Hi All!

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Row 31 is from IPC

also a rule in journalism put your lead up front

No objection

Well done us!

:-)!

I thought that was already the case, but if not no problem here

And tx to Cyntia for the discussion online!

Thank you, Griffin

One further point: if ICANN is encountering issues with obtaining accurate and up to date data from CPs that seems like a clear basis for compliance action

sorry to be late

(Per their last bullet captured there)

overlapping calls

yes

Zoom suggestion: Just speak…. We will let you know if we cannot hear you

Sorry, pet peeve :)

:)

Agree Phil - it almost seems ridiculous that we need this recommendation at all

But to the extent we do, make it explicit

I was going to comment but it was covered by Phil and others

Agree with Phil again… up to date contact info should already be required under ICANN contracts with Rr and Ry

I also assume it is required under provider MOUs

agree with Phil too. Seems astonishing is Org is suggesting they don't have contact details for their CPs. How do they audit?

If ICANN can’t contact a CP or Provider that’s grounds for compliance escalation and ultimately termination of accreditation without rectification

Not just in the URS context

Interesting story Cyntia!

@Griffin - No action taken by COmplaince. I was told to call the parent company.

Compliance is notoriously lax

It is a fundamental ICANN Org problem

We have been harping on for years

Cyntia your experience is absolutely shocking

I wish I could say I was shocked but Im not

skunk at the garden party - Love it!

Cyntia + 1 Agree It's not sensible use of time to kick everyhting down the line

I have no problem with pointing out possible tweaks, so long as we are not sending up revised recommendation language -- don't want that precedent set

Can Cyntia specifically state what language she would want us to convey to full WG?

if we were to say anything it would be to encourage the full WG to tweak this to address Org's comment - but addressing Org's comment would not be to drop this recommendation it would be to require Org to keep this info. we made this recommendation, after all, because we became aware there was a problem here

My comment to the orking group would be simple

No problem with what Cyntia just said

I suspect that staff is capable of capturing our discussion and presenting something for our consideration

As they have been doing with each of the other items

Yes, we are capturing it :)

sounds ok

Cyntia's comments here seem pertinent to URS Q3 as well - a related topic

SOUNDS GOOD! Thenks for that @Zak

Only substance is in CPH answer

It’s an interesting comment from CPH but not sure it rises to the level of having to make any change to recommendations?

This is awfully implemntation-y

This may be abrogated by the new rules coming out of EPDP

hand up

Agree, suggest we move on

hand up

+1 @Susan

This is actually in response to Q3c according to the categorization

right kathy, and that's the sum total of their input. Clearly they think this is a big issue - not

They don’t even tell us how it was resolved by those who reported this apparent issue

@Kathy: Policy Staff do not support the CPH. Inquiries to CPH should should come from the SG/WG

LOL small registry :-)

This system actually worked well in SubPro from staff’s recollection

that's a great offer too!

The same registrars that according to TUcows aren’t involved in the URS lol

nope

Thank you Zak

Griffin - who is we?

@Kathy - not sure, which we I may have daid

*said

Hand up

Staff have answer to Susan’s question

He's a pannelist I beleive

Hand up

so these are two different comments then

Right

Both from Forum and Richard Hill, but they are exactly the same

ADNDRC

Cynthia - there’s a ton of resources out there as I mentioned discussing what a clear and convincing burden of proof means… do we really need a URS-specific document restating it?

Exactly! It is more the parties that need some basic guidance with examples.

I mean, apparently people think we do, but seems so weird to me

Please put up Question 4

rationale is a whole different recommendation

Not you, @Griffin, the other folks involved in the process.

Are “other folks” not capable of doing Internet research?

https://www.google.com/search?q=clear+and+convincing+evidence&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS767US767&oq=clear+and+convincing&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l6.2687j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

@Kathy - inserting rationale is not the question the Recommendation is addressing. Beg to differ that panelists are not experts.

Kathy, that's a different recommendation which we'll be coming to after this one

@Griffin - "other folks" are many of the people who commented in support of this Recommendation. Cleaarly they feel a need.

And just to be clear, I am not strongly opposed to this recommendation it just seems like a project of reinventing a wheel that already exists if people spend two seconds Googling

Staff checked the URS recommendations - We believe URS Rec 7 is concerning providers to include rationale in their determination.

URS Recommendation #7The Working Group recommends that all URS Providers require their examiners to documenttheir rationale in sufficient detail to explain how the decision was reached in all issuedDeterminations.As an implementation guidance, the Working Group also recommends that URS Providersprovide their examiners a uniform set of basic guidance for documenting their rationale for aDetermination. The purpose of the guidance is to ensure consistency and precision interminology and format as well as ensure that all steps in a proceeding are recorded. Suchguidance may take the form of an administrative checklist or template of minimum elementsthat need to be included for a Determination.

Translations seems to be a big issue in 4d

- ALAC, GBOC, CPH, INTA

at least in UN language

I can react briefly Zak

Are we continuing with URS Q4?

lol "taken the bait"

+1 @Phil - URS is slam dunk

Clear and convincing evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain is the same test as the characterization of pornography by Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart : "I know it when I see it" (Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964). ;-)

According to the Supreme Court in Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984), "clear and convincing” means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue; the fact finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable.OverviewThis is a medium level of burden of proof which is a more rigorous standard to meet than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but a less rigorous standard to meet than proving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to meet the standard and prove something by clear and convincing evidence, the party alleging the contention must prove that the contention is substantially more likely than not that it is true

Agreed!

There, just prepared your educational materials lol

Rec #6

Examiners do it get it wrong Griffin http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-December/004122.html

THat’s what appeals are for

No one is disputing that there are outlier exceptions where they get it wrong

I believe the Recommendation moves forward as-is. The specific materials should be left to the IRT to decide.

agree

I think we should add translation

@Zak: I don't think we can limit...

Answers to Q4 don't add much -- we should leave wiggle room to the IRT to develop appropriate materials a they see fit and not be too prescriptive, IMHO ---so leave Recommendation as is, agreed.

@Zak - I think we ask the working group to consider whether or not to issue guidelines to the IRT.

I'm sorry, I don't remember that

The language is already broader than that....

The contextual language for Rec 6 includes the following: “In addition, the Working Group recommends the educational materials be developed via thecollaboration of experienced parties in handling URS proceedings (i.e., Providers, Practitioners,Panelists) and researchers/academics who study URS decisions closely."

I would think that researchers/academics would cover that?

Absolutely. I cannot recall specifically who raised the issue. Just wanted to be sure all previous comments were raised.

All of the comments for Q4 should likely be captured for IRT

These all seem to be implementation issues

+1 Griffin

I believe the consensus is that ICANN pays, however, should not be heavily involved in the development of hte materials.

stakeholders writ large - including Providers and experts

Are we on Q.4a?

Implementation guidance

but very specific

Don't think any of this modifies the recommendation Phil, agree

I don’t think anyone has suggested that the Q4 responses necessitate any change to the Rec, and it seems there is general agreement to capture these responses as implementation info for the IRT

Phil +1

Helpline?

yes

The IRt by definition is led by staff but with participation from anyone in the mss commuity

Yes, some of the ideas in the answers could be noted in the Final Report as general IRT guidance, but they don't suggest any change in the language of Rec 6

The fial line of the BC's comment mentions a Helpline

Thanks for pointing it out, was having trouble finding it

@Georges, agree with your comment that the responses envisage very different thing, but this is only meant to be guidance on the burden of proof, wich is what the recommendation was. WIPO overview equivalent would be a totally different recommendation

I have hard stop at 230

So need to drop in a sec

@Griffin - also ICA made similarly comment about the helpline (row 36)

Thanks!

Need to drop all, bye

Next meeting is in two weeks at the same time - next week’s meeting are full WG meetings

6 and 10?

hand up

Thanks Zak and staff, good meeting

Tx Zak!

Next call: Thursday, 02 July at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thanks, Zak!!!

Thnaks Zac, bye all

Thanks Zak