Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email and the MP3 recording below for the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call held on Monday, 06 June 2016 at 16:00 UTC. MP3: <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-16may16-en.mp3> <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-09may16-en.mp3http://au...> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06jun16-en.mp3 <http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-new-gtld-subsequent-06jun16-en.mp3> The recordings and transcriptions 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#nov> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/GhmOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle DeSmyter ------------------------------- Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday, 06 June 2016 Michelle DeSmyter: Dear All, Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG call on Monday, 6 June 2016 at 16:00 UTC. Steve Coates (Twitter):Apologies, someone "borrowed" my headset, so I'll be without a phone for the first part of the call. Philip Corwin:Hello all. Regrets but I shall have to exit this call after the first hour. Jim Prendergast:Same for me Susan Payne:hi Avri, you are very muffled Martin Sutton:muffled & echoey Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):audio needs to be better Paul McGrady:Hi all! Susan Payne:yes thanks Martin Sutton:thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):better Avri Doria:on community comment versus constitunecy comment, we just need to confirm what the PDP guidelines mention and perhaps add a note that tis comment period repsonds to that requirement. Mary Wong:@Steve, that is correct Avri Doria:i do support the change, was just being cautious Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Mary Wong:Thanks, Avri - basically the PDP Manual speaks to "statements from SG/Cs" and "input" from other SO/ACs. Avri Doria:ok, constiruency comment was the old terminology. thanks. Susan Payne:@Stave, yes that was what I had in mind thanks Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I see what you mean Greg VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Hi Greg Shatan:We need to avoid jargon and terms of art.... "ongoing mechanism" won't be understood by many who are "in" the process... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I agree Greg we do and avoid ambiguities where we cn Greg Shatan:Especially since there is no such thing as a "mechanism" that is not ongoing in some fashion, based on our jargon. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:The Process = Mechanism Susan Payne:I agree with Greg that "ongoing mechanism" might be misunderstood. Greg's suggestion seems a good one - but we could just define it as a term if it is used throughout if easier VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:this is a Metaphor Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Sounds like we need to deine the term VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:the WG, in My opinion is trying to change or bring about a change and define Something that is used in the ICANN WIDE documentation VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:The Foot Note is good VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:as the word Mechanism will remain relevant to the entire vanda SCARTEZINI:sorry to be so late. without connection till now VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:thats correct Grace Mutung'u:apologies for joining late. catching up Greg Shatan:It's not currently ongoing, based on the definition of ongoing as "in progress". I think it's an unfortunate term to use in this context. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:we should as the WG should only recomend a direction and not getinto an English Literature class Greg Shatan:Especially since one of the issues is whether the mechanism will be "periodic" or "ongoing." Greg Shatan:I will die in a dithc on this one. Greg Shatan:ditch. Steve Coates (Twitter):I like dithc better. Greg Shatan:If I'm confused once a week, that is not "ongoing." VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:we shud now do a time based approach on the mailing. With Suggestions. Later and Move on with the rest of the document. Greg Shatan:If I'm confused continuously, that is ongoing. Avri Doria:a periodic process is an ongoing process. the wheels on my bike for around with periodicity, but it is ongoing. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:ongoingˈɒnɡəʊɪŋ/adjectivecontinuing; still in progress."ongoing negotiations"synonyms: in progress, under way, going on, continuing, happening, occurring, taking place, proceeding, being done, being worked on, being performed, current, extant, existing, existent, progressing, advancing, evolving, growing, developing Greg Shatan:If your bike is stopped, the wheels are not ongoing. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Till the new Process starts, its ongoing Greg Shatan:It's ambigouous and confusing. Rubens Kuhl:Sometimes we need to sacrifice precise language in favor of commonly understable language. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:periodicˌpɪərɪˈɒdɪk/Submitadjective1.appearing or occurring at intervals."the periodic visits she made to her father"synonyms: regular, periodical, at fixed intervals, recurrent, recurring, repeated, cyclical, cyclic, seasona vanda SCARTEZINI:+ 1 Kuhl Steve Coates (Twitter):Not strong on this one either way. Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON:+1 Rubens Kristina Rosette (Amazon):I see Greg's point. I'd like to see the proposed definition that we're chatting about before making a decision one way or the other. Greg Shatan:Rubens, which one do you consider precise and which do you consider commonly understandable? Rubens Kuhl:I would change the text to "an at some point ongoing", but that would fit my personal taste for precision. Paul McGrady:"orderly, timely and predictable" is what was used before Greg Shatan:Agree let's not beat a dead horse.... Kristina Rosette (Amazon):Yes, it's Monday, but I'd appreciate it if we moved away from the death metaphors. Martin Sutton:Or remove 'Specification 13' for that category Alexander Schubert:test Alexander Schubert:There might be overlaps: E.G. a nonprofit, geo, community Paul McGrady:Challenge Policy Restricted Registry Avri Doria:may be a subtype of valaidated Paul McGrady:Challenge rather than validated. Greg Shatan:self-validated Avri Doria:the minor is not related to size Paul McGrady:Minor/major could change overnight with an XYZ-like sale though. Kristina Rosette (Amazon):"material" wouldn't be correct here, yes? Alexander Schubert:the number of registrations is completely irrelevant to the TLD's impact Greg Shatan:How about "Open TLD with self-validated restrictions"? Paul McGrady:+1 Alexander Jeff Neuman:Correct. I am sure the Registry Operators for .biz and .name would not want be happy with being called minor TLDs :) Steve Coates (Twitter):@paul and @kristina +1 +1 Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):Agree Greg Rubens Kuhl:non-legacy would include .biz, .info, .name. Kristina Rosette (Amazon):Have to drop because of conflicting meeting at top of the hour (and need internal transit time). I'll catch up with the end of the transcript. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye Avri Doria:thanks Kristina Paul McGrady:Apologies all, but I have to drop off due to a non-profit Board meeting a few blocks away. Avri Doria:thanks Paul Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):bye paul Alexander Schubert:maybe to cover the unknown issues there should be an appeals process! Richard Padilla:Hello all sorry for being late Steve Coates (Twitter):Welcome, Richard. Mary Wong:What about "such as"? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):e.g. is ok VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:The word Rounds is anyways being replaced ? Alexander Schubert:how do you know 100 applications belong to one entity? Steve Coates (Twitter):Vaibhav - I think we should be consistent with not using "rounds." Perhaps "Subsequent Procedures." Avri Doria:Indeed Alexander that is why the questions asks how one could do that. Alexander Schubert:just create 100 legal entities offshore - done Avri Doria:depdns on how the limit is written and subsequent evidence that such was done could cause issues. Greg Shatan:Look at the subject heading.... VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:@Steve u r Correct VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:@Steve I Agree Avri Doria:as you said earlier Vaibhav, we are writing this for the SOAC/SG/c not for open comment VAIBHAV AGGARWAL::-) VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Yes maam Alexander Schubert:there should be a bonus for those going public with their string UPFRONT! Alexander Schubert:You risk a lot by going public years upfront (like .music or .nyc) - that should be honored! Jeff Neuman:Sorry, not sure what happened to audio Jeff Neuman:But to clarify, I was not talking about a limit to the number of apps per string, but rather the limit being on the number of strings applied for Jeff Neuman:(Sorry for ending in a preposition) Avri Doria:Jeff, ( : Martin Sutton:Could we simply add 'and/or the total number of strings' within each of the questions? Greg Shatan:Revised heading for subject 6: Application limits during an application “round” -- either total applications or applications per applicant. Cecilia Smith:Will there be consideration on whether the applicant already has applied/been awared in the previous round? Alexander Schubert:what if the last round had been limited to 300 strings? how would we have sorted that out? VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:The Word "Round" is also was agreed to be not used- is it ? Greg Shatan:Would there be limits if there weren't rounds? Jeff Neuman:I think g should be moved up to before e Greg Shatan:I would not compare Avri to a background noise.... Avri Doria:i sometimes feel like background noise. Greg Shatan:number should be singular in 6.g. Greg Shatan:That's not why we're calling it aggregate.... Jeff Neuman:can change "entity" to "applicant". But then we should ask whether an "applicant" includes Affiliates Martin Sutton:An applicant can't be an individual Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):I thought we were shifting "aggregate" to Total Mary Wong:@Cheryl, yes Jeff Neuman:An applicant in the 2012 "round" could not be an individual (but in theory we can change that) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):thanks Mary thought I had dropped a stitch ;-) Martin Sutton:@jeff - true, could be changed Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):at 0312 local time quite possible to have missed a point of change of course ;-) Rubens Kuhl:@Jeff, @Martin: likely some applications came from jurisdictions where an individual can incorporate just by saying so without any public license, so that would probably level the field if allowed. Something to look at, when time comes in the PDP. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:@Greg I am not gonna die in a Ditch VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:PLease do not be Personal Steve Coates (Twitter):If one more person dies in a ditch, the crows will feast for days. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL::-) VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:I am gonna Tweet to you VAIBHAV AGGARWAL::-) Greg Shatan:If you have something to say, say it here. Jeff Neuman:That is why I suggested adding g to be before e Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):that works Jeff Avri Doria:sorry Jeff, i missed you saying it, apologies for repeating it it ass if i had thought of it. Jeff Neuman:No problem. Not sure what happened to my audio so I am resigned to using the chat Avri Doria:ah, though spurious double ssss Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:i can hear you Alexander Schubert 4:all fine Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):why not online? jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):Should be a pdf/word - yes Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):or optio bot Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):optio both Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):optioN jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):As for the GAC, I guess we would be answering with a letter Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO):yes Jorge thus options Steve Coates (Twitter):Probably not. VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:It could be good if we can wrk more on it and Get it made Objective VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Narrow Choices in some Sections VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Not all of course VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:and sections can have a "Remarks" Mary Wong:It will be a very long online questionnaire due to the length of this document Greg Shatan:Word doc in addition to PDF please, so we can prepare drafts in the document. Mary Wong:Consolidating all the responses if some are online and some are Word/PDF could also be more cumbersome. Jeff Neuman:Like the Guidebook, we can separate into sub fora, one for each section Greg Shatan:We need a tool that allows answers to be put in out of order, saved and edited again. Martin Sutton:Could we request that responses are concise and do not include endless attachments/links so that we only use the responses given to the specific questions Martin Sutton:would help with the review of responses VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:@Jeff Agree Mary Wong:Agree with Steve; esp as different groups seem to have different preferences for different tools and formats. Steve Coates (Twitter):Dropping off. Apologies. Greg Shatan:I would do 45. We have Helsinki to take into account. Jeff Neuman:As we will likely be working on the tracks, I do not believe giving the extra time would be disruptive of our schedule Mary Wong:Given the number of questions, staff recommends 45 over 35 days for the reasons Steve noted. Jeff Neuman:We will discuss Helsinki next week! Dietmar Lenden - Valideus Ltd:cheers all VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:thanks @Avri @Steve @Jeff Alexander Schubert:bye to all Rubens Kuhl:Congrats to the WG! Rubens Kuhl:Bye! VAIBHAV AGGARWAL:Bye All Sara Bockey:than you all jorge cancio (GAC Switzerland):thanks and bye! Christopher Niemi:Thanks. Richard Padilla:bye all Cecilia Smith:thank you Greg Shatan:Goodbye everybody! Freida Tallon:Thanks all Harold Arcos:thanks everyone, take care