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

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit#heading=h.udqhr3c883uo

That’s correct Phil. Just the new paragraph in the context section.

This change is based on the WG’s discussion during the meeting on 24 Sept

The strikeout also is based on that discussion.

Isn't anyone uncomfortable saying this without digging in to the EPDP sections we are referencing? I am.

Hand up

I agree with Paul

@Kathy: This is the action item from the meeting on 24 Sept: CTION ITEM: Remove the two bullet points and put in a generic contextual language that the WG has reviewed the Wave 1 report and that the recommendation is not contradicting the Wave 1 recommendations; report at the next WG meeting.

So the agreement was to include the language in the context

hello all

#1 Paul -- Can we see the EPDP provisions being referenced so we can confirm?

I really don’t feel strongly. We are talking about context.

Note that the context language is not a mandate, it is just context.

The background section of the final report has noted the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations

These recommendations were noted in the Initial Report

+1 Paul

There is nothing binding about the contextual language

I think we did agree to bump this paragraph to Rec #2 immediately below.

and then have the discussion Paul indicates!

@Kathy: That is not the staff’s understanding based on the notes.

Paul +1

This rec is not JUST about translation, it’s also about providing the notice required under URS 4.2 and 4.3 which discusses using contacts in WHOS

4.2: Within 24 hours after receiving Notice of Lock from the Registry Operator, the URSProvider shall notify the Registrant of the Complaint (“Notice of Complaint”), sending ahard copy of the Notice of Complaint to the addresses listed in the Whois contactinformation, and providing an electronic copy of the Complaint, advising of the lockedstatus, as well as the potential effects if the Registrant fails to respond and defendURS-4against the Complaint. Notices must be clear and understandable to Registrants locatedglobally. The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory

Here is the Action Item from the 24 Sept meeting: URS Recommendation #2:ACTION ITEM: Move the paragraph from URS Recommendation #3. Remove the bullet point and put in the generic language identified for #3. Report at the next WG meeting.

Staff suggested alternative sentence is in the comment box

Here is the action item from the 24 Sept meeting for URS Rec #8: URS Recommendation #8:ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the language of the URS and suggest revised text; review during the next meeting.

Hand up

Staff hand up

Staff hand up

domain is locked, so registrar can not be changed

Ariel's suggested sentence looks good to me.

Lightening Round! :-)

@Phil: No.

@Kathy: The language reflects what is currently in the rules.

If the information needs to change bc the registrant has updated contact info its still the info of the original registrant

So doesn’t seem like an issue

the domain is locked, so the fields are the same

Ok - tx!

could we have the link to this doc?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit'

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit

tx!

12 months seems good for that

I like Phil's suggestion

leaves room for implementation

Im fine with letting the IRT decide what makes sense in terms of specific periodicity

But we should make clear that that is our intention

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit

Doesn't look controversial to me. Recommendation and Context looks fine to me.

No objections from me.

consensus is boring but I could get used to it. :)

No objections

LOL Lori ;-)

lol.

I think this one is good to go, too.

Looks good.

I said I could get to used it.

If Renee is OK with this, so am I.

I like effective

should not be both optional

I agree effective seems better

'and' might be better

no enforcement needed if it is effective

the concept of enforceability is already implicit in the wording “binds Examinerx"

I like the "and"

I like and

cooma ?

comma

Ultimately don’t feel strongly either way tbh

I want to agree twice in one call with Rebecca, so I also like "and"

I vote for effective. What doies enforceable mean exactly

“Effective, enforceable, and published”?

effective, enforceable, and published...

enforceable is explicit

I don't see an issue with "and". Effective and enforceable. Doesn't seem controversial

if "bind" implies enforceable, let's say it

next and is an issue

+1 Georges -- otherwise we are creating confusing statement as Brian described.

I think effective is sufficient - it's effective

Enforceable how and by whom and what implications are there

Presumably a party could complain to the DRP if they believe a panelist hasn’t properly adhered to COI policy

lowered hand

Can we leave it to the provider to enforce? Given providers discretion?

seems to be logical

Lori, I'm fine with having providers enforce, but they should be enforcing

Exactly - so no need to state it; it’s implicit already

+1 Zak. That is how I read it too.

I'm very sorry but I'm coming up on the next meeting. Fine with clarifying that "enforceable" refers to the provider

3 agreements!

@Rebecca - I agree. They should absolutely be enforcing.

enforceable = may enforce, not necessarily shall

Yes, I agree with Zak, enforceable by the providers.

So, to Maxi's point, "enforced by provider" not enforceable.

+1 Zak, Paul, Rebecca and Lori

ARiel, can add that bit at the end of the sentence (iof agreeable to WG)

Effective, enforceable and published

I am okay with enforceable by the provider

can we delete the word "can"?

While I like effective I could support enforcenable by provider

Okay with "enforceable by provier"

I would say "enforced" not "enforceable" -- take away the discretion which was to other people's point.

Oops -- "provider"

Agree with Kathy about "enforces"

+1 @Lory

I do not believe "enforces against Examiners" would be appropriate -- also only relates to those that are enforced, does not suggest or require that Providers have any enforceable Conflict of Interest policy.

What if the Provider hasn't had to enforce? Semantics are tough with this.

How about “reasonably enforces"

Maybe that opens other cans of worms lol

I'd return to simply "enforceable" and not all the additional language

That doesn’t solve the question of enforceable by whom though

Which was the original reason for trying to tease that out

The problem in the way this is now drafted is that it opens up the provider to potentially endless attacks. Someone will say there is a conflict and that the Provider didn't properly enforce. I think the issue is that the providers should have an effective policy that is enforceable and not a way to create litigation against providers based on this.

“take appropriate action”?

(Noting that I don’t think it’s necessary bc its implicit that providers would ensure adherence to their COI policy)

To me the entire concept of enforcement necessarily involves prosecutorial discretion by the Provider.

Sounds good to me Michael

Good, Michael.

I am satisfied with Michael’s siggestion

+1 Michael

@Zak -- trying

+1 Michael

sounds good

it looks like may or may not

sounds fine

Michael, you "unpretzled" us :)

Thanks.

now a pretzel stick

Using Michael’s suggested language gives discretion to the providers to enforce as they see fit (presumably reasonably)

@Georges -- I'd agree to that.

Georges +1

Agree with Griffin. Just a grammar "nit" Examiners who violate or Examiner who violates.

It's only paper if it isn't enforced by the Providers.

+1 Paul

Seems that “effective” and “enforceable” are assumed as they are essential elements of just having a policy.

+1 Paul -- agree.

not even a paper, some file on a website

Use a softer synonym of enforceable? “implementable”, “mandatory”? Just a thought

+1 Paul

+1 Zak agree as well -- we aren't saying what the enforcement should be, only that it be enforceable and therefore effective (we hope).

I am always ok with the use of the word reasonable Georges :)

That makes sense Phil.

Makes sense

It’s unfortunate we couldn’t agree on final wording here, but Phil’s suggestion seems fine

Fine with me

Frankly it seemed like we had general agreement on Michael’s option

With one exception

"shall have a published Conflict of Interest policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any examiner who violates such policy"

@Georges -- I'm afraid that language creates some real swampy issues "may reasonably" but we're not saying they should enforce it? I think "enforceable" alone would do the trick --

@Lori: That note is just a summary of WG discussion and will be deleted from the Final Report.

@Lori -- the idea is that we will remove this note.

Lol who reads the notes

(That is a joke btw)

We can delete it now

If it helps

I think we just delete it now, assuming that we will coalesce on final language

Actually, we are just asking WG members to review the 4 options. Not the rest of the text. But we can delete the text.

It is deleted.

let's strike and just look over the options

stike it

I would rather strike it.

I am now mourning the "boring".

Hand up

Staff hand up

Sorry - I have drop to take a call.

hand up

will have to drop in 8 min

As implementation guidance, the WG recommends that the IRT consider the following... seems fairly mild as guidance to IRT.

I think Brian and I agree

I have to say I am confused. Do we have a recommendation that the language of proceedings rules under URS should be the same as under UDRP?

That’s what this Rec on screen would do, and we had agreement before that this is what we wanted

I don’t see Rec 9 and the other one about language of proceedings as duplicative at all

Yep we have made the reference in the footnote 27 and 28

that's fair too...

+1 Zak

Tx Phil for chairing today!

Thanks Phil

thanks all

Thanks Phil and all, I look forward to seeing the items on list

Thank you Phil and staff and all

thanks Phil, bye all

Thanks