Congrats Brian!!! :)

awesome - congrats Brian

Congratulations Brian and family!

congratulation Brian!!

congratulations Brian!!

thx so much!

Contrulations Brian!

fun new world ;)

Congratulations!

Congratulations Brian

I agree that MOUs can be enforceable depending on their terms - most that I have seen have been contracts

I believe that this is a solution without a problem.

I support Phil's suggested approach to this proposal and language.

@Zak--thank you

makes sense to me

hand up

with the clause I read about termination, this proposal seems not to have accounted for that

Agree with Susan. We need to decide what the WG wants to do and do it. Not keep kicking cans down the line.

What is the other proposal being referenced?

The idea is to see if the WG supports a proposal becoming a recommendation

then the recommendation would go to a consensus call

The third option is to not make this a recommendation for consensus call

It is a new hand

I prefer Phil’s suggestion be put forth

I prefer Phil's too

which public comment is Phil’s suggestion reacting to?

I agree with Zak and Phil

This is staff’s rough note on Phil’s proposal

All current/future Providers should be brought under a formal fix term contract with ICANN, and ICANN is required to review performance during that term prior to making decision on extension/renewal of the contract

agree with Paul — it is not clear which public comment (of non support) this revised proposal reacts to

My suggested modification, in a personal capacity -- All current/future Providers should be brought under a formal fix term agreement with ICANN, with ICANN is required to review performance during that term prior to making a decision on extension/renewal of the contract.

+1 on the doughnut - completely agree, Susan.

The key difference is substituting agreement for contract

I think one of the big takeaways from this PDP is not to carry forward the idea of "individual proposals." I know we were well-meaning when we went down this path, but it caused a lot of actual time and work.

agreed — this weighting problem has plagued ICANN policy work for years

What does move forward mean?

Brian's hand is up?

valid points by Susan and Brian but I agree with Kathy on moving this forward

Object to discussing 4 and 5 now. that new wording got circulated just before this call. we haven't even had time to review that email

Still confused. Sorry.

INTA is solidly against this proposal.

Let' vote it down now.

What are we actually voting on though?

proposed version

Thanks.

Phil’s proposal would be put forward for a recommendation on a Consensus Call, if that’s the WG decision now

Or the WG can decide that there isn’t support for any recommendation for a Consensus Call

I would argue there is not based on the responses.

I don't think there is support to make this a recommendation that there wil be a consensus call on

"Revisiting" creates duplicative work.

hand up

Who is supporting this? I've not heard anyone speak up for it substantively. Why would this be a recommendation for consensus call?

I'm trying to wrap my head around what criteria ICANN could use to "review" performance too. Really not sure of the practical roll-out/impact.

@Lori +1

this proposal is predicated on the mistaken assumption that MOU not enforceable and on there being no ability for ICANN to terminate for failure to comply

Do not support.

So as Lori said before - solution without a problem.

agree with Susan, as I have put that termination clause into the record

Agree with Susan. We are complicating an issue where there should be simplicity. If split then no consensus to move forwad.

The original agreement between ICANN and Dept of Commerce was an MOU.

No consensus that I can see.

I agree with Susan, this is based on a mistaken assumption regarding MOUs.

Who supports it?

Right Zak.

Agree with Zak. Why set it up for failure?

Agree, Zak

agree Zak - fair process is important

Based upon this discussion, it appears that there is not consensus among WG members on this call that the URS agreement should become fixed term rather open-ended

Agree with Zak that the GNSO's usual consensus measurements apply to everyone.

Well said Zak,

while I supported Phil's attempt I also think that after this discussion Zak has correctly summarized it

Ariel :-)

Objection to discussing this now

We need more time as Susan says.

No. Susan is correct.

And if there are changes, I would want time to take it back to INTA members.

Agree with Susan -- we need time to consider language. Pushing forward is disrespectful of the process and participants.

to be clear, I may wholeheartedly support this new version - I have no idea

Apologies but I was in transit. so haven't been able to read it either.

Next call please

hold it for next meeting

Can we start next time with "is consensus possible?"

Thanks Kathy and noted

+1 Rebecca

A munchkin??

One question to the proponents of the compromise solution on TMCH individual proposals 4 and 5: could the ancillary database for GIs be compulsory (in the sense that if right holders wish to register a GI, they would be able to do so in a separate database) rather than voluntary? This might help to reach consensus

No--the ancillary databases are voluntary; I don't think that can go anywhere

It would be a completely new mandate

Making me hungry Phil. Munchkin is a registered mark BTW.

It is? What class, Scott?

Thanks and noted

Thanks Rebecca - as such we cannot support the compromise solution, I will mention it in the next call

I’m on the phone, just joined - had a conflict

Did NCSG provide a source for the statement that the TMCH was written to be an open database?

Statements that "TMCH was intended to be open" represent positions taken prior to negotiations of the current closed form of TMCH database -- not general intent.

I believe . . .

+1, Michael.

+1 Michael

@Marie -- excellent points regarding individual vs. organization comments and weighting.

We discussed open TMCH database at great length within the WG, and unless opinions have shifted I don't think there is any possibility of consensus on that

INTA has 7000 members; 30,000 volunteers

@ Marie 30 for Doughnut holes. (in use since '72!) many other classes for goods/services from infant formula to clothing to card games.

Agree. No possible consensus.

Very good point, @Susan

Yes, opposition is entirely substantive.

suggest we move on and not put this forward

Marie speaks for AIM. I speak for INTA.

@Brian +1

Good point @Marie

Agree @BrianBeckham

Shows how troubling relying on the donut is

Agree. This had major discussions and no consensus. It should not move forward. That's what's wrong with the individual proposals, they just open the doors to more argument after they have been argued by full working groups.

+1 Susan.

@Cyntia, this was Marie, being far more persuasive than I would be :)

Thanks Susan - I was just searching for your comment ;-)

Tens of millions of registrants, yep

Registrants include brands.

who hold millions of domains

I didn't say "random", Zak.

@Zak -- I would disagree that these orgs speak for registrants who have no means of expressing their opinions to these orgs -- unlike INTA and other organizations.

Isn't the ALAC supposed to represent registrants? Is there an ALAC member on this call?

And every single one of my members has multiple registrations.

Agree, Zak

@Paul -- excellent point

@Paul - absoilutely not re ALAC. They represent "end users", not registrants and they will definitely tell you that.

I'm on phone audio

Agree that there are many individual registrants and they have concerns but the TMCH issues are focused business related aspects of running the RPMs. As Marie pointed out, individuals can retrieve TM data from national registries for free.

He is unmuted

i might have said random earlier and I apologise for offence Zak. It's a frustration however that we are focussing on donuts as if they are meaningful, in the way that in the past there was always a perception (possibly not fairly) that comments got put into two piles and the tallest one won

I agree with Zac and Kathy that all of the commenter's point of views matter and we can't be in the business of counting heads. Even so, I don't see strong consensus here on the substance.

I agree with Kathy's assessment

the complexities of the form likely deterred a lot of individual comments especially people who only wanted to comment on a limited set of issues - Very bad - there should be an email mechanism for people to send in unstructured comments for ALL future ICANN comment periods

No of course it isn't Jason - I fully agree - but if I asked all of my members to put in individual, and individual staff, comments that would be rather unfair weighting, surely? (Which I didn't, for clarity!).

Yes, and the associations represent many individuals and entities and they are not 1 on 1 equivalent to an individual user in terms of the weight of a comment. Agree that the math doesn't work. I wish it did. But it doesn't.

Agree, with Paul M and Paul T. The complexities of the public comment tool really needs to be reconsidered (I hope that discussion has happened or will be happening)

Good point Lori

Yes, our members join so that we may represent them.

@Cyntia +1

do not favor

do not favor

@Paul Tattersfield - I agree that the comment mechanism should be made easier s that more entities - individuals or otherwise - can weigh in. I see a new PDP in your future.....

Agree. On matters of the secondary market, ICA should have a certain amount of deference. They are the experts.

it’s the ideas and concepts that matter not the numbers

The donut suggests weighting. That's why we have to look at it carefully and see who is supplying the responses.

agree Lori - its process shaping

Exactly Lori - it's misrepresentative.

small business registrants may be more at risk of business failure from a single round of domain name abuse than public companies even though they have to spend millions more overall dollars defending a national or international reputation.

After 4+ years on this WG and after many more years of history of various ICANN WGs I’m rather despondent that we’re still discussing basic procedural issues. Have these matters never been resolved in prior ICANN experience?

+1 @Zak - I believe every person in this group take seriously their responsibility to make the best decisions we can for the community et al.

I also agree with Zak that we should be working for the whole community and for something that will actually work/improve matter for all.

@jason, whole of the contracted party house also opposed

@Jason - I blieve accountability can be obtained without releasing the data to the public.

I agree with Zak and Cyntia, that this should about persuasive debate and a shared interest in a larger ecosystem.

With respect Jason, we did flesh it out. At length, And agree with Cynthia.

and this is the working group. that's what we're doing

My learning for today - thanks Scott! - is that doughnut holes exist as a *thing*. Every day's a school day.

Three interesting general comments today – try to simplify comment tool, try to avoid - or at least create useful disclaimer on - ‘weighting’ graphics, and individual proposals may be too complicating a factor to use again. Maybe we could comment on these points as administrative side notes in our final report or at least consider these points when we move to Phase II.

Overarching Qs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=339265607

@Phil - well and the TM-PDDRP

David +1

Tks.

+1 Phil

I do question the utility of asking this question at the end of the process. :-)

@ David we need a much more efficient process that removes unviable issues before they go to public comment

could we just start with this fresh next time rather than with 2 mins to go?

@ Paul +1

no

Thanks Kathy, staff, and all

one minute

Next call:Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thank you Kathy and all!

Thanks everyone

thanks kathy all bye

Bye!