Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Andrea Glandon
29:02
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Kathryn Kleiman
29:32
Our meetings next week are back-to-back on Tuesday - in Hamburg time.
Ariel Liang
31:29
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit
michaelrgraham
32:23
I still think “enforceable”is better since “effective” would be a subjective measure.
Brian beckham
32:54
I would propose to stop at “that” as it is completely redundant
Lori Schulman
33:24
Agree with Michael. I would delete effective. That's totally subjective.
Kathryn Kleiman
34:04
I like both.
Lori Schulman
34:18
I don't care about A or B version but I do not support the word "effective".
michaelrgraham
34:23
@Brian — Agree — drop the text after second “that”
michaelrgraham
34:38
@Brian — Agree — drop the text after second “that”
Kathryn Kleiman
34:39
agree with Phil
Griffin Barnett
34:45
I prefer Option A
David McAuley (Verisign)
34:58
I also like option A
michaelrgraham
35:02
Otherwise, and regardless — Option A
Brian beckham
35:02
that was what I sent on the list that was supported (dripping at “that”)
Maxim Alzoba
35:06
effective = somehow measured and later regarded as good, so it does not work before something happen
Rebecca Tushnet
35:11
I'm fine with A
Kathryn Kleiman
35:20
Good by me
Paul Tattersfield
35:21
A
Zak Muscovitch
35:22
A is fine with me too
michaelrgraham
35:24
@Maxim — Agree as to "effective"
Lori Schulman
35:26
As I am agnostic, A is OK. :)
Maxim Alzoba
35:27
A is slightly better
Steve Levy
35:40
+1 for A
Susan.Payne
35:45
A - seems fine
Maxim Alzoba
35:52
toss a coin?
Justine Chew
36:00
Yes to A
Griffin Barnett
37:10
Yes that was the reason for including it
Griffin Barnett
37:54
I agree that it’s implied without the added part that the policy is enforceable, but the latter part is intended to confirm that it is the Provider specifically who would enforce (as opposed to ICANN or something else)
Kathryn Kleiman
39:06
Can we see URS Rec #9 too?
Julie Hedlund
39:14
See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qjiKBaAAMNPctSIwP932OKT6vrgkFXxdVYVf6DAz2no/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
39:29
@Kathy: #9 and Proposal #34 are combined.
Kathryn Kleiman
40:05
No, they're not
Kathryn Kleiman
40:11
(sorry, but true)
Griffin Barnett
40:48
I thought we had reached agreement last meeting to go ahead with the combined 9 and 34 and were just working on refinements to the language to be included
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:08
I think 'may not' is also prohibitive in this context
Julie Hedlund
41:12
@Kathy: This was the action item from the last meeting: ACTION ITEM: Staff will revise the language of the combined Recommendation #9 and converted URS Individual Proposal #34 based on the WG discussion during the meeting on 06 October and circulate it to the WG list for review; staff also will consult with Renee Fossum from FORUM.
Julie Hedlund
41:41
@Griffin: That is the staff’s understanding.
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:59
but 'must' and 'should' would also work
Ariel Liang
42:32
Comments form Renee: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-October/004574.html
Griffin Barnett
44:08
This is NOT supplanting Rec 9… Rec 9 is being folded into this proposal which has achieved overwhelming support
Julie Hedlund
44:22
@Griffin: Yes, that was the intent of the WG.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
44:47
I would strike the 4th and 5th bullets -- again, these languages are likely to have nothing to do with the registrant / registration agreement (e.g., if someone from China registers a ".com" DN, they may very well use a Chinese RA, and the location of Verisign is not helpful, and only risks adding confusion); put another way, the URS itself and the Recommendation Kathy is speaking about risk confusing the parties and panel and harming due process
Julie Hedlund
45:52
@Kathy: The WG agreed at the last meeting to combine Rec #9 with Individual Proposal #34.
Kathryn Kleiman
46:25
Only if we found out that Indivd Proposal #34 made any sense... which it does not.
Julie Hedlund
46:49
The WG agreed in its discussions that the two recommendation are complimentary
Julie Hedlund
46:59
*complementary
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
48:41
as far as a provider not inquiring, frankly, this is administratively convenient, and does nothing to assist due process
Griffin Barnett
48:48
Nobody is doing this bc we are proposing a new standard.......
Griffin Barnett
49:04
We discussed this at length last meeting
Kathryn Kleiman
50:17
And why are we imposing it.
Kathryn Kleiman
50:28
Not something I think that we bargained for in a "individual proposal.:
Griffin Barnett
51:04
If the complainant identifies the language of proceeding in its submission would the panelist not be able to rely on that, subject to its discretion to find that another language should be used?
John McElwaine
51:21
That is how it is done with a UDRP
Griffin Barnett
52:08
Could the provider not check the registrar website to see the agreement as identified by the Complainant to confirm?
Griffin Barnett
53:15
If the Provider needs to verify the language with the Registrar, then so be it, frankly doesn’t seem like a problem since they would be verifying registrant identity details anyway
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
54:24
shouldn't the IRT guidance be to the Examiner, not the provider?
Griffin Barnett
54:37
I think it is...
Griffin Barnett
54:54
I think the draft uses the term Panel but perhaps it should say examiner
Kathryn Kleiman
55:01
Can Staff show us agreed URS Rec #9?
Ariel Liang
55:25
Showing URS Rec 9 on screen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit#
David McAuley (Verisign)
55:34
+1 @ Phil
Kathryn Kleiman
55:58
Tx Ariel. Reviewed and accepted, right?
Julie Hedlund
56:52
@Kathy: The WG reviewed and accepted the language for #9 and also found in that discussion that it was not inconsistent with Individual Proposal #34.
Julie Hedlund
57:50
That does not mean that with further discussion the WG could identify inconsistencies.
Kathryn Kleiman
57:51
Contingent on finding out whether it changed the way URS Providers - which it does.
Julie Hedlund
58:02
*couldn’t
Susan.Payne
58:02
Renee is there any reason why you have to get the registrant contact info from the registry? could you approach the registrar instead, so you are verifying the language and getting the data at the same time?
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
59:40
In what language would a notice sent to me here in Switzerland be in?
Griffin Barnett
59:41
It seems easier to me for a provider to determine/verify the language of the registration agreement in a given case versus having to figure out what the proper “predominant language” is
Julie Hedlund
01:01:08
@All: We could incorporate the input from Forum into the context.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:58
Whatever the result, I like the idea, Julie, that IRT see Forum comments on how things work at present
Griffin Barnett
01:01:59
I’m sorry but I am quite certain that last meeting we already agreed as a WG to move forward with Proposal 34 integrating Rec 9
Griffin Barnett
01:02:14
I don’t understand why now Kathy is suddenly suggesting we roll that agreement back
Griffin Barnett
01:02:20
That seems totally inappropriate to me
Kathryn Kleiman
01:03:04
@Griffin: I raised last week that URS Providers don't know the language of the registrawtion agreement. It's true.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:36
@kathy - and they can ascertain it
Griffin Barnett
01:03:51
If they ask
Kathryn Kleiman
01:04:19
We accepted URS Rec #9; Griffin there seem to be any number of barriers to this Indiv Proposal. How does overhauling an existing process help us?
Griffin Barnett
01:04:57
Because a bright line rule of what the default language is is preferable to a wishy-washy test of various factors for deciding what the language should be
Julie Hedlund
01:05:03
hand up
Griffin Barnett
01:05:32
@kathy the only barrier is that URS providers would need to verify the registration agreement language with the registrar
Kathryn Kleiman
01:05:35
Note: our Rec #9 was implementation guidance; this is phrased as a full-scale recommendation. I don't see the support for it.
Griffin Barnett
01:05:43
And not really a barrier bc they could do it
Griffin Barnett
01:06:14
@Kathy there was pretty substantial support last meeting for this approach
Kathryn Kleiman
01:06:38
… depending on our confirming the underlying assumption which turned out to be incorrect...
Griffin Barnett
01:07:27
The assumption was that the registration agreement language could be ascertained, which it can
Julie Hedlund
01:07:57
@Ariel: Thank you. The Action was to consult with Forum and to pass that on to the WG.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:03
I suggest a strong invitation to participate on list if this has to be continued. Strong use of list could set this up for ten minutes or less at a meeting after the list distills the arguments
Lori Schulman
01:11:11
Agree that this needs to be registrant centric.
Lori Schulman
01:11:27
And not too convoluted.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:11:30
I would delete all of the opening language... and jump to Implementation Guidance.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:43
I have a schedule conflict and have to leave a bit early. Thanks Phil, staff, and all
Lori Schulman
01:15:15
VA should stay blue. or at least purple.
Lori Schulman
01:15:26
Sorry, ignore.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:38
If we do not make a recommendation - will it change ALP?
Julie Hedlund
01:17:33
hand up
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:47
we do not insist for full exchange transparency to the third parties, but for the particular applicant at least
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:17
then it will be resolved via a scandal in GAC
Kathryn Kleiman
01:19:33
Perhaps context of a long list of concerns raised to the WG?
Lori Schulman
01:19:50
My organization does not have a position on ALP. I would have to defer to experts in the process.
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:52
cities usually have good relations with telecom ministries (of whom GAC mostly consists)
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:59
IRT will have IT experts, Registries, Registrars and ICANN so it will be able to assess and correct the process
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:39
and it means that the current ALP documents were not tested
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:01
at the initial application 2012 phase
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:38
to apply for ALP with 2013 set of documents in 2012 there is a need of a time machine
Julie Hedlund
01:23:10
hand up
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:46
should it be a request for review and correction?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:23:54
2013 was very much in application phase
Paul Tattersfield
01:24:38
We are caught between a rock and hard place if we suggest implementation language we are told it may be too restrictive under certain scenarios, if we suggest policy language to achieve a predictable transparent process we run the risk of being too vague. / are told it is too vague. I think I am beginning to understand how the ALP applicants felt.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:51
+1 Paul
Lori Schulman
01:25:15
Excellent point Paul. Sort of ICANN in a nutshell.
Lori Schulman
01:25:32
Contract language with either too much or too little bite.
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:42
29MAR2012 was the last day to submit the application
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:51
so ALP texts from 2013 were not ready
Kathryn Kleiman
01:26:54
Phil's suggestion makes sense to me.
Julie Hedlund
01:26:57
@Maxim: Yes, and staff noted that. But they have been available since 2013.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:16
so it was too late for applicants for evaluation
Julie Hedlund
01:27:35
Yes, that was true in 2012 Maxim, but not true since then.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:36
before the closure of the application window
Lori Schulman
01:27:38
I have another call now. Have a nice evening everyone.
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:34
all applications were made before 2013, so having good documents in 2013 was too late for applicants to assess and use it at the moment of application
Julie Hedlund
01:28:41
@Greg S.: But staff’s point is that there currently is a published process. And no indication of what is wrong with the current process.
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:24
there are no indications that the current process was good, in contrary - public comments shown it was not
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:50
thanks all
Kathryn Kleiman
01:29:57
Bye All - tx to Phil for chairing!
Kathryn Kleiman
01:30:00
See you in Hamburg
Ankur Raheja
01:30:16
Thanks All
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:25
thanks Phil, bye all
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:30:25
thx Phil