Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC.

Hello All

URS Deliberations: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#

the coin was properly tossed as an explanation :)

its clearly unacceptable Greg

Good point, Greg - I also support alternative #2

I prefer no 2 as well. There is no need for percentages. We all agree that there has to be a baseline rationale expressed and that is what we should be focused on. The percentages do not add anything. What we need to focus on is what woul dthe basile rationale criteria be

I meant "what would the basic rationale criteria be"

I have issues with audio

hearing Rebecca

it’s Rebecca’s line, unfortunately, Maxim

Too much background noise

better

Rebecca the whole point is that you - a single WG member - determined what the standard should be without agreement of anyone else. There is a genuine dispute about the characterisation and coding you used

+1 Susan.

I prefer Brian's wording; it seems to reflect the data we collected.

This whole thing is about rationale, not recommendation.

Rebecc: I don't think we ever discussed your coding and the parameters would be. I think your people took a broader view on some of the decisions

I think Option 2 suffices for WG's present purposes.

There’s clearly a dispute around the accurate percentage. However, whether it’s 7% or 17% it’s neither de minimis nor very high so it seems that characterizing it as “several” or “some” seems like the best approach.

Is this Scott speaking?

Reminder to all: Rebecca is on phone/audio only (no access to zoom chat)

yes

Yes, Scott Austin is speaking

Agree with Scott

Agree with Steve. It's a low figure either way, and we don't know that the rationale was "bad", we just don't know what it was. Agree there should simply be a call for rationale to be provided in line with the rules.

@Scott - alternative 1 uses the term "non-compliant". I'm confused about whether you're supporting that or not

+1 Cyntia! exactly

+1 Cyntia, hence I think Option 2 suffices for the WG's present purposes.

Possible suggestion: “The WG reviewed data from over 900 URS cases and agreed that a sufficient number cited either inadequate or no rationale for the decisions, such that the WG recommends that ..”

So a hybrid of option 1 and 2

hand up from staff

+1 to Julie's suggestion.

+2 to Julie’s suggestion.

Agree with Julie's language

+1 to Phil. We need to move forward

Couldn't agree more Phil

Fully agree Phil. This is a silly issue when we all agree on the overarching issue. Let's move on already

Hybrid Option 3 from Julie is fine by me.

I forgot to say it, but I want to thank @Kathy & her "crew" for crunching the numbers for our consideration..

Option 3 is ok by me as well

I’m good with #3. Can we please move on now?

Scott +1

I'm good w/ 3.

yep 3 is ok

I'm okay with 3

Let’s take the wins where we can find them!

it could be shortened to “legal or operational reasons” I think

original

I had recommended talking more specifically about sanctions -- and I withdraw that suggestion in light of the discussion last week.

I think we can live with it.

Well the context says that there were allegations but no abuse has been found

I think it's already pretty clear....

great!

I can add something to that effect

no objection to the addition

I have captured that language

no objection

yes that’s it

correct

hand up from staff

TMCH Deliberation — for one recommendation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-TH7WopFauhEU1Z0zCjQp26s3S8d6J3SnLLOnTfuTrM/edit#heading=h.mz9vpjfti8ep

Hi Mary!

very helpful recollection/context, Mary, thank you

That’s correct Phil

yes

one clarification - are you suggesting we list certain charter questions (e.g. here in TMCH section) but not in other sections?

The charter questions will be listed in a separate section of the report

Charter questions/answers are actually in a separate section, in an annex

@David, no - we are proposing that all the Charter questions be listed according to the categories you divided them into.

ok, thanks

The agreed upon charter questions — the latter

ok

We have not had time to properly review this -- agreed!

We have sent the link to 1) deliberations on recommendations 2) proposals for public comment

in the agenda

correct Mary

Tx Mary!

This “introduction” is repeated in all the deliberation sub-sections that you have seen

The point is that this text really is applicable to all of the deliberations on the different RPMs.

So it doesn’t need to be repeated.

in each RPM (TMCH, etc.)

Can someone point me to the TM +50 Rule?

@Zak, it is described in the context section on the next page.

hand up

It is the ability for TM owners to submit up to 50 previously-abused domain name labels to the TMCH, if they have been found as such in either a UDRP or court proceeding.

It may be clearer when we have the report put together

Agree with Kathy - makes more syntactic sense to remove "Whether" from each of the 1-3 items

Great -- and I think it will require a little more wording change...

Agreed

Sounds good

We can link to the rule/

Apologies, I have to leave for another call, will catch up via the call recording.

shouldn't we have the links to the relevant rules at the beginning of the report anyway - for everything not just TMCH?

@Susan and all - staff will go through the draft report when we put it all together and plan to add links where appropriate, esp where a rule/reference appears for the first time.

current

correct would be appropriate

@Mary - great

correct

Agree current doesn't really make sense in context here.. probably should say correct or appropriate

@Phil, we retained the word “current” here b/c that was the WG agreement at the time; although we agree it should be correct

hand

correct seems more apt

Yeah actually in thinking about it a bit more.... maybe we say "adequate"

I think theis verbiage strikes the right balance.

no we cannot strike that text that doesn't have the ssame meaning

correct

correct

This may have been a typo

hand up

We’ll replace current with correct

Staff can’t raise our hands if we are hosts :-(

proper also works

It is not the recommendation

it is the context of the recommendation

I heard Ariel to be talking of context as well

It should be the same contextual language for TM Claims Recommendation #6 - no change to TMCH Rec #1

Let's review this4 language in Rec 6 when we get there.

You are correct, @Phil!

@Phil +1 proper

As the electrician said: This is the proper current, correct?

Sorry, typo

We’ll fix it

It's not a question though

Correct Griffin

No I think the current sentence is correct, it's just a run-on

@Griffin, yeah.

definitely don't think it makes sense with a period

in the manner Cyntia was suggesting. But I do think it's difficult to read

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo

CK's Rule of Thumb: If you can't say the sentence in 1 breath, it should be 2 sentences. :)

Yes but changes should not change the meaning either :)

I like the CK Rule :-)

This latest link is asking me to log in, seems odd - the others haven't

We’ll check the permissions David.

for me it is just You need permission

Fixed the permission

Please refresh

@David, try it now

I can do it, Julie, just seems odd. I will follow in zoom

thanks

works now

thanks - works now

Should we call these "Individual TMCH Proposals"?

agree with Phil - the proponent's rationale is theirs, not ours to recast

yes

Susan’s hand up

Never mind

we can come to me at the end please

noted Susan

Apologies, need to drop off for another call

have to drop, bye all

hand up from staff — and note that Susan has her hand up (she should go first)

Sorry, have to drop.

Let's come back to this...

Susan +1

Absolutely, come back to this w/ more time for discussion.

Agree we need to come back to this.

They are in a separate section

Susan +100

Good point, Susan.

See Table of Content — is it in an entirely separate section

@Susan +1

Tx for chairing, Phil!

Next call: Wednesday, 19 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Note what Ariel has highlighted - separate section for Non-Recommendations, i.e Proposals.

But it doesn't say "individual" proposals in the title.

It can't be in an intoructory section they neead to highlighed and headed clearly

We will also likely be building a survey-type tool for the public comments that makes it clear as well.

@Ariel - thanks for that - it certainly helps but I'm still concerned

May be less concerned when it's all pulled together perhaps

I agree with SDusan, helpful but could be better

We will have introduction in the beginning of that section to clarify

thanks all bye

These are individual proposals not Wg recommendations

Bye everyone

Thanks

thanks Julie and all