Dear All, Please find the attendance and recording of the call attached to this email. The Adobe Connect recording and AC Chat are below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations held on Tuesday 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC. Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p1b57pylw93/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a8c8766f892347bac...> https://participate.icann.org/p1b57pylw93/ The recordings of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> 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-wt4> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt4 Agenda Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/FRLfAw> https://community.icann.org/x/FRLfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for 20 June 2017 Terri Agnew:Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team – Track 4 – IDNs/Technical & Operations on Tuesday, 20 June 2017 at 03:00 UTC for 60 minutes. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_F... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_F...> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=5n0SnNpYVIX6LpVwt0xSyOU-X37PCa83H7YPTjMDUq0&s=Bv23WhXqBb8L3UNIj8NlDk75BKjrIXjABsvtsrCZgoo&e= Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Hi Terri - I am in Listen Only mode right now. Jeff Neuman:thanks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):it's good Cheryl Jeff Neuman:Its ok....but you still sound australian Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):yes Jeff Neuman:No comment from Cheryl to my post.... Jeff Neuman::) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Gooday Cheryl! Jeff Neuman:Bobs your uncle avri doria:jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)::-) Rubens Kuhl:Lost Jeff's audio. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):We lost you Jeff Rubens Kuhl:But I hear Cheryl. Terri Agnew:@Jeff, we are unable to hear you at this time. Would you like a dial out? Terri Agnew:Jeff's AC dropped Alan Greenberg:What ever happened to straw bunnies? Terri Agnew:Welcome back Jeff avri doria:strawbunnies whne i create the first draft, strawpersons when Jeff starts the first draft Alan Greenberg:Bunnies are gender neutral. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Avir and Jeff re Strawperson on geo names - it is going to be tough when you ask the country whether the name is protected by national legal right or not. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):*@Avri - not Avir! Jeff Neuman:Thanks....been having some power issues at my home Jeff Neuman:But I am bacck Jeff Neuman:Strawbunnies hopped away avri doria:Anne, just one of the challenging subjects, I expect Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes this is an aspirational Agenda... To Be Continued if needs be... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Avri - yes - but Strawperson very interesting for discussion! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does previously approved "infrastructure" mean a previously approved back-end provider? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):I just dont know what "infrastructure' means Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree Harmonized language will be useful/// Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes All tracks Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree about harmonized language. How does a new provider get approved Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and a glossary in our reports Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Are we suggesting that timing of consideration/evaluation of an application would depend on who the back-end provider is? QUESTION Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: That seems prejudicial to new entrants in the arena of back-end registry operator services if so. COMMENT Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Ruben for clarifying it does not affect priority of evaluation. But even if it speeds things up in terms of evaluation, it might be prejudicial to new entrants because applicants won't choose new entrants. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION - object to what? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: What is a "registry family"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): Best to go back to the last slide to deal with Annes question as your call for objections to the Possible Language relates to that and the Language iis written there Rubens Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does this mean that ICANN will evaluate whether a back-end provider is trying to operate too many registries at once? QIESTION Jeff Neuman:Hello.....my power went out again, but I think it is ok....hopefully to stay Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl. This looks okay if it does not confer priority consideration in terms of timing. Cheryl, you are NOT INTERFERING. Terri Agnew:stay safe Jeff, let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful Jeff Neuman:With voip and already used the back up battery, I am not sure telephone is better Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):POSSIBLE OBJECTION HERE BECAUSE some may apply for several TLDs but knowing they will only actually end up with a more limited number. Jeff Neuman:Family? That will need a definition avri doria:yes, i was just about to type that Jeff Neuman:Affiliates Trang Nguyen:Thanks for asking, Jeff. I had the same question. avri doria:i think family may be ok, once defined Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree about "registry family". And I thought Rubens said it was already defined - very confusing discussion. Alan Greenberg:Wassn't there a def'n of families/related used in the VI decision? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):and currently used by GDD avri doria:so maybe they have a definiton writen somewher we can incorporate Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):QUESTION: Does this new language make it less likely that one operator can use 400 LLCs to apply to operate 400 TLDs? avri doria:and we may need to make sure we are using it consistently Jeff Neuman:@Anne - I dont think so. The purpose of the hundreds of LLCs is for ease of sale, or making deals, and for a whole host of reasons unrelated to this. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):from RAA => 1.5 "Applicable Registrar Family" means, with respect to Affiliated Registrars, such Affiliated Registrar as a group. Jeff Neuman:In fact, I think it helps the consolidated registries because each application is not evaluated on its own Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):OBJECTION - I have a procedural objection to suddenly being presented with new proposed language j- not enough time to consider what it means and tthen being given 5 seconds to respond or OBJECT. Jeff Neuman:@Anne - All of these are subject to review....I think this is more like a "sense of the room" Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Perhaps we also need to note this is just a first read through to establish any objections before we actually build consensus Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Exactly Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Good point re Must vs Should Avri Jeff Neuman:What if there are zero applications for IDNs? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@Jeff et al - a FIRST READING usually means a consensus draft reached by subteam before finalizing language. This is not that process because the language was not even circulated on the list to my knowledge. NO WAY is this a real first reading. Jeff Neuman:Does that invalidate the process Jeff Neuman:We cant control who applies, right? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):In this language "should" perhaps could read "need to be made aware of... ... ..." Jeff Neuman:I agree with the Avri caution flag.... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Correct Alan a forst read through not a "formal Reading" Jeff Neuman:Google would if you used Internationalized characters Jeff Neuman:@Alan - What are the issues you need to know Alan Greenberg:If there is a stament such as Rubens is suggesting ( a warning a UA), ther we need to understand the details more. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):ComMENT: If we are in a "read-through", we should not be talking about Objection or No Objection. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):The Possible Language sections are attempting to review opinion from our previous discussions and begin formulation of useful text for us to develop with due process into recommendations avri doria:Anne, it is just a word, as long as everyone understands we will be back her agan, it is useful to know whether anyone has an objection at this point in time. why wait till later to object.? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):this is a stage in a refinement process ... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Or it is tryring to be... Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Agree that the issue of risk as to universal acceptance should be disclosed in the guidebook. Jeff Neuman:I dont think so either. We can ask the UASG for that write-up Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):We can make that an AI then Jeff Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):to approach the UASG for possible text Jeff Neuman:@Cheryl - If others think that is a good idea Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Just we are likely to see several of the SG in the JNB meeting... Trang Nguyen:Section 2.1.4 of the AGB has the notice language RE: Universal Acceptance. It's too long to be copied and pasted here. Jeff Neuman:I would phrase it as a Supplement to the Applicant Guidebook to comprehensively cover the types of issues faced, potential solutions, and a description of the new ticketing system for UA Trang Nguyen:Sorry, Section 1.2.4 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Yes Trank we will ask the SG to look to that but that was pre their work... Jeff Neuman:@Trang - If I remember correctly, wasnt that more legalese as opposed to a layman's description Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Not enough time to consider whether or not we have objections since meaning of language is not clear. For example, Rubens says that grouping of "registry family" might affect speed of application processing. I am not at all sure that is a good idea as it will discourage new entrants in back-end registry operators so I guess I have to say I OBJECT. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sorry typo in your name Trang Trang Nguyen:@Jeff, it's not just legalese. It contains a description of the potential issues that can be encountered. Trang Nguyen:...but yes, there's legalese and disclaimers Jeff Neuman:@Trang - Yes, but we have learned so much since then, including perhaps developing an FAQ, and also to help applicants understand what they need to do Trang Nguyen:Agree Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Exactly Jeff Sarmad Hussain:Yes, take the AI Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@CHERYL - Could you please ask that all these slides be ciruclated to the list for comment right away before Johannesburg? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Certainly Anne Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thank you. Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):COMMENT: Language that talks about "country and/or territory names" has to bbe worked on and cross-referenced to whatever is worked out withs geo names. COMMENT Jeff Neuman:I would remove the references to country and/or territory names Jeff Neuman:We could say "provided that they are not otherwise prohibited and do not introduce confusion risks.... Jeff Neuman:Or at the beginning just say "Except as otherwise prohibited, Unicode Character..." Jeff Neuman:@Rubens - I am sure there will be a whole other section talking about country and territory names Jeff Neuman:we should not do it here Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):those CKJ characters are often defined as 'brush script' characters are they not Alan? Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):@CHERYL - It would be good to get these slides in a format that allows redlining of the proposed language. Jeff Neuman:Creates confusion to mention it here Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks Cheryl! It would be great to cut and past proposed language as you say! Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Thanks everyone. Rubens Kuhl:Many Cheryls speaking. ;-) Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC):Bye Jeff Neuman:@Cheryl - Thanks! Safe travels everyone Trang Nguyen:Bye everyone. Rubens Kuhl:See most of you in JNB, bye! Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye