Page History
...
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y7zk8lsp
| Info |
|---|
PROPOSED AGENDA 1. Welcome and Opening Remarks 2. SOI Updates 3. Application Evaluation 4. AOB and closing BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
| Info | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Tip | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
Attendees: Anne Aikman-Scalese, Quoc Pham, Rubens Kuhl, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Nathaniel Edwards, Victor Zhang Dial outs: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Apologies: Dietmar Lenden |
| Note |
|---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items/Discussion Notes 17 August Action: Match the notes/transcript/recording with slides 9. Start with side 9 at next meeting.
1. Plenary: Topics that were discussed: -- Rounds -- Predictability Framework -- Geographic Names and the Top Level
2. Application Evaluation:
Slide 5: Where we are: -- Concluded on some principles. -- Re: financial aggregation to be done by RO not to put an applicant over another applicant in the pool. Question: What was the consensus in the order of applications? Response: Not in scope for Work Track 4. Being discussed in other work tracks. discuss how is should be done. Could be subject to evaluation in Work Track 1. -- Need to note that is subject to consideration by the plenary. Not only the plenary, -- Overhaul of the financial questions: Think about developing a strawpersons considering the CC2 comments. -- Root scaling has to be considered. -- Asked ICANN staff for answers to the classification question. Still need to provide questions and answers.
Slide 6: Non-Scored Questions: -- Question: Are we asking whether an applicant can change the purpose of a TLD? Is it within the scope of Work Track 4? Or is it a question on merits? Response: We can say what it shouldn't be. The topic of the representation of applicants. It is captured under contractual compliance in Work Track 2 -- seems to make sense to forward it.
RSP Program: -- Strawperson couldn't specify. -- How to streamline the process but not get in the way of innovation.
Slide 8: Registry Services: -- Does such planned evaluation need to be evaluated? -- What if a registry wants to offer a service of a registry of famous marks? Someone may want to mount an objection to that. -- What prevents someone from doing what you fear? Adding this as a new registry service? -- Proposal strawman language that applications wouldn't be allowed to specify registry services.
From the chat room: Steve Chan: @Anne, the order of evaluation is being discussed in WT1 Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): @Staff re notes - Cheryl just noted the addition of "subject to considerations of order of evaluation being addressed in Work Track 1" as fine. Julie Hedlund: @Anne: Noted in the chat as the notes are not comprehensive. We have the recording for that. Steve Chan: There are some thoughts from GDD staff in the Program Implementation Review, starting on page 82 here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf Steve Chan: Regarding the Financial Evaluation and the possible benefit of alternative approaches Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): yes 18 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): it is of course in scope of other WT's though so we could shift it from us Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): :-) all yours as to why Steve :-) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Yep where it belongs IMO WT2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): as I said above (personal opinion of course) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Fob it off YES please :-) Rubens Kuhl: I don't remember. I should, but I don't. Steve Chan: You can see in section 4.3.4.4 here about the Q18 integration into the RA: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58735939/Section%204.3.4.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1460741391000&api=v2 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): That can be a LT call then Anne WT2 or 2/3 but not ours ;-) Steve Chan: And Objectiosn are indeed in WT3 :) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): Thanks Steve. I agree re Work Track 2 being the best fit. Steve Chan: The feedback from GDD has re: changes to the technical evaluation, as well as the response about the CQs, have been added to the Wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/YT2AAw Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Thx Steve and we will need to focus on these in the WT in the near future Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): slide 7 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): 8 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): hmmm I have a delay in my AC chat turning up... Sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Slide 9 Quoc Pham: is there a typo on point 4? GPML = DPML? Quoc Pham: I would also want to point out that if point 4 is supposed to be DPML, the DPML is a Dounuts product which is not a universal/generic product or service (e.g. offering IDNs), we should avoid pointing out Registry specific products perhaps? Rubens Kuhl: DPML is a registry-specific product. GPML is a general term for PMLs. Quoc Pham: ah ok Quoc Pham: sorry Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Time check 15 mins eft on this call Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): I tend to agree Anne In my personal capacity but does such innovation *need* to be evaluated at application is the key as Rubens is pointin out now Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC): re straw-person on registry services - strongly disagree re limiting services described in application.
|
