Dear All,

Please find the attendance and audio recording of the call attached to this email and the Adobe Connect recording (visual and audio) and AC Chat below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes held on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC.

Adobe Connect recording:   https://participate.icann.org/p9rzmb9xk7g/

The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar

** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt3

Agenda Wiki page:  https://community.icann.org/x/twAhB

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Terri

-------------------------------

Adobe Connect chat transcript for 01 August 2017

    Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes on Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 15:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

  Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_twAhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=gaN5ZSI4gaIccaFpEcTE_vdCnTrb3PTySAsqcHcmLb4&e=

  Jeff Neuman:hearing a bunch of crackling noise

  Jeff Neuman:Anne, that may be coming from you

  Jeff Neuman:Is Robin on?

  Jeff Neuman:Just give us one more minute and we will start

  Jeff Neuman:sure

  Michael Flemming:yes

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I was curious if we will be returning to 3.1.5 since it was not covered on the last call

  Terri Agnew:New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group will take place on Monday, 07 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

  Alan Greenberg:Not particularly relevant to this group, but I have been selected as Chair (Interim) of the RDS-WHOIS2-RT.

  Emily Barabas:The full group call will be on 29 August at 3:00 UTC

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Congrats Alan - good to know.

  Emily Barabas:(Tuesday in UTC, but Monday night for those calling in from the Americas)

  avri doria:no addition

  Emily Barabas:document is now unsynced so everyone can zoom as needed

  Emily Barabas:we are on page 7

  Emily Barabas:Excerpts are on display in the central pod. Full text of the comments are available here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1A5uaxBAgmg7QsFuqMdVvt1HxNZ4jKXnm3Hp0gZra7U0_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=jLCBZwF85LNAScKDfApSmyc0c_vBtg8G-4t2WImR9sA&e=

  avri doria:so yes dotgay was forced to respond to someone who was ultimately denied standing.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT:  I support the idea of a screening based on standing but it should not take forever to do - should be done quickly in order to provide certainty for Applicants and  potential Objectors.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):makes sense to me Anne

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree with Alan it is difficult to detremine standing without both sides filing pleadings.

  Alan Greenberg:I strongly support a preliminary determination (which will catch most who do not have standing).

  Alan Greenberg:Better said by Anne.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):indeed!  be very useful

  Alan Greenberg:To be clear, what I was sayingwas that there should be a preliminary determination on standing, and if it fails, the objection is dead. Only if preliminary standing is granted does the complain prodeed.

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:I could concur with that Alan. Basic investigation to confirm that the objector represents a legitimate organization that is capable of achieving standing is key.

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:but does it mean that no other entity can object to the community application if they select CPE?

  avri doria:and for a community objector, is this just the applicant being barred or  any of the community who supprted the application?

  Alan Greenberg:Note that 2/19 is 10%.

  Alan Greenberg:I presume the IO was not paid on a per-objection basis. That would be a direct conflict of interest.

  Trang Nguyen:The IO was not paid on a per-objection basis.

  avri doria:the degree to which any of the money spent on application processing and objection resolution were good expenditures is a large subject of its own.

  Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, the AGB says "The IO may consider public comment when making an independent assessment whether an objection is warranted. The IO will have access to application comments received during the comment period."

  avri doria:i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.i.e once we start the evaluation of function versus expenditure, this is not the only one that should be subject to such analysis.

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:i think it would be hard to conduct a full 360 on the effectiveness of the IO. we will never have any idea how many gTLD ideas or applications were thwarted by the meer existance of an IO.

  Greg Shatan:We need a Bodhisattva.

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Underlying philoshical basis was the Limited Public Interest Objection.  If poorly executed, it needs to be fixed.  Otherwise, we are getting rid of that Objection.

  Greg Shatan:@Jamie, do you have any reason to believe that any applications were thwarted/unfiled due to the existence of the IO?

  Trang Nguyen:The AGB also says "In light of the public interest goal noted above, the IO shall not object to an application unless at least one comment in opposition to the application is made in the public sphere." So, you are correct, Jeff.

  avri doria:can we invite IO for a discussion?

  Jamie Baxter | dotgay:@Greg, without the IO role to intervene on issues of morality or human rights with string applciations, what would stop people from applying from them and who would intervene to prevent some of the ideas mentioned on this call?

  avri doria:the discussion of his understanding might help in revising the description of the function

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree wtih Jamie.  If the IO is the wrong tool or needs more support to determine Limited Public Interest, we should fix that.  What if the ICANN Board appointed a non-conflicted subcommittee?

  Susan Payne:IO's final activity report may be of interest https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.independent-2Dobjector-2Dnewgtlds.org_home_final-2Dactivity-2Dreport_&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=taqsTungLzfujYRllqnFQSUsXCHXbuHvh5hHV_8W00k&s=0In10JVVDYy6Fne0MVMtRawwujuZlbsMtE-22UlyT8s&e=

  Terri Agnew:next call: New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 3 – String Contention, Objections & Disputes will take place on Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks everyone...  good discussion...  bye for now then

  Terri Agnew:@Jeff, apology noted for next call

  Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Jeff et al.

  Robin Gross:Thanks Jeff for jumpin in!  Bye!