Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Andrea Glandon
29:55
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Ariel Liang
31:19
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit#heading=h.udqhr3c883uo
Julie Hedlund
32:42
That’s correct Phil. Just the new paragraph in the context section.
Julie Hedlund
33:00
This change is based on the WG’s discussion during the meeting on 24 Sept
Julie Hedlund
33:17
The strikeout also is based on that discussion.
Paul McGrady
33:45
Isn't anyone uncomfortable saying this without digging in to the EPDP sections we are referencing? I am.
Ariel Liang
34:09
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
34:11
I agree with Paul
Julie Hedlund
34:23
@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.
Julie Hedlund
35:03
So the agreement was to include the language in the context
Maxim Alzoba
35:29
hello all
Michael R. Graham
35:38
#1 Paul -- Can we see the EPDP provisions being referenced so we can confirm?
Griffin Barnett
35:39
I really don’t feel strongly. We are talking about context.
Julie Hedlund
36:00
Note that the context language is not a mandate, it is just context.
Ariel Liang
36:05
The background section of the final report has noted the EPDP Phase 1 recommendations
Ariel Liang
36:25
These recommendations were noted in the Initial Report
Jay Chapman
36:37
+1 Paul
Julie Hedlund
36:46
There is nothing binding about the contextual language
Kathryn Kleiman
36:55
I think we did agree to bump this paragraph to Rec #2 immediately below.
Kathryn Kleiman
37:09
and then have the discussion Paul indicates!
Julie Hedlund
37:18
@Kathy: That is not the staff’s understanding based on the notes.
Paul Tattersfield
37:46
Paul +1
Griffin Barnett
39:12
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
Griffin Barnett
39:17
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
Julie Hedlund
41:24
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.
Ariel Liang
43:01
Staff suggested alternative sentence is in the comment box
Julie Hedlund
43:15
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.
Ariel Liang
43:17
Hand up
Ariel Liang
43:32
Staff hand up
Julie Hedlund
44:25
Staff hand up
Maxim Alzoba
45:14
domain is locked, so registrar can not be changed
Zak Muscovitch
47:31
Ariel's suggested sentence looks good to me.
Paul McGrady
48:31
Lightening Round! :-)
Julie Hedlund
49:26
@Phil: No.
Julie Hedlund
49:47
@Kathy: The language reflects what is currently in the rules.
Griffin Barnett
50:15
If the information needs to change bc the registrant has updated contact info its still the info of the original registrant
Griffin Barnett
50:19
So doesn’t seem like an issue
Maxim Alzoba
50:45
the domain is locked, so the fields are the same
Kathryn Kleiman
50:51
Ok - tx!
Kathryn Kleiman
52:26
could we have the link to this doc?
Ariel Liang
52:34
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit'
Ariel Liang
52:40
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit
Kathryn Kleiman
52:44
tx!
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:04
12 months seems good for that
Rebecca Tushnet
56:14
I like Phil's suggestion
Rebecca Tushnet
56:20
leaves room for implementation
Griffin Barnett
56:24
Im fine with letting the IRT decide what makes sense in terms of specific periodicity
Griffin Barnett
56:43
But we should make clear that that is our intention
Ariel Liang
57:57
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit
Zak Muscovitch
01:01:26
Doesn't look controversial to me. Recommendation and Context looks fine to me.
Zak Muscovitch
01:05:13
No objections from me.
Lori Schulman
01:06:29
consensus is boring but I could get used to it. :)
Lori Schulman
01:06:33
No objections
Julie Hedlund
01:06:45
LOL Lori ;-)
Zak Muscovitch
01:07:49
lol.
Zak Muscovitch
01:08:21
I think this one is good to go, too.
Renee Fossen
01:10:05
Looks good.
Lori Schulman
01:10:27
I said I could get to used it.
Lori Schulman
01:10:37
If Renee is OK with this, so am I.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:11:14
I like effective
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:34
should not be both optional
Griffin Barnett
01:11:37
I agree effective seems better
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:55
'and' might be better
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:05
no enforcement needed if it is effective
Griffin Barnett
01:12:08
the concept of enforceability is already implicit in the wording “binds Examinerx"
Kathryn Kleiman
01:12:13
I like the "and"
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:28
I like and
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:40
cooma ?
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:44
comma
Griffin Barnett
01:12:44
Ultimately don’t feel strongly either way tbh
Paul McGrady
01:12:51
I want to agree twice in one call with Rebecca, so I also like "and"
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:12:54
I vote for effective. What doies enforceable mean exactly
Julie Hedlund
01:12:57
“Effective, enforceable, and published”?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:13:01
effective, enforceable, and published...
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:01
enforceable is explicit
Zak Muscovitch
01:13:02
I don't see an issue with "and". Effective and enforceable. Doesn't seem controversial
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:11
if "bind" implies enforceable, let's say it
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:14
next and is an issue
Michael R. Graham
01:14:01
+1 Georges -- otherwise we are creating confusing statement as Brian described.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:08
I think effective is sufficient - it's effective
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:14:19
Enforceable how and by whom and what implications are there
Griffin Barnett
01:14:26
Presumably a party could complain to the DRP if they believe a panelist hasn’t properly adhered to COI policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:29
lowered hand
Lori Schulman
01:14:32
Can we leave it to the provider to enforce? Given providers discretion?
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:55
seems to be logical
Rebecca Tushnet
01:15:23
Lori, I'm fine with having providers enforce, but they should be enforcing
Griffin Barnett
01:15:42
Exactly - so no need to state it; it’s implicit already
Paul McGrady
01:15:58
+1 Zak. That is how I read it too.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:16:00
I'm very sorry but I'm coming up on the next meeting. Fine with clarifying that "enforceable" refers to the provider
Paul McGrady
01:16:21
3 agreements!
Lori Schulman
01:16:24
@Rebecca - I agree. They should absolutely be enforcing.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:25
enforceable = may enforce, not necessarily shall
Lori Schulman
01:16:35
Yes, I agree with Zak, enforceable by the providers.
Lori Schulman
01:17:00
So, to Maxi's point, "enforced by provider" not enforceable.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:17:13
+1 Zak, Paul, Rebecca and Lori
Zak Muscovitch
01:17:24
ARiel, can add that bit at the end of the sentence (iof agreeable to WG)
Paul Tattersfield
01:17:26
Effective, enforceable and published
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:17:40
I am okay with enforceable by the provider
Kathryn Kleiman
01:18:11
can we delete the word "can"?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:11
While I like effective I could support enforcenable by provider
Michael R. Graham
01:18:20
Okay with "enforceable by provier"
Lori Schulman
01:18:23
I would say "enforced" not "enforceable" -- take away the discretion which was to other people's point.
Michael R. Graham
01:18:30
Oops -- "provider"
Lori Schulman
01:18:51
Agree with Kathy about "enforces"
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:21
+1 @Lory
Michael R. Graham
01:20:06
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.
Michael R. Graham
01:21:11
What if the Provider hasn't had to enforce? Semantics are tough with this.
Griffin Barnett
01:22:48
How about “reasonably enforces"
Griffin Barnett
01:22:57
Maybe that opens other cans of worms lol
Michael R. Graham
01:23:14
I'd return to simply "enforceable" and not all the additional language
Griffin Barnett
01:23:32
That doesn’t solve the question of enforceable by whom though
Griffin Barnett
01:23:41
Which was the original reason for trying to tease that out
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:23:48
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.
Greg Shatan
01:24:00
“take appropriate action”?
Griffin Barnett
01:24:07
(Noting that I don’t think it’s necessary bc its implicit that providers would ensure adherence to their COI policy)
Zak Muscovitch
01:26:16
To me the entire concept of enforcement necessarily involves prosecutorial discretion by the Provider.
Zak Muscovitch
01:27:46
Sounds good to me Michael
Zak Muscovitch
01:28:29
Good, Michael.
Griffin Barnett
01:28:33
I am satisfied with Michael’s siggestion
Steve Levy
01:28:35
+1 Michael
Michael R. Graham
01:28:39
@Zak -- trying
Paul McGrady
01:28:39
+1 Michael
Kathryn Kleiman
01:28:53
sounds good
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:02
it looks like may or may not
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:29:09
sounds fine
Zak Muscovitch
01:29:10
Michael, you "unpretzled" us :)
Michael R. Graham
01:29:21
Thanks.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:29:40
now a pretzel stick
Griffin Barnett
01:30:38
Using Michael’s suggested language gives discretion to the providers to enforce as they see fit (presumably reasonably)
Michael R. Graham
01:31:19
@Georges -- I'd agree to that.
Paul Tattersfield
01:31:20
Georges +1
Lori Schulman
01:31:22
Agree with Griffin. Just a grammar "nit" Examiners who violate or Examiner who violates.
Paul McGrady
01:31:31
It's only paper if it isn't enforced by the Providers.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:31:49
+1 Paul
Steve Levy
01:31:56
Seems that “effective” and “enforceable” are assumed as they are essential elements of just having a policy.
Michael R. Graham
01:32:06
+1 Paul -- agree.
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:19
not even a paper, some file on a website
Ariel Liang
01:32:35
Use a softer synonym of enforceable? “implementable”, “mandatory”? Just a thought
Jay Chapman
01:32:37
+1 Paul
Michael R. Graham
01:32:37
+1 Zak agree as well -- we aren't saying what the enforcement should be, only that it be enforceable and therefore effective (we hope).
Zak Muscovitch
01:33:23
I am always ok with the use of the word reasonable Georges :)
Paul McGrady
01:33:53
That makes sense Phil.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:34:01
Makes sense
Griffin Barnett
01:34:09
It’s unfortunate we couldn’t agree on final wording here, but Phil’s suggestion seems fine
Zak Muscovitch
01:34:24
Fine with me
Griffin Barnett
01:34:25
Frankly it seemed like we had general agreement on Michael’s option
Griffin Barnett
01:34:31
With one exception
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:35:10
"shall have a published Conflict of Interest policy that the Provider may reasonably enforce against any examiner who violates such policy"
Michael R. Graham
01:37:22
@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 --
Julie Hedlund
01:37:32
@Lori: That note is just a summary of WG discussion and will be deleted from the Final Report.
Michael R. Graham
01:38:08
@Lori -- the idea is that we will remove this note.
Griffin Barnett
01:38:12
Lol who reads the notes
Griffin Barnett
01:38:18
(That is a joke btw)
Ariel Liang
01:38:20
We can delete it now
Ariel Liang
01:38:22
If it helps
Griffin Barnett
01:38:41
I think we just delete it now, assuming that we will coalesce on final language
Julie Hedlund
01:38:44
Actually, we are just asking WG members to review the 4 options. Not the rest of the text. But we can delete the text.
Julie Hedlund
01:38:50
It is deleted.
Paul McGrady
01:38:58
let's strike and just look over the options
Paul Tattersfield
01:39:00
stike it
Lori Schulman
01:39:01
I would rather strike it.
Lori Schulman
01:39:31
I am now mourning the "boring".
Ariel Liang
01:39:54
Hand up
Ariel Liang
01:40:29
Staff hand up
Renee Fossen
01:45:46
Sorry - I have drop to take a call.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:45:54
hand up
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:17
will have to drop in 8 min
Kathryn Kleiman
01:50:28
As implementation guidance, the WG recommends that the IRT consider the following... seems fairly mild as guidance to IRT.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:50:33
I think Brian and I agree
Griffin Barnett
01:51:10
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?
Griffin Barnett
01:51:29
That’s what this Rec on screen would do, and we had agreement before that this is what we wanted
Griffin Barnett
01:51:52
I don’t see Rec 9 and the other one about language of proceedings as duplicative at all
Ariel Liang
01:51:56
Yep we have made the reference in the footnote 27 and 28
Kathryn Kleiman
01:53:21
that's fair too...
Ankur Raheja
01:55:38
+1 Zak
Kathryn Kleiman
01:56:15
Tx Phil for chairing today!
Zak Muscovitch
01:56:42
Thanks Phil
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:52
thanks all
Griffin Barnett
01:56:59
Thanks Phil and all, I look forward to seeing the items on list
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:57:06
Thank you Phil and staff and all
Paul Tattersfield
01:57:11
thanks Phil, bye all
Michael R. Graham
01:57:14
Thanks