Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
33:24
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC.
Maxim Alzoba
35:33
Hello All
Ariel Liang
35:59
URS Deliberations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#
Maxim Alzoba
40:26
the coin was properly tossed as an explanation :)
Paul Tattersfield
43:12
its clearly unacceptable Greg
David McAuley (Verisign)
43:26
Good point, Greg - I also support alternative #2
Georges Nahitchevansky
43:53
I prefer no 2 as well. There is no need for percentages. We all agree that there has to be a baseline rationale expressed and that is what we should be focused on. The percentages do not add anything. What we need to focus on is what woul dthe basile rationale criteria be
Georges Nahitchevansky
44:58
I meant "what would the basic rationale criteria be"
Maxim Alzoba
45:39
I have issues with audio
Maxim Alzoba
45:46
hearing Rebecca
Julie Bisland
45:53
it’s Rebecca’s line, unfortunately, Maxim
Cyntia King
46:20
Too much background noise
Maxim Alzoba
46:28
better
Susan Payne SCA
46:37
Rebecca the whole point is that you - a single WG member - determined what the standard should be without agreement of anyone else. There is a genuine dispute about the characterisation and coding you used
Greg Shatan
46:59
+1 Susan.
Kathy Kleiman
47:55
I prefer Brian's wording; it seems to reflect the data we collected.
Greg Shatan
47:57
This whole thing is about rationale, not recommendation.
Georges Nahitchevansky
48:04
Rebecc: I don't think we ever discussed your coding and the parameters would be. I think your people took a broader view on some of the decisions
Justine Chew
48:14
I think Option 2 suffices for WG's present purposes.
Steve Levy
48:21
There’s clearly a dispute around the accurate percentage. However, whether it’s 7% or 17% it’s neither de minimis nor very high so it seems that characterizing it as “several” or “some” seems like the best approach.
Kathy Kleiman
49:43
Is this Scott speaking?
Julie Bisland
49:47
Reminder to all: Rebecca is on phone/audio only (no access to zoom chat)
Paul Tattersfield
49:53
yes
Julie Hedlund
49:56
Yes, Scott Austin is speaking
Kathy Kleiman
50:04
Agree with Scott
Marie Pattullo
50:13
Agree with Steve. It's a low figure either way, and we don't know that the rationale was "bad", we just don't know what it was. Agree there should simply be a call for rationale to be provided in line with the rules.
Susan Payne SCA
50:40
@Scott - alternative 1 uses the term "non-compliant". I'm confused about whether you're supporting that or not
Susan Payne SCA
51:47
+1 Cyntia! exactly
Justine Chew
52:33
+1 Cyntia, hence I think Option 2 suffices for the WG's present purposes.
Julie Hedlund
53:10
Possible suggestion: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that ..”
Julie Hedlund
53:26
So a hybrid of option 1 and 2
Julie Hedlund
53:36
hand up from staff
Jason Schaeffer
54:21
+1 to Julie's suggestion.
Greg Shatan
55:10
+2 to Julie’s suggestion.
John McElwaine
55:29
Agree with Julie's language
John McElwaine
55:50
+1 to Phil. We need to move forward
Griffin Barnett
56:04
Couldn't agree more Phil
Georges Nahitchevansky
56:49
Fully agree Phil. This is a silly issue when we all agree on the overarching issue. Let's move on already
Justine Chew
57:22
Hybrid Option 3 from Julie is fine by me.
Cyntia King
58:01
I forgot to say it, but I want to thank @Kathy & her "crew" for crunching the numbers for our consideration..
David McAuley (Verisign)
58:09
Option 3 is ok by me as well
Steve Levy
58:14
I’m good with #3. Can we please move on now?
Paul Tattersfield
58:45
Scott +1
Cyntia King
58:57
I'm good w/ 3.
Susan Payne SCA
01:00:23
yep 3 is ok
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:00:24
I'm okay with 3
Greg Shatan
01:00:36
Let’s take the wins where we can find them!
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:22
it could be shortened to “legal or operational reasons” I think
Julie Hedlund
01:02:31
original
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:05
I had recommended talking more specifically about sanctions -- and I withdraw that suggestion in light of the discussion last week.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:44
I think we can live with it.
Griffin Barnett
01:10:33
Well the context says that there were allegations but no abuse has been found
Griffin Barnett
01:10:56
I think it's already pretty clear....
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:24
great!
Ariel Liang
01:11:25
I can add something to that effect
Griffin Barnett
01:11:47
no objection to the addition
Julie Hedlund
01:11:52
I have captured that language
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:11:57
no objection
Julie Hedlund
01:12:44
yes that’s it
Ariel Liang
01:12:45
correct
Julie Hedlund
01:12:57
hand up from staff
Ariel Liang
01:13:11
TMCH Deliberation — for one recommendation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTfuTrM/edit#heading=h.mz9vpjfti8ep
Cyntia King
01:14:04
Hi Mary!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:03
very helpful recollection/context, Mary, thank you
Mary Wong
01:18:47
That’s correct Phil
Julie Hedlund
01:18:50
yes
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:55
one clarification - are you suggesting we list certain charter questions (e.g. here in TMCH section) but not in other sections?
Julie Hedlund
01:19:18
The charter questions will be listed in a separate section of the report
Ariel Liang
01:19:21
Charter questions/answers are actually in a separate section, in an annex
Mary Wong
01:19:28
@David, no - we are proposing that all the Charter questions be listed according to the categories you divided them into.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:42
ok, thanks
Julie Hedlund
01:19:46
The agreed upon charter questions — the latter
Susan Payne SCA
01:20:36
ok
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:45
We have not had time to properly review this -- agreed!
Julie Hedlund
01:21:56
We have sent the link to 1) deliberations on recommendations 2) proposals for public comment
Julie Hedlund
01:22:11
in the agenda
Julie Hedlund
01:22:41
correct Mary
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:47
Tx Mary!
Ariel Liang
01:24:07
This “introduction” is repeated in all the deliberation sub-sections that you have seen
Julie Hedlund
01:24:26
The point is that this text really is applicable to all of the deliberations on the different RPMs.
Julie Hedlund
01:24:33
So it doesn’t need to be repeated.
Julie Hedlund
01:24:52
in each RPM (TMCH, etc.)
Zak Muscovitch
01:25:12
Can someone point me to the TM +50 Rule?
Mary Wong
01:25:29
@Zak, it is described in the context section on the next page.
Ariel Liang
01:25:38
hand up
Mary Wong
01:26:05
It is the ability for TM owners to submit up to 50 previously-abused domain name labels to the TMCH, if they have been found as such in either a UDRP or court proceeding.
Julie Hedlund
01:26:37
It may be clearer when we have the report put together
Griffin Barnett
01:29:25
Agree with Kathy - makes more syntactic sense to remove "Whether" from each of the 1-3 items
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:00
Great -- and I think it will require a little more wording change...
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:25
Agreed
Ariel Liang
01:30:34
Sounds good
Mary Wong
01:32:32
We can link to the rule/
Justine Chew
01:33:20
Apologies, I have to leave for another call, will catch up via the call recording.
Susan Payne SCA
01:33:20
shouldn't we have the links to the relevant rules at the beginning of the report anyway - for everything not just TMCH?
Mary Wong
01:34:08
@Susan and all - staff will go through the draft report when we put it all together and plan to add links where appropriate, esp where a rule/reference appears for the first time.
Ariel Liang
01:34:20
current
Cyntia King
01:34:28
correct would be appropriate
Susan Payne SCA
01:34:29
@Mary - great
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:32
correct
Griffin Barnett
01:34:49
Agree current doesn't really make sense in context here.. probably should say correct or appropriate
Mary Wong
01:34:58
@Phil, we retained the word “current” here b/c that was the WG agreement at the time; although we agree it should be correct
Ariel Liang
01:35:17
hand
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:31
correct seems more apt
Griffin Barnett
01:35:34
Yeah actually in thinking about it a bit more.... maybe we say "adequate"
Cyntia King
01:35:35
I think theis verbiage strikes the right balance.
Susan Payne SCA
01:36:26
no we cannot strike that text that doesn't have the ssame meaning
Susan Payne SCA
01:36:33
correct
Cyntia King
01:36:37
correct
Julie Hedlund
01:36:37
This may have been a typo
Ariel Liang
01:36:44
hand up
Julie Hedlund
01:36:47
We’ll replace current with correct
Julie Hedlund
01:37:15
Staff can’t raise our hands if we are hosts :-(
Cyntia King
01:38:06
proper also works
Ariel Liang
01:38:28
It is not the recommendation
Ariel Liang
01:38:32
it is the context of the recommendation
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:39:14
I heard Ariel to be talking of context as well
Julie Hedlund
01:39:19
It should be the same contextual language for TM Claims Recommendation #6 - no change to TMCH Rec #1
Cyntia King
01:39:20
Let's review this4 language in Rec 6 when we get there.
Cyntia King
01:39:42
You are correct, @Phil!
Scott Austin
01:40:04
@Phil +1 proper
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:40:44
As the electrician said: This is the proper current, correct?
Mary Wong
01:41:13
Sorry, typo
Julie Hedlund
01:41:25
We’ll fix it
Griffin Barnett
01:42:03
It's not a question though
Julie Hedlund
01:42:40
Correct Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:43:28
No I think the current sentence is correct, it's just a run-on
Mary Wong
01:44:32
@Griffin, yeah.
Susan Payne SCA
01:44:41
definitely don't think it makes sense with a period
Susan Payne SCA
01:45:11
in the manner Cyntia was suggesting. But I do think it's difficult to read
Ariel Liang
01:45:23
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo
Cyntia King
01:45:29
CK's Rule of Thumb: If you can't say the sentence in 1 breath, it should be 2 sentences. :)
Griffin Barnett
01:45:44
Yes but changes should not change the meaning either :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:45
I like the CK Rule :-)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:43
This latest link is asking me to log in, seems odd - the others haven't
Julie Hedlund
01:48:01
We’ll check the permissions David.
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:05
for me it is just You need permission
Ariel Liang
01:48:26
Fixed the permission
Ariel Liang
01:48:29
Please refresh
Mary Wong
01:48:30
@David, try it now
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:30
I can do it, Julie, just seems odd. I will follow in zoom
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:33
thanks
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:36
works now
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:55
thanks - works now
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:39
Should we call these "Individual TMCH Proposals"?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:50:49
agree with Phil - the proponent's rationale is theirs, not ours to recast
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:18
yes
Ariel Liang
01:51:28
Susan’s hand up
Ariel Liang
01:51:32
Never mind
Susan Payne SCA
01:51:40
we can come to me at the end please
Ariel Liang
01:51:53
noted Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:54:45
Apologies, need to drop off for another call
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:24
have to drop, bye all
Julie Hedlund
01:55:40
hand up from staff — and note that Susan has her hand up (she should go first)
Michael R. Graham
01:57:01
Sorry, have to drop.
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:39
Let's come back to this...
Paul Tattersfield
01:58:13
Susan +1
Cyntia King
01:58:15
Absolutely, come back to this w/ more time for discussion.
Scott Austin
01:58:24
Agree we need to come back to this.
Julie Hedlund
01:58:48
They are in a separate section
Paul Tattersfield
01:58:49
Susan +100
Marie Pattullo
01:59:15
Good point, Susan.
Ariel Liang
01:59:23
See Table of Content — is it in an entirely separate section
Scott Austin
01:59:30
@Susan +1
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:32
Tx for chairing, Phil!
Julie Bisland
01:59:40
Next call: Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Mary Wong
01:59:43
Note what Ariel has highlighted - separate section for Non-Recommendations, i.e Proposals.
Marie Pattullo
01:59:53
But it doesn't say "individual" proposals in the title.
Paul Tattersfield
01:59:57
It can't be in an intoructory section they neead to highlighed and headed clearly
Mary Wong
02:00:01
We will also likely be building a survey-type tool for the public comments that makes it clear as well.
Susan Payne SCA
02:00:17
@Ariel - thanks for that - it certainly helps but I'm still concerned
Susan Payne SCA
02:00:32
May be less concerned when it's all pulled together perhaps
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:00:37
I agree with SDusan, helpful but could be better
Ariel Liang
02:00:37
We will have introduction in the beginning of that section to clarify
Paul Tattersfield
02:00:41
thanks all bye
Ariel Liang
02:00:50
These are individual proposals not Wg recommendations
Georges Nahitchevansky
02:00:53
Bye everyone
Vaibhav Aggarwal
02:00:54
Thanks
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:00:54
thanks Julie and all