Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 October 2017
Michelle DeSmyter:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 2 - Legal/Regulatory Issues meeting on Thursday, 12 October 2017 15:00 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:hi all
Michael Flemming 2:Wonderful
Michael Flemming 2:Cheryl, glad you are here.
Steve Chan:Unsynced
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:not as late as it is fof me
Steve Chan:I reccommend using the arrows to page through rather than trying to scroll :)
Emily Barabas:@michael -- the quoted text on slide 5 - section 6 is not from CC2. I believe the proposed text was put forward during one of the previous calls on this topic.
Jim Prendergast 2:I believe the text on slide 11 is a vestige from a previous set of slides on another topic. They deal with closed gerics.
Michael Flemming 2:Jim that could be true
Michael Flemming 2:And it is
Michael Flemming 2:I am sorry, I should've done a better due diligence check
Jim Prendergast 2:no biggie
Emily Barabas:checking. . .
Steve Chan:I believe that's the entire comment for this section.
Steve Chan:[Do you believe that this paragraph gives ICANN an absolute right to reject any application for any reason including a reason that contradicts the Applicant Guidebook, or any law or policy?] Yes. [If yes, should such an unrestricted right
appear in any modifications to the Guidebook?] Yes.
Emily Barabas:sorry, you are much faster than me today
Emily Barabas:thanks steve
Steve Chan:waking up for a 5 am Council call gives me an extra pep in my step apparently.
Gg Levine (NABP):Agreed.
Jon Nevett:Need an appeal process, but make it loser pays as a deterrent to frivilous complaints
Michelle DeSmyter:yes
Steve Chan:Note, the topic of possible appeal processes is part of WT3's slate of topics. For those interested in the topic, please be sure to participate in WT3's discussions.
Susan Payne:apologies, I have to drop again
Kristina Rosette:have to drop for another meeting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:bye
Michelle DeSmyter:yes
Jon Nevett:I would add to the list of ICANN inappropriate post-application changes was the $5K per-registry TMCH set-up fee that is nowhere in the AGB
Michael Flemming 2:That is a good idea, I think, Jon. (Co-Chair hat off)
Michael Flemming 2:Adding it to our list of issues, I mean.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:agree with the importance of predictability
Jim Prendergast 2:are there examples of where applicants been accomodated?
Jim Prendergast 2:exactly
Greg Shatan:Well, that went pear-shaped.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:22
Steve Chan:SLide 22
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:half way in Affilias
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:you wern't away long
Michael Flemming 2:We go to 30
Emily Barabas:correct
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:there isvalso an overlapping call
Steve Chan:there is at least one competing WG call: IGO/INGO curative rights protection mechanisms
Steve Chan:Yes, what Cheryl said
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:good point Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:argh my audio seems delaydd now
Jim Prendergast 2:hadnt heard that one before but Im gonna steal it!
Steve Chan:2.5.4 - Do you believe that any changes are needed in the Terms & Conditions in Module 6 of the Applicant Guidebook? If so, what are those changes and what is the basis or rationale for needing to do so?
Jon Nevett:I need to hop -- thanks all -- Jon
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:your doing fine, we are making progress
Cheryl Langdon-Orr 2:thanks everyone... bye for now thanks Michael