Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
36:05
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC
Ariel Liang
39:23
Sunrise & Claims: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit#
Ariel Liang
42:16
It was misspelt as “nae” previously
Julie Hedlund
42:29
In this case it was a typo — “nae” and should have been “name”
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:32
That's helpful, Ariel, thanks
Ariel Liang
45:55
No problem!
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:56
seems that removal is warranted
David McAuley (Verisign)
49:05
I like the newer version
Ariel Liang
51:13
Just switching the question numbers
Kathy Kleiman
51:26
Hi All, I've joined now. Sorry to be late - busy days!
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:37
Agree with Brian on this
Kathy Kleiman
52:40
Tx Brian for chairing now!
Ariel Liang
55:46
All covered
Julie Hedlund
56:00
We think you’ve covered everything Brian
Ariel Liang
56:42
URS Individual Proposal assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zErN2k/edit
Michael R. Graham
59:35
The introduction is intended for GNSO review, and not publication? I ask because where we note the two Asks we have not included that we are asking for comments and an indication of support -- this should be before the request to provide suggested revisions. Am I understanding context of this document?
Michael R. Graham
01:00:10
The Introductory Notes.
Michael R. Graham
01:00:27
See 4th bullet -- and its two sub questions
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:09
notes answered my question, hand down now
Julie Hedlund
01:04:03
Staff will be circulating the text of the Initial Report pertaining to URS Individual Proposals
Julie Hedlund
01:04:08
This is not that text
Julie Hedlund
01:04:45
correct Brian
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:10
This is our WG table -- not text for thepublic.
Paul Tattersfield
01:06:27
it really depends on the type of question
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:50
We really need to explain to the public what an individual URS proposal means...
Julie Hedlund
01:07:30
Context will be provided in the Initial Report text
Julie Hedlund
01:07:54
So it is clear what are the Individual Proposals and what we are asking the public to comment on
Michael R. Graham
01:09:25
Thanks
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:55
That's my understanding as well - thanks to co-chairs and John for distilling the deliberations into an outcome
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:47
it was for sake of clarity
Cyntia King
01:20:48
I'm afraid I don't agree w/ @Rebecca here.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:56
apologies, I need to drop early
Cyntia King
01:21:50
Not only was there little support for this, there were grave concerns that these proposals were not feasible.
Paul Tattersfield
01:22:42
because the court has standards!
Scott Austin
01:23:25
@Cyntia +1
Michael R. Graham
01:24:44
@Cyntia -- Agree. I think the draft comments and decisions reflect the sentiment of the group in discussion. This is not the time to resurrect the discussion.
Paul Tattersfield
01:24:57
Rebecca+1
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:43
The other problem is the inflexibility of the proposers to accept friendly amendments
Rebecca Tushnet
01:26:55
If not consensus, tell us what the standard was: the sense of the WG is a standard, but it sounds an awful lot like a majority standard, which is wrong.
Philip Corwin
01:27:07
Consensus was not the standard, and many individual proposals that did not have majority support in the survey or among WG members are being put out for community comment. But not proposals that had virtually no support and significant opposition
Scott Austin
01:30:14
@Paul +1
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:42
I think other unworable proposals should also be remmoved
Justine Chew
01:31:34
Apologies, I have to drop off for another call.
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:12
I agree these 3 are problematic but I think other easily demonstrable unworkable proposals should also be removed then there would be balance
Cyntia King
01:34:54
How else should support be gauged if not by the discussions over the duration our wok?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:35:15
If there's no precedent, then have them or don't.
Michael R. Graham
01:35:39
@Paul -- These proposals are not only unworkable, but beyond the scope of ICANN regulatory action.
Michael R. Graham
01:35:46
@Cyntia -- +1
Rebecca Tushnet
01:35:54
Cyntia, my point is that now my support is being characterized as the support of one person because not everyone decided/could make this call, despite minority support
Rebecca Tushnet
01:35:57
earlier on
Rebecca Tushnet
01:36:11
You shouldn't have to show up every single time to count
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:34
A number of members of our WG are at NamesCon this week.
Cyntia King
01:36:56
@Paul - the idea that there must be "balance" rather than just good work work product is problematic.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:16
I think the co-chairs have endeavored at length and in good faith to consider what to do with individual proposals that appear to lack enough support to be put out in a request for comment from the RPM PDP. I also don’t think the standard is vague – I understand it is to cull those individual proposals that have little support and substantial opposition.
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:07
URS internal appeal?
Cyntia King
01:38:38
@Rebecca - my point is that these proposals weren't discussed on a single call that folks may have missed. They were discussed repeatedly in the sub-teams, again w/ teh full group, they were in the survey, and were discussed again.
Cyntia King
01:40:06
I despair that we're making this about factional support rather than what's good for the community, has the possibility for consensus support, AND feasible.
Paul Tattersfield
01:42:17
Perhaps we need [in future] a formal mechanism for amendments of individual proposals which the WG can see if there is consensus for the amended proposal only. This would help improve proposals when there was some of the inflexibility from the original proponent.
Greg Shatan
01:42:59
No matter who showed up to a particular call or participated in the email list, the result was the same for 18-20. It’s not about 1 person or 1 call....
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:39
I wouldn't publish others too Greg - the number going out should be lower
Cyntia King
01:44:52
Agree - do not publlish
Scott Austin
01:45:17
'@Greg +1
John McElwaine
01:46:33
Yea!!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:41
Thanks co-chairs and John
Ariel Liang
01:47:09
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405
Ariel Liang
01:47:15
Not the first time for recommendations
Ariel Liang
01:47:22
Or questions for community iput
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:46
probable mtg dates in Cancun? - any indication
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:02
as AOB
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:37
Sat, Sun, Monday
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:46
right at start of meeting
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:54
thanks Kathy
Ariel Liang
01:52:57
Please note that the language of recommendations and questions for community is not new
Ariel Liang
01:53:08
The WG has reviewed it in November / December
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:56:00
Thanks Ariel
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:56:35
expect we will revisit this doc next week
John McElwaine
01:58:51
I will need to drop for a 2:30
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:58:51
wrap now, review doc for next week
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:26
next week
Cyntia King
02:01:32
Next week
Michael R. Graham
02:01:38
+1
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:51
many thanks Kathy and Brian
Marie Pattullo
02:01:57
Agree. Thanks all,
Ariel Liang
02:01:59
Thanks all