Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Griffin Barnett
31:06
Apologies for not reacting sooner on this question, but I support Option 2
Cyntia King (USA)
31:31
I'm also fine w/ Pul Tattersfield's emailed suggestion.
Philip Corwin
33:38
I don't recall making a suggestion last week -- but, if she wishes to, I would like to hear from Renee who was not on last week's call
Ariel Liang
33:52
URS PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=872694278
Paul Tattersfield
34:21
Thanks Cyntia also I didn't see any other emails suggesting support for either options 1 or 2
Julie Hedlund
35:00
Emails were sent directly to staff and not copied to the list
Paul Tattersfield
35:21
so its not public! Julie this really isn't on
Cyntia King (USA)
36:24
Yes!
Philip Corwin
37:05
I saw Paul T's email, so presumed everyone in the subgroup saw it. It is this -- The default position is to publish the underlying respondent data, however:If the complainant is successful the panellist has the discretion to withhold publicationIf the respondent is successful the respondent may require publication to be withheld
Paul Tattersfield
37:05
very well said Rebecca
Philip Corwin
38:03
Agree with Paul M -- we never vote, we always seek consensus
Griffin Barnett
38:05
I could support Paul T’s suggestion, with the change that if respondent is successful the respondent may request that publication of their identifying info be redacted subject to the panelist’s discretion to hold otherwise
Susan.Payne
38:18
were we meant to be answering a question on the listserve/ I haven't seen anything from anyone?
Julie Hedlund
39:09
two option were sent by staff following the call
Julie Hedlund
39:18
three responses were received by staff
Julie Hedlund
39:25
options
Julie Hedlund
39:51
Lost Cynthia?
Julie Hedlund
39:59
Cyntia
Paul Tattersfield
40:22
I don't think this for staff to decide it is for working group members with staff supporting
Julie Hedlund
40:50
@Paul: This is not a staff decision, sorry if that isn’t clear.
Julie Hedlund
41:23
Staff simply sent the action item to the list with the two option and collected responses — the wording of the options came from the Co-Chairs.
Julie Hedlund
43:52
Paul’s: It is this -- The default position is to publish the underlying respondent data, however:If the complainant is successful the panellist has the discretion to withhold publicationIf the respondent is successful the respondent may require publication to be withheld
Cyntia King (USA)
45:12
I can support Pul's suggestion.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
45:16
I can imagine that some successful respondents would actually want their info published
Griffin Barnett
45:25
See my comments above in chat in reaction to Paul T;s suggestion
Rebecca Tushnet
45:47
One possibility would be to report to the WG that subgroup members had suggestions for what to do, including Paul's
Julie Hedlund
45:53
@Griffin — here it is: “I could support Paul T’s suggestion, with the change that if respondent is successful the respondent may request that publication of their identifying info be redacted subject to the panelist’s discretion to hold otherwise”
Cyntia King (USA)
46:16
+1 @Griffin
Susan.Payne
46:38
i could support paul's suggestion as tweaked by Griffin
Rebecca Tushnet
47:09
I have substantive things to say about that suggestion but I believe this should go o the WG for full discussion
Susan.Payne
47:42
so, this seems to be the same issue we were having in SubGroup A. Is it the role of the SubGroups to suggest a fix or just to identify an issue that the full WG has to take time to fully consider?
Griffin Barnett
49:24
Of course there is still justification to publish Respondent info even if they prevail
Kathy Kleiman
49:55
Registrants should not have to ask for nondisclosure.
Griffin Barnett
50:21
The proposal includes the ability of the panel to withhold that info from publication even without respondent intervention
Rebecca Tushnet
50:46
To be clear, I do support passing Paul's proposal on to the WG
Georges Nahitchevansky
50:49
The GDPR is only applicable to Europe and it is being treated as a universal law. Moreover, I believe that under GDPR court actions do not redact the names of the parties. why would it be different then for a URS
Georges Nahitchevansky
51:22
I agree with Paul's M's approach
Philip Corwin
52:13
IMHO, the subgroup can only identify issues needing full WG resolution, not resolve them -- otherwise we get bogged down
Paul Tattersfield
52:34
thank you for taking consideration of the matter Paul
Georges Nahitchevansky
52:39
yes
Kathy Kleiman
52:39
yes
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:41
yes
Griffin Barnett
52:45
Further to Georges’s point, the GDPR has express carve-outs for publication/disclosure of personal data in the context of a legal proceeding
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:48
I agree with Paul M and Phil and see that this will go to full WG, best outcome it seems
Philip Corwin
52:49
loud and clear, Zak
Griffin Barnett
54:11
Seems like pretty overwhelming support for Rec 2… I think we accept as is and move on
Georges Nahitchevansky
55:09
I agree that given the very large support we accept it and move to the next item
Philip Corwin
55:26
Do registrars ever have a role in forwarding the data for a URS? If not, that reference should go.
Griffin Barnett
56:37
I thought the Registrar is on the hook for the data if for some reason the registry fails to comply?
Philip Corwin
57:10
In that case, registrar should stay in
Griffin Barnett
58:03
As long as we are agreeing to keep in the reference to registrars here for the reasons stated I think we are good re Rec 2
Paul McGrady
58:16
Zak gets all the easy ones. :-)
Griffin Barnett
58:33
To each per their ability
Griffin Barnett
58:36
Haha jk Zak
Kathy Kleiman
59:05
I liked Zak's question seeking factual clarification first. Good question.
Griffin Barnett
59:45
Good point from Susan - might be worth making this clarification, if necessary to clarify something that may be implicit but not explicit in the process
Cyntia King (USA)
01:01:29
Go @Kathy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:44
handy advice
Griffin Barnett
01:01:58
Pretty sure Renee just answered Kathy;s question?
Griffin Barnett
01:02:17
Also this is explained, I believe, in the context for this Rec
Griffin Barnett
01:04:07
The point of the IPC comments is to make explicit the impact or not particularly written process that seems to be followed
Griffin Barnett
01:04:15
*implicit not impact
Griffin Barnett
01:04:40
I don’t think we have any problem with the process Renee stated, although again not clear that other providers do this, and might be helpful for it to be explicit and uniform
Susan.Payne
01:04:50
sounds ok
Griffin Barnett
01:04:53
Which seems to be the point of the Rec
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:58
Agreed
Petter Rindforth
01:05:07
Ok
Cyntia King (USA)
01:05:12
I'm fine w/ that
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:14
ok
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:05:27
(hand up)
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:45
I don’t think we have any problem with the process Renee stated, although again not clear that other providers do this, and might be helpful for it to be explicit and uniform
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:56
I think this makes sense (from comment above)
Julie Hedlund
01:06:06
@Zak: Staff has captured this in the analysis summary Google document that is being prepared for Sub Group review
Griffin Barnett
01:06:57
The data that is given is the data that is used, so not sure why it matters
Griffin Barnett
01:07:18
That’s a de facto proxy service....
Susan.Payne
01:07:35
no idea I'm afraid cyntia
Susan.Payne
01:07:53
registrar always has the info
Susan.Payne
01:08:09
as they has the direct relationship with the customer
Griffin Barnett
01:08:12
Would the data ever differ as between the registrar and registry? Don’t think that should happen
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:15
If we really want to, we can ask Tucows for followup
Griffin Barnett
01:08:51
Phil is correct as to the main purpose of this Rec
Philip Corwin
01:11:48
The next recommendation has to do with language of the respondent notice -- this one is about method of delivery
Griffin Barnett
01:12:30
Brian raises a good point… maybe we don’t need to over engineer this
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:34
good point
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:43
Agree with Griffin
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:49
and Brian
Brian Beckham
01:13:41
agree -- thankfully rare -- but a complicated issue when it does happen
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:20
Keep current language?
Griffin Barnett
01:14:43
Having considered Brian’s point, I think we can accept the rec as written and move on
Ariel Liang
01:16:24
Yes
Julie Hedlund
01:16:29
yes
Susan.Payne
01:18:50
yes
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:33
Susan is right, that is what 4.2 says
Zak Muscovitch
01:24:23
The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:56
Question for Renee: is there any issue here?
Griffin Barnett
01:24:56
Hi all, unfortunately I need to drop now for another call
Griffin Barnett
01:25:03
Will make sure to catch up on any action items on list
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:10
Good question, Kathy
Paul Tattersfield
01:27:29
India?
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:35
"the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory"
Cyntia King (USA)
01:29:59
Wait
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:02
simple correction is fine
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:30:17
It's a fair point, correction seems the right thing to do
Susan.Payne
01:30:42
indeed Cyntia
Susan.Payne
01:30:52
that was where I was abut to get to
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:56
India - Hindi, English, Bengali Telugu, Marathi
Cyntia King (USA)
01:33:12
Actually, our remit allows us to change the language of this Rec to reflect the public comments, many of which suggest we use language of the registration agreement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:21
I think we're good.
Brian Beckham
01:33:22
It seems there are substantial comments stating a preference for the language of the Registration Agreement
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:31
Cyntia +1
Philip Corwin
01:34:06
Many commenters suggested language of the registration agreement -- but as in almost all URS proceedings it is the registry providing the contact date, would it even know the language of the registration agreement? (the registrar would, but is that communicated?)
Susan.Payne
01:34:10
yes I think they do rise to that level
Susan.Payne
01:34:34
extensive comments
Brian Beckham
01:35:30
Did the ALAC provide a solution on how to figure that language out? Also, if someone has signed up to a contract, they can be charged with ability to read it in that language.
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:18
CPH says predominant language in registrant's country.
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:19
"translation of the predominant language of the Respondent" – doesn’t seem to actually make sense
Susan.Payne
01:42:49
and two of theyellow comments Kathy
Julie Hedlund
01:45:47
@Zak: We can capture the deliberations and present them to the WG (after review by the Sub Group)
Julie Hedlund
01:46:10
So summarizing the discussion today to provide to the WG (after review of the Sub Group)
Philip Corwin
01:46:14
I can't recall whether we previously discussed a change to language of the registration agreement -- that is, is it a new suggestion? Staff should check and report back.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:15
Phil's approach makes sense - the problem is the language in the Rec and suggesting clarification to the Rec makes sense to me
Julie Hedlund
01:46:31
@Phil: We can check
Ariel Liang
01:46:45
Hand up
Philip Corwin
01:47:02
@Julie--thanks
Susan.Payne
01:47:35
yes Cyntia
Ariel Liang
01:48:16
Staff just checked the summary notes when the WG deliberated on these URS recommendations. This recommendation is intended to reference section 4.2 (language of registrant’s country/territory)
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:17
3/4 of GNSO says no change
Paul McGrady
01:48:22
I take it back - Zak doesn't get the easy ones...
Susan.Payne
01:50:04
OK, I hope that we all recall these viewpoints when we get to considering Zak's IP
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:22
Agree with adopting it
Philip Corwin
01:52:01
But does the registry, which provides the registrant data, know what language the agreement between the registrar and registrant was in?
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:02
We've already heard that a) implementation is taking place today under current rules, and b) there may be unintended consequences.
Paul Tattersfield
01:52:08
suggest the change from the subgroup and let the working group decide
Cyntia King (USA)
01:52:48
Good question @Phil
Brian Beckham
01:52:55
I would like to hear from proponents of the "predominate language" how they proposed to asses this -- and how compliance would be assessed
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:32
Thanks Zak
Susan.Payne
01:53:40
thanks Zak and Paul
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:50
yes, and Paul
Cyntia King (USA)
01:54:05
Thanx, venerable Co-Chairs!
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:06
Tx Paul and Zak!
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:12
Thanks Zak & Paul. Bye all