Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:50
hard to join zoom today, at least for me
Kathy Kleiman
30:08
me too
Andrea Glandon
30:34
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Andrea Glandon
30:46
Apologies, can you let me know what your experience was?
David McAuley (Verisign)
31:40
Just a long time trying to get in, Andrea, so I left and tried again and that was a little bettr, finally got in
Andrea Glandon
31:50
Okay, thank you
Ariel Liang
35:28
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=208476973
Griffin Barnett
36:20
Its just a pie chart with no middle
Ariel Liang
37:03
Or a Ring/Bundt Cake
Julie Hedlund
37:17
yum, bundt cake LOL
Griffin Barnett
37:25
Indeed - I like the bundt loo
Griffin Barnett
37:28
*lol
Paul Tattersfield
37:40
a circle
Zak Muscovitch
40:46
Griffin, can you share a link to the form?
Griffin Barnett
40:57
https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/registries/urs/form
Griffin Barnett
41:23
Hard to find consensus for this recommendation with over 75% support?
Griffin Barnett
41:54
I note that ICANN’s comments here cite to this as well
Griffin Barnett
43:16
And there is a contract - the MOU
Philip Corwin
44:35
Not 75% --38% support as written, 25% support conceptually, and 9% want significant change
Griffin Barnett
45:15
Sorry my math is bad… 63% either support as written or support with possible minor changes…
Griffin Barnett
46:12
Are there new ideas or arguments not previously considered from the do not uspport/significant change required group?
Griffin Barnett
46:25
That’s the standard for deviating right?
Paul Tattersfield
47:22
an MOU need not contain legally enforceable promises
Griffin Barnett
47:23
I would note that the comments in the significant change category generally call for the elimination of the URS which is off topic
Griffin Barnett
48:06
I would note that those not in support have suggested generally that this may not be needed or may be a solution to a problem without sufficient evidence supporting a change, rather than opposition on substantive grounds
Griffin Barnett
48:35
One non-support says its too vague, but again it is a policy rec and not intended to get into all the implementation details
Griffin Barnett
49:00
And another non-support says that it is not within our purview to direct ICANN compliance actions, which seems just wrong
Susan.Payne
50:15
@Paul - mechanisms makes sense
Philip Corwin
51:12
The current language suggests a single mechanism; that's what might benefit from further development
Paul Tattersfield
51:13
MoU and the contracts need two different mechanisms
Susan.Payne
51:41
@Phil, I don't think the intent is that there's a single mechanism. t
Susan.Payne
52:07
They clearly have different roles and responsibilities. But if this is causing confusion then easily remedied
Cyntia King (USA)
53:13
I believe teh comments support the Rec
Ariel Liang
53:41
Got it in the note
Griffin Barnett
58:45
Oh, also meant to note that some comments here also seem to relate to the MOU issue and whether it is enforceable - I think we have answered this before in the affirmative
Griffin Barnett
59:06
Good point Cyntia
Ariel Liang
01:00:44
In the original contextual language for Q4, it has been noted that “Some Registries delayed in fulfilling or did not fulfill their obligations relating to locking, unlocking, and suspension of disputed domains; some URS Provider reported their non-compliance to ICANN.” Just FYI
Ariel Liang
01:01:00
Hand up
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:01:35
With respect to the BC comment, "universal supplemental rules" undermines the point of having such rules.
Ariel Liang
01:01:47
hand up
Julie Hedlund
01:01:55
hand up from Ariel
Ariel Liang
01:02:13
And I also have another comment for Q2b
Cyntia King (USA)
01:02:38
Squirrel!
Ariel Liang
01:02:58
hand up still
Ariel Liang
01:02:59
sorry
Ariel Liang
01:03:05
yes
Zak Muscovitch
01:03:17
@Brian, yes, there may not be any good justification for allowing providers to make up their own rules beyond certain basic mechanical issues
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:03:51
To the comment Ariel read out loud, we have seen this (failure to lock) in the UDRP context, and the compliance follow up could in our view be stronger.
Susan.Payne
01:04:25
maybe those statements are really just asking for uniform rules? which I think we already have
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:05:32
@Cynthia, for the UDRP at least (not sure what the URS corollary is) that is the RAA
Philip Corwin
01:07:24
Hand up
Susan.Payne
01:09:02
Agree people seem to be callin gfor enforceable contracts. We have previously discussed in the WG that the MOU IS enforceable. But the work of the WG identified areas where non-compliance did not seem to be acted upon by ICANN and hence Rec #4
Griffin Barnett
01:09:17
+1 Susan
Cyntia King (USA)
01:09:50
+1 Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:09:51
Seems like everyone agrees that we want accountability for all parties in the URS process, and that additional compliance mechanism(s) are needed, per Rec 4, to accomplish this
Cyntia King (USA)
01:10:03
+1 Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:11:16
Seems that most of the work here is for implementation
Ariel Liang
01:11:19
Hand up
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:11:24
It is not clear whether additional compliance mechanisms are needed, or whether the existing ones should just be enforced.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:11:41
(Sorry to type, listening to the COVID webinar on another screen)
Renee Fossen
01:11:48
+1 Brian
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:53
Brian +1
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:12:03
@Ariel, I would like my comment flagged.
Ariel Liang
01:12:24
for Rec 4 and/or Q2?
Ariel Liang
01:12:41
Hand up again
Julie Hedlund
01:12:42
We can get it from the recording @Paul
Julie Hedlund
01:13:10
Phil’s suggestions that is
Paul Tattersfield
01:13:11
Compliance for the Providers need to be separate mechanism from the contracted parties
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:13:16
@Ariel, I was responding to Paul's comment re Q2, but agree it applies to R4
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:29
I tend to agree with Brian and think we should send these along as discussed but not sure we can say 'everyone agrees'
Cyntia King (USA)
01:13:32
@Brian - several comments show the belief that the current mechanisms aren't sufficient. As well, ICANN believes such compliance enforcement is outside their purview. So, we we need to recommendation.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:15:20
@Cynthia, I would be very curious to hear how the RAA (in the UDRP context) is outside ICANN's purview
Cyntia King (USA)
01:16:04
@Brian - Just reading ICANN's comments on Q4.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:16:29
Thanks Griffin
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:17
Efficient sub group chairing !!!
Cyntia King (USA)
01:18:24
I'm pepared to go onto the next item.
Paul McGrady
01:18:30
Thanks Paul T.!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:44
nor have I looked at others
Cyntia King (USA)
01:19:16
The next item is pretty simple.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:26
Sub A plans to list planned topics plus the next one
Susan.Payne
01:21:01
intriguing
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:21:37
looks nice
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:38
:-)
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:22:45
Nice one @Paul, reminds me of Hands Across America ; )
Susan.Payne
01:22:45
can we have ladies-fit please
Griffin Barnett
01:22:55
Will there be countervailing Sub Group A t-shirts?
Renee Fossen
01:23:02
It's funny because of the "B".
Julie Hedlund
01:23:14
We can do that with a Google form
Julie Hedlund
01:23:31
Staff will work on a form/survey to use
Julie Hedlund
01:23:50
Maybe not “shortly” lol, but soon
Susan.Payne
01:24:01
do we all wear them for each call?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:09
Nice offer, thank you Paul
Zak Muscovitch
01:24:17
Thanks for the great call, Paul and for the tshirt idea.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:21
Thanks all
Susan.Payne
01:24:25
super, thaks Paul
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:28
Bye!
Paul Tattersfield
01:24:29
Thanks Paul , all
Ariel Liang
01:24:32
Thanks all!