Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 at 18:00 UTC.

I am getting no audio

I am in Zoom

Thank you, Griffin!

Just got audio

reminder to mute phones

lol, @Phil. I promise not to sneeze on my microphone.

The 12th is a virtual travel day for some....

And a reminder that the structure/style/format of the Initial Report is also based on a GNSO template.

11th we are expected to show the entire initial report it its GNSO report format

Instead of showing you individual google docs, as those components make more sense in the report format

@Phil: We’ve updated that language

The tool is modeled on what was used for the EPDP and will hopefully help streamline and organize your review of the comments received.

Per Kathy: Cancun is EST but the US will move to EDT — so that makes the meeting times one hour later

is it going to be utc -4 ?

right

Thanks Kathy - the times they are a changin

that's right

utc+4 I mean

Maybe send out calender invites with the Cancun time zone?

Were the times provided earlier taking into account Daylight Savings?

Cancun is UTC-5.

And that is noted in the email with the schedule

Everything is UTC, Zak. Your calendar should convert it.

We will be on Chicago time, so to speak.

time and date meeting planner FTW

Sorry. Yes off only for the US

Prior to 2015, Cancun was on Central time!

URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo

apologies for joining late - I had a clash

OK with me

I do not feel strongly. Frankly, unless any of the text capturing how decisions were reached is egregiously inaccurate or misleading, I don't want to devote a lot of time and energy to reviewing it line by line, but maybe that's just me

This is text that will be moved to the introduction — not an action item from last week, but a general action

These additions came out as action items from last week’s meeting as suggested by WG members

The changes to the rest of this document are fine by me. Thanks Ariel.

Thanks Justine

I like moving redundant general language to single treatment in introduction, think that will help reviewers as they approach this IR

TM-PDDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlxjoXfMq0OvQlzgSvWyCrITNGYZWBs4lFgqPo23KWA/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

Thanks David. Yes, that’s staff’s intent too

joining late

I have a comment about footnote 2 - happy to raise whenever it most makes sense

I wonder if we should introduce this now... and review it again later. Giving all time to review in detail.

@Kathy: WG members have been able to review this text since it was distributed on Monday.

Based on Brian’s comment, that’s why the word we used in the second para is “clarify” the rule.

why don't we just review it now. It's 2 pages so not a huge undertaking and we've had it a few days. Then we can circle back to it on a further meeting when everyone has reflected further for a few days

@Julie: I don't think people knew this recommendation was Staff language.

We are learning now!

Suggest that WG members could continue to review after today’s meeting and provide feedback by this Friday.

The points (a) & (b) that Phil just read were taken from the WG’s and the small team’s discussions/agreement.

That is if WG members decide they need more time.

Same with point (1) & (2) that Phil is covering now.

Oh, good point Susan. We’ll see if we can make it easier.

Action is noted

thank you!

no third-level domains?

Although we have had it since Monday so we aren't seeing this completely unprepared

Tx Mary!

Possible revision of 1(i): (i) the Complaints all relate to the same Registry Operator conduct concerning either the top- or second-level of the same gTLD

Tx Mary -- definitely room for clarification!

@Griffin, thanks and noted.

Great!

sounds good

On (i) would it have to be the same top-level or second-level DN, or either one can apply and that the commonality is the gTLD?

@Justine, I believe the intent is that it has to be the same level as well as the same gTLD.

Yes, that's what I thought too, thanks @Mary.

yeah presumably for a joint PDDRP complaint there would by definition be multiple different SLDs at issue, so I would think the commonality would be the GTLD

Add’l Marketplace RPMs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O89u-b19RoJJppib_nRmgbjkv2LuY-k8y5ElK-OznBw/edit

Seems like a good section to me, including Susan's additional sentence

As opposed to, say, Yosemite

adding "RPM" fine by me Phil

Should the link be placed instead into a footnote rather than in text? Not sure if in-text is consistent with how we have provided links elsewhere (or maybe it has been a mix)?

Good point, Griffin, thanks! We’ll check for consistency and follow accordingly.

Thanks Mary

That’s it

We're ahead of schedule :-)

Staff is finalizing the text.

Apologies for the slight delay in finalizing this document - staff were originally preparing for a first meeting at ICANN67 next week :)

@Phil: This document hasn’t been circulated. Once it is WG members could alert us to any errors, although noting that it replicates text from the Final Issue Report and the wiki.

Sorry, need to leave early.

I have to drop off now; will review this last doc after staff circulates the link.

Thanks Justine!

A lot of great staff work on all of these sections we have reviewed recently, thank you

Thank you David!

Thanks so much David!

Yes, thanks so much David!

+1 @David Lots of excellent staff support herein.

Thank you Cyntia!

Thanks Cyntia

great

excellent - the end of phase 1 in sight

@David, indeed!

Go have a tequila everyone! Oh wait....

Thanks Phil, staff, and all

bye all and thanks (see you in zoom next week )

Thanks Phil, staff, and all - I'm taking a virtual drone to the next mtg

Bye!