Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
20:41
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 26 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC.
Kathy Kleiman
23:58
Will the GNSO PDPs be avoiding conflicts?
Paul Tattersfield
24:22
Mary Are you interested in Zoom software improvement suggestions for the meeting? For example could we have two document windows one which is scrollable and one that has focus for the presenter?
David McAuley (Verisign)
24:25
Mary - looking to avoid conflicts with SubPro?
Kathy Kleiman
25:38
Great!
Philip Corwin
25:48
Mary--so to clarify, meetings of this WG will be on Mon-Thurs and not on the weekend as originally planned for Cancun?
Kathy Kleiman
26:06
Is GAC meeting over the first weekend?
Maxim Alzoba
26:46
Hello all
ariel.liang
27:28
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fh6KnBvqH78Pmo7qUBtR3JyIIvUifJ-8hzX9dcJruuA/edit#
Mary Wong
28:29
@Paul, our Engineering, IT & Meetings/Tech teams have made arrangements for virtual meeting support with Zoom. My understanding is that Zoom rooms for PDP meetings will be set up as “regular” Zoom rooms, i.e. exactly like how this one for our weekly calls will work.
Mary Wong
29:02
@Phil - yes, to the maximum extent possible and most likely so.
Mary Wong
29:57
@Kathy, the GAC is reviewing (and probably reducing) its sessions. It’s likely they will have a couple of sessions over the weekend, but possibly not as many as may have originally been envisaged.
Brian Beckham
29:59
Please anyone if there are comments as Ariel walks us through this, do raise your hand
Susan Payne
30:47
Thanks Ariel
ariel.liang
30:57
No problem
Maxim Alzoba
31:15
I think it is good to go
Maxim Alzoba
31:34
not necessary we need more details there
ariel.liang
31:34
URS Individual proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo
Mary Wong
31:43
Thanks all - have to drop now. Good luck!
Julie Hedlund
32:04
There is proposed new language for #15
Julie Hedlund
32:15
From Zak, modified by Claudio.
Julie Bisland
35:26
Reminder to please mute phones :)
Kathy Kleiman
35:35
can we move down to community rationale?
Julie Hedlund
38:18
Note that there is an anonymous comment
Maxim Alzoba
39:46
right owner looks like it
Maxim Alzoba
41:03
I agree - it was questioned in the WG
Scott Austin
41:06
attorneys' fees
Julie Hedlund
41:08
Is the person who provided the anonymous comment here?
Maxim Alzoba
41:14
so it is logical to ask if it is required at all
David McAuley (Verisign)
42:35
The WG question currently presupposes a loser pay model as it formulates the questions for PC so anonymous comment questions that it seems - seems hand-in-hand and fair
Zak Muscovitch
42:50
I agree that the broader question (appropriatness of the model) is material to ask
Julie Hedlund
44:10
Staff is trying to capture the text
Maxim Alzoba
45:08
over a time period
Paul McGrady
53:03
Good point Susan
Philip Corwin
56:31
Yes, #4
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:46
I think what is important here is that we get public input on the issue to help our discussions - and ageree with Susan and Phil as well
Cyntia King
57:47
+1 @Susan & @Phil
Paul McGrady
58:01
I can't see any harm to the community by letting them know that there is a corresponding charter question. Footnote works.
Susan Payne
58:12
works for me
Philip Corwin
58:55
Footnote is fine, in my personal view
Kathy Kleiman
59:05
WG has not yet addressed *this* overarching question?
Zak Muscovitch
01:00:12
Great save, Greg! :)
Susan Payne
01:02:19
+1 Greg
Paul McGrady
01:03:32
Otherwise, we run the risk of people claiming at the last minute that we have no public comment no the overarching questions and asking for another round of comments which will extend this PDP further, unless the Council just cancels us instead
Julie Hedlund
01:03:45
They are included in an annex and can be commented on
Julie Hedlund
01:03:55
What you are seeing is the questions in the annex
Paul McGrady
01:03:59
Thanks Julie. That's good news.
Julie Hedlund
01:04:08
They are already there
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:15
agree, thanks Julie
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:27
This seems a hard thing to do right now - in the midst of an Individua Proposal analysis
Philip Corwin
01:06:39
Whether we can reach a consensus view on any of the 5 questions is an open question. But at least we can encourage useful input
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:50
a fair formulation, Greg, +1 and Phil +1
Justine Chew
01:07:52
Agree with Greg and Phil; we should also somehow draw attention to existing of these Overarching Question upfront if we expect respondents to have these questions in mind in commenting on the entire/rest of the report.
Justine Chew
01:08:09
*existence (not existing)
Michael R. Graham
01:10:06
Agree with Justine -- these are Front Of Mind questions and issues.
Julie Hedlund
01:10:10
So, to summarize, we will reference the questions in the executive summary pointing to the next steps where we will specifically ask for public comment on them.
Greg Shatan
01:10:36
The question is not whether we “looked at” the charter questions; the question is whether we will be putting out a report that will elicit comments that will be useful in answering these questions.
Greg Shatan
01:11:44
In other words, the need to answer these overarching questions should have informed our overall work such that the Initial Report would provide us with useful input.
Greg Shatan
01:12:40
Merely asking the overarching question is what is left to us as a last-minute solution if we have not done more to get relevant comments.
Greg Shatan
01:13:06
It’s not the ideal way to do it. But we do what we can at this point.
Susan Payne
01:17:44
indenting helps yes
Susan Payne
01:18:47
thanks so much
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:50
yes, that helkps
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:53
helps
Justine Chew
01:18:56
Good pick up @Susan
Greg Shatan
01:19:44
Sorry I need to hop to another call.
Greg Shatan
01:19:49
Bye all.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:20:43
links would be good and helpful
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:20:56
especially here as this is complicated
Cyntia King
01:21:27
Could we swap "replace" with "reset"? The phrase "replace to" just sounds wierd to me.
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:15
reset for something already started (usually)
Cyntia King
01:22:16
I believe the proponent was George Krikos.
Susan Payne
01:22:23
I don't think we can. we've taken a view not to edit
Rebecca Tushnet
01:22:29
+1 kathy
Justine Chew
01:22:30
+1 Susan
Julie Hedlund
01:22:48
We have not edited the proponent’s text.
Julie Hedlund
01:22:53
Even if not clear.
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:07
so it might be to change from ___ to ___
Ariel Liang
01:24:11
#36 was a merged proposal between David’s and a big group (Brian Winterfeldt; Christopher Thomas; Colin O’Brien; Griffin Barnett; Jeff Neuman; John McElwaine; Lori Schulman; Pascal Boehner; Paul McGrady; Susan Payne)
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:17
+1 Brian
Justine Chew
01:25:20
If at all, Cyntia's point should be addressed in the Context section.
Justine Chew
01:25:53
So we don't start editing the original text of proposals
Philip Corwin
01:26:56
Agree with Justine -- we shouldn't be changing the text of an individual proposal. Address in context
Julie Hedlund
01:28:06
but not in the context of this proposal
Julie Hedlund
01:28:11
that is the data
rfossen
01:28:17
Very few
Julie Hedlund
01:28:20
so not part of this context
Rebecca Tushnet
01:28:37
I agree w/o going back to look "very few" is right
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:31:18
My recollection is that my proposal was based not on evidence but on review of the rules which seemed to me to be ipso facto out of whack on looking at provisions
Susan Payne
01:31:41
agree Julie - we didn't discuss this
Susan Payne
01:31:47
in this context
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:59
But it's part of the proposal...
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:32:06
But the others' proposal seems to have been based on data
Michael R. Graham
01:32:10
Sorry, have to jump.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:32:15
I just am not familiar with that data
Julie Hedlund
01:32:30
It’s not referenced in this proposal, but in a related one.
Ariel Liang
01:32:59
#36 supersedes #9 and #10, and the data you are seeing on the screen is on #10 that the WG decided not to publish in the Initial Report
Paul McGrady
01:33:22
So, what will the revised text look like?
Julie Hedlund
01:33:41
new
Kathy Kleiman
01:35:00
was there merger?
Julie Hedlund
01:35:07
No, not a merger
Julie Hedlund
01:35:13
superceded
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:36:55
I recall thinking this was an item on which PC would be welcome and was comfortable with the formulation by the larger group of proposers
Julie Hedlund
01:36:56
But we aren’t publishing #10
Paul McGrady
01:37:41
Is it possible to see the proposed text?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:44
so merger wasn't important to me - was happy with a superceding proposal
Brian Beckham
01:38:18
Sorry Julie I am losing audio
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:22
footnote has no substance... we're looking for data
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:27
The survey questions are linked, as Julie says
Brian Beckham
01:38:33
Dialing back in
Philip Corwin
01:39:02
9 and 10 should remain superseded
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:43
bye all, have to drop
Julie Hedlund
01:39:51
But the data is not part of #36
Julie Hedlund
01:39:57
It isn’t reference in #36
Julie Hedlund
01:40:15
To include it would mean that we’d be pulling it from #10
Julie Hedlund
01:42:04
But the data wasn’t discussed by the WG as part of this proposal. So it doesn’t make sense for this context.
Susan Payne
01:42:39
I am going to disagree with us creating a record of discussion on data that we did not have
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:39
sure - if Staff could send out an email with links to all docs we just discussed. Tx!
Scott Austin
01:43:11
@Susan +1
Cyntia King
01:43:31
So we're inserting data that we didn't have?
Philip Corwin
01:44:03
Want to speak AFTER staff
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:44:12
This deadline is a good thing, IMO
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:13
good idea to focus on sept wrap-up
Philip Corwin
01:49:54
Good!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:50:12
awesome Julie
Zak Muscovitch
01:50:30
tbhanks brian
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:50:30
Thanks Brian and all