Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Paul McGrady
22:53
Hi All!
Julie Bisland
23:00
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Ariel Liang
28:52
Row 31 is from IPC
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:40
also a rule in journalism put your lead up front
Cyntia King (USA)
31:01
No objection
Paul McGrady
31:04
Well done us!
Kathy Kleiman
31:09
:-)!
Griffin Barnett
31:14
I thought that was already the case, but if not no problem here
Kathy Kleiman
31:19
And tx to Cyntia for the discussion online!
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:58
Thank you, Griffin
Griffin Barnett
37:09
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
Susan.Payne
37:15
sorry to be late
Griffin Barnett
37:17
(Per their last bullet captured there)
Susan.Payne
37:23
overlapping calls
Julie Bisland
37:57
yes
Griffin Barnett
38:22
Zoom suggestion: Just speak…. We will let you know if we cannot hear you
Griffin Barnett
38:29
Sorry, pet peeve :)
Paul Tattersfield
38:37
:)
Griffin Barnett
39:04
Agree Phil - it almost seems ridiculous that we need this recommendation at all
Griffin Barnett
39:15
But to the extent we do, make it explicit
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:10
I was going to comment but it was covered by Phil and others
Griffin Barnett
40:23
Agree with Phil again… up to date contact info should already be required under ICANN contracts with Rr and Ry
Griffin Barnett
40:33
I also assume it is required under provider MOUs
Susan.Payne
41:30
agree with Phil too. Seems astonishing is Org is suggesting they don't have contact details for their CPs. How do they audit?
Griffin Barnett
42:13
If ICANN can’t contact a CP or Provider that’s grounds for compliance escalation and ultimately termination of accreditation without rectification
Griffin Barnett
42:20
Not just in the URS context
Paul McGrady
42:58
Interesting story Cyntia!
Cyntia King (USA)
43:32
@Griffin - No action taken by COmplaince. I was told to call the parent company.
Griffin Barnett
44:17
Compliance is notoriously lax
Griffin Barnett
44:24
It is a fundamental ICANN Org problem
Griffin Barnett
44:28
We have been harping on for years
Susan.Payne
45:56
Cyntia your experience is absolutely shocking
Griffin Barnett
46:13
I wish I could say I was shocked but Im not
Susan.Payne
46:19
skunk at the garden party - Love it!
Paul Tattersfield
49:00
Cyntia + 1 Agree It's not sensible use of time to kick everyhting down the line
Philip Corwin
49:10
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
Philip Corwin
49:58
Can Cyntia specifically state what language she would want us to convey to full WG?
Susan.Payne
50:08
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
Cyntia King (USA)
51:12
My comment to the orking group would be simple
Philip Corwin
52:04
No problem with what Cyntia just said
Griffin Barnett
52:07
I suspect that staff is capable of capturing our discussion and presenting something for our consideration
Griffin Barnett
52:15
As they have been doing with each of the other items
Ariel Liang
52:49
Yes, we are capturing it :)
Susan.Payne
53:40
sounds ok
David McAuley (Verisign)
53:42
Cyntia's comments here seem pertinent to URS Q3 as well - a related topic
Cyntia King (USA)
54:18
SOUNDS GOOD! Thenks for that @Zak
Philip Corwin
55:33
Only substance is in CPH answer
Griffin Barnett
56:01
It’s an interesting comment from CPH but not sure it rises to the level of having to make any change to recommendations?
Griffin Barnett
57:38
This is awfully implemntation-y
Cyntia King (USA)
57:53
This may be abrogated by the new rules coming out of EPDP
Julie Hedlund
58:09
hand up
Griffin Barnett
01:00:07
Agree, suggest we move on
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:37
hand up
Cyntia King (USA)
01:00:39
+1 @Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:01:20
This is actually in response to Q3c according to the categorization
Susan.Payne
01:01:37
right kathy, and that's the sum total of their input. Clearly they think this is a big issue - not
Griffin Barnett
01:02:04
They don’t even tell us how it was resolved by those who reported this apparent issue
Julie Hedlund
01:02:25
@Kathy: Policy Staff do not support the CPH. Inquiries to CPH should should come from the SG/WG
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:39
LOL small registry :-)
Julie Hedlund
01:02:53
This system actually worked well in SubPro from staff’s recollection
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:34
that's a great offer too!
Griffin Barnett
01:03:38
The same registrars that according to TUcows aren’t involved in the URS lol
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:42
nope
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:05
Thank you Zak
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:23
Griffin - who is we?
Griffin Barnett
01:13:11
@Kathy - not sure, which we I may have daid
Griffin Barnett
01:13:13
*said
Ariel Liang
01:13:30
Hand up
Ariel Liang
01:13:48
Staff have answer to Susan’s question
Paul Tattersfield
01:13:48
He's a pannelist I beleive
Ariel Liang
01:13:56
Hand up
Susan.Payne
01:14:49
so these are two different comments then
Julie Hedlund
01:14:52
Right
Julie Hedlund
01:15:07
Both from Forum and Richard Hill, but they are exactly the same
Ariel Liang
01:16:21
ADNDRC
Griffin Barnett
01:16:28
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?
Petter Rindforth
01:16:37
Exactly! It is more the parties that need some basic guidance with examples.
Griffin Barnett
01:16:41
I mean, apparently people think we do, but seems so weird to me
Zak Muscovitch
01:18:46
Please put up Question 4
Susan.Payne
01:18:54
rationale is a whole different recommendation
Cyntia King (USA)
01:18:57
Not you, @Griffin, the other folks involved in the process.
Griffin Barnett
01:19:18
Are “other folks” not capable of doing Internet research?
Griffin Barnett
01:19:42
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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:19:51
@Kathy - inserting rationale is not the question the Recommendation is addressing. Beg to differ that panelists are not experts.
Susan.Payne
01:20:25
Kathy, that's a different recommendation which we'll be coming to after this one
Cyntia King (USA)
01:21:07
@Griffin - "other folks" are many of the people who commented in support of this Recommendation. Cleaarly they feel a need.
Griffin Barnett
01:21:56
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
Ariel Liang
01:22:50
Staff checked the URS recommendations - We believe URS Rec 7 is concerning providers to include rationale in their determination.
Ariel Liang
01:22:53
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:05
Translations seems to be a big issue in 4d
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:55
- ALAC, GBOC, CPH, INTA
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:03
at least in UN language
Brian beckham
01:24:07
I can react briefly Zak
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:54
Are we continuing with URS Q4?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:25:01
lol "taken the bait"
Cyntia King (USA)
01:26:08
+1 @Phil - URS is slam dunk
Philip Corwin
01:30:11
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). ;-)
Griffin Barnett
01:31:04
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:16
Agreed!
Griffin Barnett
01:31:25
There, just prepared your educational materials lol
Julie Hedlund
01:31:49
Rec #6
Paul Tattersfield
01:32:09
Examiners do it get it wrong Griffin http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-December/004122.html
Griffin Barnett
01:32:20
THat’s what appeals are for
Griffin Barnett
01:32:36
No one is disputing that there are outlier exceptions where they get it wrong
Cyntia King (USA)
01:32:42
I believe the Recommendation moves forward as-is. The specific materials should be left to the IRT to decide.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:50
agree
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:55
I think we should add translation
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:27
@Zak: I don't think we can limit...
Philip Corwin
01:34:09
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.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:34:43
@Zak - I think we ask the working group to consider whether or not to issue guidelines to the IRT.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:36:55
I'm sorry, I don't remember that
Griffin Barnett
01:37:24
The language is already broader than that....
Ariel Liang
01:37:24
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."
Rebecca Tushnet
01:37:42
I would think that researchers/academics would cover that?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:38:27
Absolutely. I cannot recall specifically who raised the issue. Just wanted to be sure all previous comments were raised.
Griffin Barnett
01:40:05
All of the comments for Q4 should likely be captured for IRT
Griffin Barnett
01:40:19
These all seem to be implementation issues
Susan.Payne
01:41:53
+1 Griffin
Cyntia King (USA)
01:42:15
I believe the consensus is that ICANN pays, however, should not be heavily involved in the development of hte materials.
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:13
stakeholders writ large - including Providers and experts
Cyntia King (USA)
01:43:59
Are we on Q.4a?
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:41
Implementation guidance
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:57
but very specific
Susan.Payne
01:46:24
Don't think any of this modifies the recommendation Phil, agree
Griffin Barnett
01:46:31
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
Paul Tattersfield
01:46:38
Phil +1
Griffin Barnett
01:46:52
Helpline?
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:56
yes
Griffin Barnett
01:47:46
The IRt by definition is led by staff but with participation from anyone in the mss commuity
Philip Corwin
01:48:00
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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:48:14
The fial line of the BC's comment mentions a Helpline
Griffin Barnett
01:48:40
Thanks for pointing it out, was having trouble finding it
Susan.Payne
01:48:46
@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
Griffin Barnett
01:49:04
I have hard stop at 230
Griffin Barnett
01:49:09
So need to drop in a sec
Ariel Liang
01:49:17
@Griffin - also ICA made similarly comment about the helpline (row 36)
Griffin Barnett
01:49:24
Thanks!
Griffin Barnett
01:49:27
Need to drop all, bye
Julie Hedlund
01:49:29
Next meeting is in two weeks at the same time - next week’s meeting are full WG meetings
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:31
6 and 10?
Julie Hedlund
01:49:47
hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:49:54
Thanks Zak and staff, good meeting
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:01
Tx Zak!
Julie Bisland
01:50:11
Next call: Thursday, 02 July at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:50:17
Thanks, Zak!!!
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:18
Thnaks Zac, bye all
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:50:19
Thanks Zak