15:37:44 From Yesim Nazlar : Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group Single Issue Call: "CPE Guidelines" taking place on Thursday, 23 April 2020 at 13:00 UTC.
15:38:12 From Yesim Nazlar : Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/94PsBw
16:00:05 From Priyatosh Jana : hi everyone
16:00:28 From Roberto : Hi
16:01:12 From Heidi Ullrich : Welcome, All.
16:03:30 From Hadia Elminiawi : hello all
16:03:45 From Jaewon Son : hi everyone!
16:04:06 From Holly Raiche : Greetings all
16:04:13 From Hadia Elminiawi : I won't be able to stay for the entire call as I have the EPDP meeting at 14:00 UTC
16:04:21 From Hadia Elminiawi : Hi Holly
16:04:30 From Heidi Ullrich : Action items, if any, will be noted at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=132940802
16:04:34 From Jonathan Zuck : Welcome Jamie
16:04:42 From Marita Moll : Welcome Jamie Baxter
16:04:54 From Holly Raiche : Welcome Jamie -
16:05:00 From Oksana Prykhodko : hello everyone, sorry for being late. Please add my name to the list of participants - Oksana Prykhodko
16:05:07 From Jamie Baxter : Thanks all. Happy to join.
16:05:26 From Jaewon Son : plz add my name to the list of participants too! -jaewon son
16:05:40 From MAZZONE - ebu : i am here… some delay in the connection.
16:05:55 From MAZZONE - ebu : thank you
16:05:57 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Wise plan - Excellent @Justine
16:06:38 From Holly Raiche : Welcome - I’d like to hear from them both on what issues we need to address in dealing with ‘community’ applications
16:07:44 From Dave Kissoondoyal : hello all sorry for being late
16:07:45 From Hadia Elminiawi : sorry I was disconnected for a couple of minutes
16:10:38 From MAZZONE - ebu : "who" will conduct next CPE we don't care. but the characteristic of who shall be asked to do so, this really matters. so would be good to set the requirements applicable to "who-ever" will be asked to do.
16:13:11 From Marita Moll : Yes, this is a key concept -- have some impact on how this panel is formed, who sits on the panel and what is their expertise
16:14:08 From MAZZONE - ebu : less structured and less resourced : they need more help definitively
16:14:57 From Marita Moll : can barely hear holly
16:16:04 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : I I can hear her well
16:16:20 From Hadia Elminiawi : Can hear Justine well too
16:16:21 From Roberto : Was low for me as well
16:16:35 From Marita Moll : I thought we were not going to attempt to define community, but rather deliniate the characteristics of a community
16:18:38 From MAZZONE - ebu : Udana 6.4 : a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other.
16:23:45 From Sivasubramanian M : 0/4 examples indicate that the process can be easily gamed.
16:24:43 From Sivasubramanian M : Be it concerning the criteria for 'Community' or for any other process stipulation, there are ways of doing 'paperwork', ways of creating an illusion.
16:25:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Well observed @Marita
16:25:48 From Roberto : +1 Marita
16:25:53 From Jamie Baxter : That is correct Marita
16:25:56 From davekissoondoyal : +1 Marita
16:26:05 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : good point Marita
16:31:01 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : +1 Jamie.
16:31:11 From Holly Raiche : The words ‘members’ and ‘organizations’ automatically limit the scope of what is considered
16:32:01 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : very much so -- especially if the application comes from a Non Western applicant --- the concept of "member organisations" is not necessarily widespread in the Global South
16:32:45 From Holly Raiche : I understand that the knowledge and experience of the selectors is critical, but we need to give them words with enough flexibility to broaden the concept of ‘community’
16:32:48 From Marita Moll : @Holly -- that is good point. And it is further limited by the bias of the people doing the evaluating. So, a looser word/words are needed.
16:33:07 From Marita Moll : groups......etc
16:33:18 From Marita Moll : supporting groups
16:33:39 From davekissoondoyal : Why the definition of community is broaden by the applicants?
16:38:04 From Holly Raiche : Good change for 1_A - ondeliniated
16:38:10 From MAZZONE - ebu : the difference is between structured communities and "advocacy" Community. the second are the most difficult to qualify. so we CPE criteria need to be more flexible for "advocacy communities".
16:38:52 From Holly Raiche : @ Mazzone - what words would you suggest??
16:39:07 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : perhaps those exact words cold be of use in overall 'guidelines'to any evaluator @Mazzone
16:39:42 From Holly Raiche : @ CLO - which exact words?
16:40:16 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : uncoupelling the Sub Criteia
16:40:39 From Holly Raiche : Thanks
16:40:47 From MAZZONE - ebu : you mean "advocacy communities" and "structured or economic interest based entities" ?
16:41:05 From MAZZONE - ebu : you mean "advocacy communities" and "structured or economic interest based communities" ?
16:41:12 From Marita Moll : considerable size with respect to what?
16:41:21 From Holly Raiche : And maybe some words for advocacy communities??
16:42:00 From Marita Moll : There could be a comparison to be used within the context of the particular community in question
16:42:20 From Marita Moll : when it comes to considerable size
16:42:30 From MAZZONE - ebu : communities aiming to Promote and protect the rights of their members ?
16:42:59 From humbertocarrasco : Apologies for being late
16:44:09 From davekissoondoyal : have you considered overlapping community, inter community, sub community?
16:44:39 From Justine Chew : @Giacomo, that comes under Nexus
16:44:40 From Holly Raiche : I”m not sure ‘protecting rights of members’ begs the question - how would they do that?
16:46:14 From MAZZONE - ebu : correct Olivier...
16:46:45 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : indeed OCL
16:47:09 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : size and Geo spread
16:47:23 From Oksana Prykhodko : Is there any final document of WG on geographical names?
16:47:49 From MAZZONE - ebu : @holly : i.e. protecting through Making class actions or awareness Campaign ...
16:48:06 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : +1 Marita
16:49:11 From Holly Raiche : Thanks - but does having a top level gTLD assist in bringing class actions?
16:49:51 From Holly Raiche : (do you mean it is a further recognition of the applicant as ‘community)
16:50:23 From MAZZONE - ebu : on nexus : the objection raised to DOT.radio was that also radiologists (X ray), radioastronomists, and radio amateurs could Apply for the same…
16:51:08 From Roberto : radioactive…
16:53:37 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : if there the community applicants demonstrated that they have enough registrants that could suffice
16:54:35 From Roberto : I remember the objection of one on the ICANN Board in 2000 about .air - this is why it was changed to .aero
16:55:09 From laurin weissinger : off to work call, thanks all!
16:56:55 From Jonathan Zuck : So someone who is transgender would consider themselves part of the “gay” community. Is this just a false distinction from outside the community?
16:58:42 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : if their applied LGBT instead GAY would that passed?
16:59:32 From MAZZONE - ebu : LGBT was a competing application that was attributed BEFORE that dot.gay case was closed….
16:59:52 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : aha
16:59:53 From Hadia Elminiawi : Apologies I shall need to leave for the EPDP call
16:59:56 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : +1 Jamie
16:59:57 From Hadia Elminiawi : Thanks
17:00:15 From Alan Greenberg : I need to leave for another meeting.
17:01:19 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : Ironically LGBT is less widespread in non English speaking countries, where Gay is more commonly known
17:03:47 From Jonathan Zuck : oh, ok
17:05:47 From Jamie Baxter : @Olivier … exactly. that is why when preparing the application the organizations engaged in the effort supported applying for .GAY over the many other options available
17:06:29 From Marita Moll : So is this subcriteria necessary?
17:06:33 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : deffinatley @Justine!
17:08:27 From MAZZONE - ebu : "where these legal entities exist"
17:08:28 From Holly Raiche : Good point OCL
17:08:35 From Marita Moll : I am suggesting that uniqueness might be not be an essential category -- perhaps some adjustment to Nexus would cover it.
17:14:37 From Roberto : Agree with Giacomo, PIR was the same example I had in mind
17:16:07 From MAZZONE - ebu : has so be also here. as a self commitment of the Community applicant. in the contracting phase, you can include enforcement of this commitment.
17:19:41 From Marita Moll : Should competing groups be allowed to object? I think not
17:19:46 From MAZZONE - ebu : OPPOSITIONS : again here the most vulnerable are the "advocacy communities". In DOT.RADIO case was easy to dismiss one opposition because came from a minor local association with 5 associates. in advocacy and HR groups the membership is not easy to evaluate.
17:21:07 From MAZZONE - ebu : +1 jamie
17:22:16 From Marita Moll : The diversity of support for a community application might also be valued
17:22:36 From Marita Moll : and worth some consideration in scoring
17:24:28 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : What @Jamoe is desctibing also fits with the overall desire of SubPro work to increase Predictability of the processes
17:24:42 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : might beworth mentioning here as well
17:28:18 From Heidi Ullrich : We have 2 mins left in the scheduled time of the call.
17:28:31 From Heidi Ullrich : The interpreters have agreed to a 10 min extension of the scheduled time.
17:29:44 From Jaewon Son : Apologies I shall need to leave for another call!thank u for today!
17:29:56 From Marita Moll : @Jamie -- I think we can all agree that this was really unfair and that loophole should be firmly closed
17:30:41 From Jonathan Zuck : Homework!
17:31:05 From Marita Moll : homework??? isn't that what we are doing?
17:31:12 From Jamie Baxter : @Marita .. I agree completely because the ICANN default seemed to always allow further disadvantage to community applicants
17:31:18 From MAZZONE - ebu : justine could put the link in the chat ?
17:31:43 From Raymond Mamattah (ICANN67 Fellow) : Nice topic for discussion today. Being an interesting call!
17:31:50 From Yesim Nazlar : Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HLQXbd7Efl_Ol4uhLIVDXZDYgxR9VH_ou1tGSiESN8s/edit
17:32:57 From Jamie Baxter : @Olivier .. I think one small voice of opposition should absolutely be off limits to affecting score, especially if balanced against a large global outpouring of support
17:34:01 From Marita Moll : Olivier --- just making sure opposition can not sneak in under the wire like Jamie has described -- closing the timeline -- we can support that
17:34:01 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : @Jamie -- well how did so many of the applications score full marks on the opposition?
17:34:15 From Jamie Baxter : @Olivier .. good question
17:34:34 From Jonathan Zuck : One week!
17:34:42 From Holly Raiche : Fine
17:34:45 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes. Better to do when fresh anyway
17:35:12 From Marita Moll : okay -- gotta press on
17:35:18 From Jamie Baxter : @Olivier .. different evaluators, different standards is one answer
17:35:34 From Jonathan Zuck : support
17:35:40 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : it would also need to be timed to fit in with the SubPro program of work to have influence
17:36:06 From MAZZONE - ebu : 3 crucial points still to be adressed: a) lowering the requested score (90%!) is unsastainable; b) support to Community non profit applicants ALL ALONG THE PROCESS, to remove one of the biggest penalization they suffer; c) CPE process cannot last 4 years, because this -de facto- will penalize the weakest.
17:36:13 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond : Bravo Justine!
17:36:14 From Jamie Baxter : Thank you for inviting me to this discussion
17:36:20 From avri doria : good discussions. thanks. stay well all.
17:36:21 From Nadira AL-ARAJ : thanks Justine
17:36:25 From Holly Raiche : Thanks Jamie for your input
17:36:31 From davekissoondoyal : thanks and bye to all
17:36:48 From Raymond Mamattah (ICANN67 Fellow) : Nope pls
17:36:53 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Bye
17:36:56 From Heidi Ullrich : Bye, all.
17:37:00 From Marita Moll : Thanks to both our guests. It really helps to hear your stories
17:37:01 From Oksana Prykhodko : thank you all, bye
17:37:03 From Roberto : Bye
17:37:15 From MAZZONE - ebu : bye bye
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
