Page History

Mp3

Adobe Connect Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

ACTION ITEM 1: 2.5.2.e.3: Line 48, #3 RySG: This needs to go back to the RySG for clarification.

ACTION ITEM: 2.5.3.c.1: Line 9, #6 -- Business Constituency: Ask for clarification re: However, 3 months is likely not long enough in some parts of the world.

ACTION ITEM: 2.5.3.d.3: Line 26, #5 ALAC: Change “Concerns (additional considerations)” to Divergence. 

Notes:

1.  Update SOI’s: No updates.

2.  Discussion of Public Comment on:

a.  2.5.2 – Variable Fees (continuation from the last call – 2.5.2.e.2) 

2.5.2.e.2:

Line 37, #1Council of Europe -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question. May warrant considering within 2.2.4: Different TLD Types and 2.9.1:  Community Applications); refer to full WG; parking lot: 2.9.1

Line 38, #2 Brand Registry Group -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question. Seems related to 2.5.2.d.1); refer to full WG.

Line 39, #3 Govt of India -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question); refer to full WG.

Line 40, #4 Ming.Ltd Group -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question); refer to full WG; comment on brand TLD.

Line 41, #5 INTA -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question); refer to full WG; comment on brand TLD.

LIne 42, #6 LEMARIT -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question. Seems related to 2.5.2.d.2); refer to full WG.

Line 43, #7 ALAC -- Divergence (more precisely, no exceptions beyond the 2.5.4: Applicant Support); refer to full WG.

Line 44, #8 RySG -- Divergence; refer to the full WG. 

2.5.2.e.3:

Line 46, #1 INTA -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question. Seems related to both 2.5.2.d.1 and 2); refer to full WG.

Line 47, #2 LEMARIT -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question); refer to full WG; comment: 'TLD can not be changed to avoid gaming'.

Line 48, #3 RySG -- Divergence (or more precisely, does not support variable fees); refer to full WG.

-- This needs to go back to the RySG for clarification. 

From the chat:

Susan Payne: do we know what Lemarit means by the exemption comment? 

Jim Prendergast: I think Kristine drafted the RySG comment.  too bad she's not able to make it

Jim Prendergast: to clarify ^ This section of the comment.  not the entire RySG comment

Susan Payne: so are Lemarit saying you shouldn't be able to switch between types if there is differential pricing?

2.5.2.e.4:

Line 50, #1 INTA -- New Idea (or more precisely, response to the question); refer to full WG.

Line 51, #2 RySG -- Divergence; refer to full WG. 

From the chat:

Susan Payne: I don't think iNTA envisages a refund. This comment from INTA was specifically about notion of gaming, ie applying for a lower fee type and changing later

Susan Payne: changing later to something which would have been a higher price - so trying to game the system.  Proposing a disincentive to that 

Other comments:

LIne 53, #1 NCSG -- Concerns (about changes to fees during evaluation, rather than variable fees for different types of applications); refer to full WG.

Justine Chew:

Question 1. Pertaining to text in the 'WG Response' columnIn many instances, I see "WG Response: The WG will refer the New Idea / Concern / Divergence to the full WG." Is this meant to be the sub-group's proposed WG response, as in is the sub-group is proposing that the WG's response to the Contributor be this. Or is it meant to be the sub-group's response to the comment for the full WG's consideration?  I'm a little confused with the use of "WG Response", "WG" and "full WG" in this column. Answer: It refers to the action of the sub group recommending that the item be referred to the full WG.

Question 2. Re: 2.5.1.e.6 While I think I understand the brevity in "No Cap = agree" entries under the Comment column, I just wanted to re-confirm that they actually mean "No Cap beyond stability and operational constraint considerations".  Answer: That's correct.

b.  2.5.3 - Application Submission Period

2.5.3.c.1:

Lines 4-7 -- Agreement.

Line 8, #5 -- RySG -- Agreement and New Idea; refer to full WG.

LIne 9, #6 -- Business Constituency; Agreement, Concerns and New Idea; refer to full WG.

-- Ask for clarification re: However, 3 months is likely not long enough in some parts of the world.

-- Sense is that they didn't meant that certain parts of the world should get more time.

Line 10, #7 -- ALAC -- Please refer to our responses to Q 2.5.3.e.1 and Q 2.5.3.e.2 below. 

2.5.3.d.1:

Line 13, #2 INTA -- Divergence; refer to full WG.

Line 14, #3 RySG -- New Idea and Divergence; refer to full WG.

Line 15, #4 Neustar -- New idea; refer to full WG.

2.5.3.d.2:

Line 20, #4 INTA -- Agreement  Concerns (conditions of support for this proposal); refer to full WG: INTA supports this approach provided that the various windows are clearly identified and that controls are in place to ensure that a later application for a TLD (or one confusingly similar thereto) is not given priority to an earlier one.

-- Could have implications for the objection procedures in string contention and string confusion.

From the chat:

Jim Prendergast: this is a good comment from Anne - is what we are suggesting only applicable to a round vs ongoing basis?

Christa Taylor: That was part of the issues of the ongoing basis methodology

Jim Prendergast: it applies to much more than objections

Anne Aikman-Scalese: COMMENT We just need to make sure that if we go the direction of successive follow-on windows, we clarify the Objection periods and deadlines and whether or not the Objection procedure can apply across a window or not.  And if an Objection is filed, is it just fine for the Objecting party to file for the same application in the next window and how is that evaluated in light of the standing Objection?

2.5.3.d.3:

Line 24, #3 INTA -- Divergence: INTA does not support a shortened period as 3 months is reasonable; refer to full WG.

Line 25, #4 Neustar -- Divergence: Neustar supports the three month application submission period and does not see any value in shortening the window to two months; refer to full WG. 

Christa Taylor: Agree - it seems clear to me

Rubens Kuhl: Donna, if you are available to talk on this right now, please do... we can follow-up via email either way.

Anne Aikman-Scalese: AGree wtih Susan

Donna Austin, Neustar: I don't have audio right now, sorry Rubens.

Donna Austin, Neustar: But I agree with Susan, we answered the question.

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): Seems you have an answer to me @Rubens 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): at least from Neustar 

Line 26, #5 ALAC -- Concerns (additional considerations); refer to full WG.  Further, the ALAC suggests that consideration should always be given to not discourage or disadvantage first- time applicants. 

From the chat:

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): ALAC seems to be making just general additional concerns regarding first time (inexperienced)  applicants

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (PDP Co-Chair): treat it as General if you wish

Justine Chew 2: @CLO - I think that's fine, ALAC's comment (line 26) neither agreement nor divergence, and not quire a new idea.

Steve Chan: @Cheryl, perhaps it might be seen as Divegence (e.g., a shortened period could be seen as disadvantaging inexperienced applicants)?

Anne Aikman-Scalese: Agree with Steve re his comment to Cheryl

Justine Chew 2: I don't object for line 26 to be designated as divergence either - the aim being so long as the concern is highlighted.

2.5.3.e.1:

Line 33, #6 Jaime Baxter Dotgay LLC -- Agreement  Concerns (additional considerations); refer to full WG.

Line 34, #7 RySG -- New Idea: 3 months should be adequate but a period that extends to 6 months may be beneficial in allowing for late comers to the program to participate; refer to full WG.

Line 35, #8 ALAC -- New Idea; refer to full WG.

Line 36, #9 RrSG -- New Idea: It depends on the prior notice length and the complexity of the Application process; refer to full WG.

Line 37, #10 LEMARIT -- New Idea and Divergence: No, we do not believe that three (3) months is sufficient. Some of the required documents need a significant amount of time to be acquired and if it is necessary to be resubmitted during the application window three months could not be enough. Five (5) months submission period is sufficient if an 8 months prior announcement is made; refer to full WG.

2.5.3.e.2:

Line 44, #6 ALAC -- New Idea: we believe that batching applications for assessment holds greater importance than a fixed period for accepting applications; refer to full WG.

Line 45, #7 RySG -- New Idea; refer to full WG: The RySG continues to support allowing for subsequent procedures that contemplate a “rolling” first-come, first-served open period allows all applicants—now and future—the opportunity to apply when they want to. 

4.  AOB: Next meeting: Skip over Applicant Support; move to Terms and Conditions, and Application Queuing.