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

I think it was last chance....

Vote "Yes" on Nobel if true

Glad to start our final leg of work!

Glad Council approved our final change request!

+1 @Cyntia

@Julie/Ariel, can you show the proposed ALP recommendation?

Tx!

It’s on the screen now

Sorry for joining late!

Sorry to be late. Client call went long

ditto

different meeting :)

@Phil: The request was made for staff to get information on feasibility before WG consideration.

As Ariel has said.

hand up

Understand the concerns but it seems that some timely comment to applicants is appropriate/good manners. Crickets seem unfair in such cases – how about urging some engagement, as appropriate

+1 David

can we discuss it with GDS?

was there comment besides the single one from CORE?

Just the one comment Brian

This is a SubPro issue

sub pro wanted us to do it

simply because subpro chose not to handle it is not necessarily determinative

@Paul T. I understand that SubPro didn't want it, but the issue is literally about how customer-friendly ICANN is with registries after contract signing.

It has to do with changes/adjustments of TMCH requirements - our balliwick

hand up

It has to do with the length of time and complexity of the ALP. TMCH is only incidental.

hand up

PS: I thought we weren't entertaining individual proposals at this time. Much was made of Small Team 2's proposal having to come from a small group and not an individual or group of individuals. What changed?

I was sorry to miss the GNSO Council meeting - it coincided with the start of a 3 hour class!

Its got to be Monday

@Phil: There was a Small Team

Several weeks

Zoom seems to have more audio issues of late, at least imo

So deadlines: Monday for revised proposal and WG discussion on Thursday next?

@Julie - yes on that timeframe

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

looks good

I agree the new context language seems acceptable

Ariel, what page is this?

It is on pp.10-11

thanks

Agree with Kathy and Rebecca. I'm not sure what GDPR has to do with translating.

On my reading the EPDP made suggestions but it is up to us.

my question is with respect to the 'which shall be provided' clause

Phil, yes! Thank you for clarifying

Note that all of this is non-binding contextual language

hand up

I got to get the ringtone, Phil!

I was hoping it was the ice cream truck.

Hand up from staff

@Phil: We should at least reference that the WG considered the Wave 1 report

hand up

Reference to the EPDP seems reasonable

Sounds fine to me...

Sounds reasonable

OK

thanks everyone

@Phil: Correct. Just let Ariel finish up.

Can I ask where this came from?

This is from the Wave 1 Report

And can we get a reminder of when the Wave 1 Report came out?

To clarify, the wave 1 report itself was published in Feb 2020

and the staff analysis of this what was circulated with the WG was first published on 19 August

sure Phil. I don't really see why it's necessary since the EPDP IRT has already been given this task. But I don't think it's worth arguing over

But ultimately I agree with Susan.

I like likely!

Why risk redundancy?

Is the EPDP Phase 1 IRT making these changes or the SubPro IRT?

or both?

Correction: why risk a policy conflict even when we *think* its redundant?

@Susan: The point of this discussion is for the WG to consider whether it agrees with this as a recommendation.

@Greg: That’s correct.

Hand up

Let's stuff it in implementation guidance and move on.

Agree about acronym point.

WHOIS is not an acronym and everyone uses it anyway.

hand up

@Julie, but why do we need to make the recommendation if the EPDP already made it and Council already passed it to the IRT? Seems like it's already dealt with so why do we need to?

PS: Let's all not lose sight of the fact that we have just solved the WHOIS problem after years of effort. :-) WHOIS is no more!

@Paul. Let's just stuff it...

hahahahha

Hand up

Could it be “We Have Ownership Information, Secretly”?

+1 Greg, elegant

+1 Greg. Love it.

very good Greg

Hooray!

apologies, due to issues with the calendar I missed the beginning of the call

UK spelling or an ancient grain

@Phil: That’s correct. It’s a typo. Should be spellt

Spelt is the past and past participle of spell

spelled

sorry

@Paul: You are correct.

Can we just say Quinoa? It tastes better than spelt.

I don't think we spoke to the issue

Should be uniform across all providers.

+1 Kathy. "Are" makes more sense than "and"

nice catch

typo. Thanks for catching

I really want to defend Spelt: See https://www.google.com/search?q=spelt&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS848US848&oq=spelt&aqs=chrome..69i57j46j0l6.932j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

agree with Kathy and Phil

Sounds good, Phil & Kathy!

understood, thx Phil

Good!

also good

Im fie with it

fine

I'm especially happy with the last Recommendation we discussed. Requiring that elements and reasoning be spelled out seems really basic, but if it wasn't being done, it was really important that we fixed it.

Should "considers in line 2 be "consider"?

Thanks Michael. We will check

it wasn't been done Paul M so it a good outcome

@Paul T just on a tiny number of cases. but agree with the recommendation

will be interested to see if hands up deal with language of no transfer to complainant or other registrar

Good point Michael, agree with that calrification

yep

Can’t we add an option for the complainant and respondent to negotiate a voluntary transfer of the suspended domain name before its expiration?

Kathy’s clarification seems reasonable as well

under current URS set of documents it is allowed to extend for 1 year

Steve in chat and Susan verbally make another good point

if they come to an agreement - URS is terminated

perhaps 'cannot be involuntarily transferred...'?

see termination

@Zak - yes, thanks!

I like “must not be involuntarily transferred..."

That's how I thought it worked, Phil

one minute - issue with mic

Can it be transferred by Court order? Or are we setting up the registrar to have to choose between defying a court or breaching its agreement with ICANN?

Maybe the language should bar transfer as a consequence of the URS ruling

Not sure "involuntarily" solves the problem...

David +1

Could agree with David's suggestion.

David +2

What about mutually agreed voluntary transfer?

david's suggestion works, yes to overcome the concern about what is involuntary

Steve, I think that may be a change from current practice which is not what we thought we were doing

15. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination

The court order could be based on an ACPA claim which is not precluded by a successful URS decision.

Finalize on Tuesday?

(a) If, before the Examiner’s Determination, the Parties agree on a settlement, the Examiner shall terminate the URS proceeding.(b) If, before the Examiner’s Determination is made, it becomes unnecessary or impossible to continue the URS proceeding for any reason, the Examiner shall terminate the proceeding, unless a Party13raises justifiable grounds for objection within a period of time to be determined by the Examiner.

locked

@Maxim - we are talking about a situation that arises after the examiner’s determination

+1 Brian

Understood. Just thought that registrants might be happy to be paid for a voluntary transfer of the domain after an adverse URS decision.

transfer should not happen

if domain is locked

Tx you for chairing, Phil!

The point is, Maxim, not to constrain a voluntary transfer or a transfer ordered by some other legal order

ok Maxim thanks.

Maxim is referring to 10.1, and I was referring to 10.2

We don't need to address court orders. The current rules don't interfere with those.

I was referring to 15

We shouldn't start making new provisions.

If that’s the case then fair enough

I think we just wanted to clarify

of Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules

Phil’s suggestion seems good to me

Good way to handle

I certainly don't want to make new provisions, I was just asking whether the proposed language might inadvertently do so - and I don't know the answer!

Sounds good Phil

this PDP might not survive third PCR

Thanks Phil, Ariel, Julie and all

I hope we do not have third

thanks all

thanks everyone

thnaks all bye

Have a great weekend All