hard to join zoom today, at least for me

me too

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

Apologies, can you let me know what your experience was?

Just a long time trying to get in, Andrea, so I left and tried again and that was a little bettr, finally got in

Okay, thank you

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=208476973

Its just a pie chart with no middle

Or a Ring/Bundt Cake

yum, bundt cake LOL

Indeed - I like the bundt loo

*lol

a circle

Griffin, can you share a link to the form?

https://forms.icann.org/en/resources/compliance/registries/urs/form

Hard to find consensus for this recommendation with over 75% support?

I note that ICANN’s comments here cite to this as well

And there is a contract - the MOU

Not 75% --38% support as written, 25% support conceptually, and 9% want significant change

Sorry my math is bad… 63% either support as written or support with possible minor changes…

Are there new ideas or arguments not previously considered from the do not uspport/significant change required group?

That’s the standard for deviating right?

an MOU need not contain legally enforceable promises

I would note that the comments in the significant change category generally call for the elimination of the URS which is off topic

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

One non-support says its too vague, but again it is a policy rec and not intended to get into all the implementation details

And another non-support says that it is not within our purview to direct ICANN compliance actions, which seems just wrong

@Paul - mechanisms makes sense

The current language suggests a single mechanism; that's what might benefit from further development

MoU and the contracts need two different mechanisms

@Phil, I don't think the intent is that there's a single mechanism. t

They clearly have different roles and responsibilities. But if this is causing confusion then easily remedied

I believe teh comments support the Rec

Got it in the note

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

Good point Cyntia

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

Hand up

With respect to the BC comment, "universal supplemental rules" undermines the point of having such rules.

hand up

hand up from Ariel

And I also have another comment for Q2b

Squirrel!

hand up still

sorry

yes

@Brian, yes, there may not be any good justification for allowing providers to make up their own rules beyond certain basic mechanical issues

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.

maybe those statements are really just asking for uniform rules? which I think we already have

@Cynthia, for the UDRP at least (not sure what the URS corollary is) that is the RAA

Hand up

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

+1 Susan

+1 Susan

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

+1 Griffin

Seems that most of the work here is for implementation

Hand up

It is not clear whether additional compliance mechanisms are needed, or whether the existing ones should just be enforced.

(Sorry to type, listening to the COVID webinar on another screen)

+1 Brian

Brian +1

@Ariel, I would like my comment flagged.

for Rec 4 and/or Q2?

Hand up again

We can get it from the recording @Paul

Phil’s suggestions that is

Compliance for the Providers need to be separate mechanism from the contracted parties

@Ariel, I was responding to Paul's comment re Q2, but agree it applies to R4

I tend to agree with Brian and think we should send these along as discussed but not sure we can say 'everyone agrees'

@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.

@Cynthia, I would be very curious to hear how the RAA (in the UDRP context) is outside ICANN's purview

@Brian - Just reading ICANN's comments on Q4.

Thanks Griffin

Efficient sub group chairing !!!

I'm pepared to go onto the next item.

Thanks Paul T.!

nor have I looked at others

The next item is pretty simple.

Sub A plans to list planned topics plus the next one

intriguing

looks nice

:-)

Nice one @Paul, reminds me of Hands Across America ; )

can we have ladies-fit please

Will there be countervailing Sub Group A t-shirts?

It's funny because of the "B".

We can do that with a Google form

Staff will work on a form/survey to use

Maybe not “shortly” lol, but soon

do we all wear them for each call?

Nice offer, thank you Paul

Thanks for the great call, Paul and for the tshirt idea.

Thanks all

super, thaks Paul

Bye!

Thanks Paul , all

Thanks all!