Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Andrea Glandon
35:20
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Paul Tattersfield
36:19
I think it was last chance....
Cyntia King (USA)
37:46
Vote "Yes" on Nobel if true
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
37:53
Glad to start our final leg of work!
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
38:08
Glad Council approved our final change request!
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:09
+1 @Cyntia
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
38:53
@Julie/Ariel, can you show the proposed ALP recommendation?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
39:23
Tx!
Julie Hedlund
40:17
It’s on the screen now
Steve Levy
40:58
Sorry for joining late!
John McElwaine
43:37
Sorry to be late. Client call went long
Susan.Payne
43:49
ditto
Susan.Payne
44:06
different meeting :)
Julie Hedlund
45:06
@Phil: The request was made for staff to get information on feasibility before WG consideration.
Julie Hedlund
45:18
As Ariel has said.
Julie Hedlund
45:33
hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
47:08
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
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
47:43
+1 David
Paul Tattersfield
48:21
can we discuss it with GDS?
Brian beckham
48:26
was there comment besides the single one from CORE?
Julie Hedlund
48:34
Just the one comment Brian
Paul McGrady
49:54
This is a SubPro issue
Paul Tattersfield
50:19
sub pro wanted us to do it
Brian beckham
51:10
simply because subpro chose not to handle it is not necessarily determinative
Paul McGrady
52:07
@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.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
52:34
It has to do with changes/adjustments of TMCH requirements - our balliwick
Julie Hedlund
53:16
hand up
Paul McGrady
53:38
It has to do with the length of time and complexity of the ALP. TMCH is only incidental.
Julie Hedlund
54:45
hand up
Paul McGrady
55:14
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?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
55:38
I was sorry to miss the GNSO Council meeting - it coincided with the start of a 3 hour class!
John McElwaine
55:53
Its got to be Monday
Julie Hedlund
56:33
@Phil: There was a Small Team
Julie Hedlund
56:37
Several weeks
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:20
Zoom seems to have more audio issues of late, at least imo
Julie Hedlund
57:46
So deadlines: Monday for revised proposal and WG discussion on Thursday next?
John McElwaine
01:00:01
@Julie - yes on that timeframe
Ariel Liang
01:00:18
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit#
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:03:19
looks good
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:21
I agree the new context language seems acceptable
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:19
Ariel, what page is this?
Ariel Liang
01:05:51
It is on pp.10-11
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:56
thanks
Paul McGrady
01:09:58
Agree with Kathy and Rebecca. I'm not sure what GDPR has to do with translating.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:11:24
On my reading the EPDP made suggestions but it is up to us.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:21
my question is with respect to the 'which shall be provided' clause
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:32
Phil, yes! Thank you for clarifying
Julie Hedlund
01:12:32
Note that all of this is non-binding contextual language
Julie Hedlund
01:12:37
hand up
Zak Muscovitch
01:13:26
I got to get the ringtone, Phil!
Paul McGrady
01:13:51
I was hoping it was the ice cream truck.
Ariel Liang
01:13:52
Hand up from staff
Julie Hedlund
01:14:01
@Phil: We should at least reference that the WG considered the Wave 1 report
Julie Hedlund
01:14:06
hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:54
Reference to the EPDP seems reasonable
Zak Muscovitch
01:15:22
Sounds fine to me...
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:29
Sounds reasonable
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:15:30
OK
Ariel Liang
01:15:54
thanks everyone
Julie Hedlund
01:16:33
@Phil: Correct. Just let Ariel finish up.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:44
Can I ask where this came from?
Ariel Liang
01:25:04
This is from the Wave 1 Report
Rebecca Tushnet
01:25:35
And can we get a reminder of when the Wave 1 Report came out?
Ariel Liang
01:27:50
To clarify, the wave 1 report itself was published in Feb 2020
Ariel Liang
01:28:09
and the staff analysis of this what was circulated with the WG was first published on 19 August
Susan.Payne
01:28:53
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
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:29:15
But ultimately I agree with Susan.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:29:21
I like likely!
Paul McGrady
01:30:37
Why risk redundancy?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:30:39
Is the EPDP Phase 1 IRT making these changes or the SubPro IRT?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:30:41
or both?
Paul McGrady
01:31:23
Correction: why risk a policy conflict even when we *think* its redundant?
Julie Hedlund
01:32:18
@Susan: The point of this discussion is for the WG to consider whether it agrees with this as a recommendation.
Julie Hedlund
01:32:35
@Greg: That’s correct.
Ariel Liang
01:33:03
Hand up
Paul McGrady
01:33:29
Let's stuff it in implementation guidance and move on.
Lori Schulman
01:33:37
Agree about acronym point.
Lori Schulman
01:33:54
WHOIS is not an acronym and everyone uses it anyway.
Ariel Liang
01:33:56
hand up
Susan.Payne
01:34:02
@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?
Paul McGrady
01:34:17
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!
Lori Schulman
01:34:25
@Paul. Let's just stuff it...
Paul McGrady
01:34:37
hahahahha
Ariel Liang
01:34:38
Hand up
Greg Shatan
01:36:34
Could it be “We Have Ownership Information, Secretly”?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:55
+1 Greg, elegant
Lori Schulman
01:38:44
+1 Greg. Love it.
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:58
very good Greg
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:40:41
Hooray!
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:22
apologies, due to issues with the calendar I missed the beginning of the call
Greg Shatan
01:43:58
UK spelling or an ancient grain
Julie Hedlund
01:43:59
@Phil: That’s correct. It’s a typo. Should be spellt
Paul McGrady
01:44:04
Spelt is the past and past participle of spell
Julie Hedlund
01:44:07
spelled
Julie Hedlund
01:44:10
sorry
Julie Hedlund
01:44:31
@Paul: You are correct.
Greg Shatan
01:44:34
Can we just say Quinoa? It tastes better than spelt.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:44:37
I don't think we spoke to the issue
Michael R. Graham
01:45:04
Should be uniform across all providers.
Paul McGrady
01:46:31
+1 Kathy. "Are" makes more sense than "and"
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:37
nice catch
Ariel Liang
01:46:39
typo. Thanks for catching
Paul McGrady
01:46:54
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
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:22
agree with Kathy and Phil
Rebecca Tushnet
01:47:22
Sounds good, Phil & Kathy!
Brian beckham
01:49:00
understood, thx Phil
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:49:33
Good!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:49:56
also good
Zak Muscovitch
01:49:59
Im fie with it
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:02
fine
Paul McGrady
01:51:51
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.
Michael R. Graham
01:53:16
Should "considers in line 2 be "consider"?
Ariel Liang
01:53:43
Thanks Michael. We will check
Paul Tattersfield
01:53:43
it wasn't been done Paul M so it a good outcome
Susan.Payne
01:55:51
@Paul T just on a tiny number of cases. but agree with the recommendation
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:55:55
will be interested to see if hands up deal with language of no transfer to complainant or other registrar
Griffin Barnett
01:56:30
Good point Michael, agree with that calrification
Zak Muscovitch
01:56:34
yep
Steve Levy
01:57:27
Can’t we add an option for the complainant and respondent to negotiate a voluntary transfer of the suspended domain name before its expiration?
Griffin Barnett
01:57:27
Kathy’s clarification seems reasonable as well
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:40
under current URS set of documents it is allowed to extend for 1 year
Griffin Barnett
01:58:17
Steve in chat and Susan verbally make another good point
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:18
if they come to an agreement - URS is terminated
Zak Muscovitch
01:58:21
perhaps 'cannot be involuntarily transferred...'?
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:31
see termination
Susan.Payne
01:58:38
@Zak - yes, thanks!
Griffin Barnett
01:58:38
I like “must not be involuntarily transferred..."
Rebecca Tushnet
01:59:03
That's how I thought it worked, Phil
Maxim Alzoba
01:59:03
one minute - issue with mic
Paul McGrady
01:59:05
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?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:59:09
Maybe the language should bar transfer as a consequence of the URS ruling
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:59:20
Not sure "involuntarily" solves the problem...
Paul Tattersfield
01:59:23
David +1
Michael R. Graham
01:59:37
Could agree with David's suggestion.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:59:40
David +2
Steve Levy
01:59:57
What about mutually agreed voluntary transfer?
Susan.Payne
02:00:09
david's suggestion works, yes to overcome the concern about what is involuntary
Rebecca Tushnet
02:00:18
Steve, I think that may be a change from current practice which is not what we thought we were doing
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:26
15. Settlement or Other Grounds for Termination
Paul McGrady
02:00:34
The court order could be based on an ACPA claim which is not precluded by a successful URS decision.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
02:00:35
Finalize on Tuesday?
Maxim Alzoba
02:00:37
(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.
Paul Tattersfield
02:00:52
locked
Griffin Barnett
02:01:10
@Maxim - we are talking about a situation that arises after the examiner’s determination
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
02:01:21
+1 Brian
Steve Levy
02:01:36
Understood. Just thought that registrants might be happy to be paid for a voluntary transfer of the domain after an adverse URS decision.
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:11
transfer should not happen
Maxim Alzoba
02:02:20
if domain is locked
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
02:02:38
Tx you for chairing, Phil!
Griffin Barnett
02:02:41
The point is, Maxim, not to constrain a voluntary transfer or a transfer ordered by some other legal order
Susan.Payne
02:02:50
ok Maxim thanks.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
02:02:50
Maxim is referring to 10.1, and I was referring to 10.2
Rebecca Tushnet
02:03:00
We don't need to address court orders. The current rules don't interfere with those.
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:04
I was referring to 15
Rebecca Tushnet
02:03:05
We shouldn't start making new provisions.
Griffin Barnett
02:03:09
If that’s the case then fair enough
Griffin Barnett
02:03:18
I think we just wanted to clarify
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:33
of Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Rules
Griffin Barnett
02:03:56
Phil’s suggestion seems good to me
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:03:57
Good way to handle
Susan.Payne
02:04:12
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!
Zak Muscovitch
02:04:31
Sounds good Phil
Maxim Alzoba
02:04:35
this PDP might not survive third PCR
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:05:57
Thanks Phil, Ariel, Julie and all
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:57
I hope we do not have third
Maxim Alzoba
02:06:00
thanks all
Ariel Liang
02:06:03
thanks everyone
Paul Tattersfield
02:06:06
thnaks all bye
Cyntia King (USA)
02:06:07
Have a great weekend All