pre-cooking food so the full WG can finish the cooking and serve the dish.

Justine Chew: Line 23 - 2.7.6.e.2 ... just to digress a little I just saw today a VICE News report about an American domain investor "reselling" emojis under the .ws ccTLD. Out of scope for us but interesting to note in context of SSAC's position on emojis.

4.  Discussion of Public Comments on 2.7.7 Applicant Reviews:

General Comments:

Line 3, MARQUES -- Agreement  New Idea (more precisely, where the baseline is established)

Line 4, INTA -- Divergence [part of the response is perhaps more appropriate 2.5.2: Variable Fees?]

Line 5, Vanda Scartezini -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question) Potentially off topic?

Line 6, MARQUES -- Agreement  New Idea (more precisely, where the baseline is established)

WG Response: The WG appreciates the input and will take it into account when determing final recommendations. The WG will refer the New Idea to the full WG.

Line 9, SSAC -- Agreement  Divergence 

2.7.7.c.1:

Line 11, BRG -- Agreement

Line 12, ICANN Org -- Agreement (but with request for clarification) -- Second section

changed to New Idea

Lines 13, 14, 15, Neustar, FairWind Partners, RySG-- Agreement (qualified)

Line 16, BC -- New Idea

2.7.7.c.2: Lines 18-21, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement 

2.7.7.c.3: Lines 23-27 -- Neustar, FairWind Partners, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement 

2.7.7.c.4: Lines 29-32, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement 

2.7.7.c.5: Lines 34-37, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement

2.7.7.c.6: Lines 39-42, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement 

Start at 2.7.7.c.7:

Lines 44-47, Brand Registry Group, ICANN Org, Neustar, RySG -- Agreement

Line 48, RrSG -- Divergence

Line 49, GAC -- Divergence 

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman (Overall SubPro Co-chair): I dont see those as necessarily divergent

Jeff Neuman (Overall SubPro Co-chair): These things can be assessed without the full plan 

2.7.7.c8: Line 51-53, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG -- Agreement 

2.7.7.c9: Lines 55-58, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, RySG, Valideus -- Agreement 

2.7.7.c.10: Lines 60-62, Brand Registry Group, Neustar, Valideus -- Agreement 

Next meeting: 2.7.7.c.11 -- start at line 63 

6.  AOB -- Next meeting: 26 February at 20:00 -- extend to 90 minutes?  Leave at 60 minutes.