
29:50
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.

30:25
I am getting no audio

30:33
I am in Zoom

31:36
Thank you, Griffin!

31:38
Just got audio

32:48
reminder to mute phones

33:18
lol, @Phil. I promise not to sneeze on my microphone.

33:53
The 12th is a virtual travel day for some....

36:17
And a reminder that the structure/style/format of the Initial Report is also based on a GNSO template.

37:13
11th we are expected to show the entire initial report it its GNSO report format

37:39
Instead of showing you individual google docs, as those components make more sense in the report format

39:34
@Phil: We’ve updated that language

39:52
The tool is modeled on what was used for the EPDP and will hopefully help streamline and organize your review of the comments received.

40:47
Per Kathy: Cancun is EST but the US will move to EDT — so that makes the meeting times one hour later

40:54
is it going to be utc -4 ?

40:58
right

40:59
Thanks Kathy - the times they are a changin

41:04
that's right

41:07
utc+4 I mean

41:15
Maybe send out calender invites with the Cancun time zone?

41:21
Were the times provided earlier taking into account Daylight Savings?

41:33
Cancun is UTC-5.

41:39
And that is noted in the email with the schedule

41:41
Everything is UTC, Zak. Your calendar should convert it.

41:58
We will be on Chicago time, so to speak.

42:48
time and date meeting planner FTW

44:33
Sorry. Yes off only for the US

44:36
Prior to 2015, Cancun was on Central time!

45:20
URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo

46:20
apologies for joining late - I had a clash

47:15
OK with me

49:05
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

49:11
This is text that will be moved to the introduction — not an action item from last week, but a general action

52:55
These additions came out as action items from last week’s meeting as suggested by WG members

53:36
The changes to the rest of this document are fine by me. Thanks Ariel.

53:49
Thanks Justine

53:54
I like moving redundant general language to single treatment in introduction, think that will help reviewers as they approach this IR

54:09
TM-PDDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlxjoXfMq0OvQlzgSvWyCrITNGYZWBs4lFgqPo23KWA/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

54:31
Thanks David. Yes, that’s staff’s intent too

57:50
joining late

58:31
I have a comment about footnote 2 - happy to raise whenever it most makes sense

59:35
I wonder if we should introduce this now... and review it again later. Giving all time to review in detail.

01:00:06
@Kathy: WG members have been able to review this text since it was distributed on Monday.

01:00:42
Based on Brian’s comment, that’s why the word we used in the second para is “clarify” the rule.

01:01:03
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

01:01:08
@Julie: I don't think people knew this recommendation was Staff language.

01:01:17
We are learning now!

01:02:25
Suggest that WG members could continue to review after today’s meeting and provide feedback by this Friday.

01:02:33
The points (a) & (b) that Phil just read were taken from the WG’s and the small team’s discussions/agreement.

01:03:05
That is if WG members decide they need more time.

01:03:11
Same with point (1) & (2) that Phil is covering now.

01:04:57
Oh, good point Susan. We’ll see if we can make it easier.

01:05:36
Action is noted

01:05:42
thank you!

01:06:54
no third-level domains?

01:07:17
Although we have had it since Monday so we aren't seeing this completely unprepared

01:07:57
Tx Mary!

01:09:55
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

01:09:55
Tx Mary -- definitely room for clarification!

01:10:21
@Griffin, thanks and noted.

01:12:15
Great!

01:12:35
sounds good

01:12:54
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?

01:13:22
@Justine, I believe the intent is that it has to be the same level as well as the same gTLD.

01:13:44
Yes, that's what I thought too, thanks @Mary.

01:13:47
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

01:19:15
Add’l Marketplace RPMs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O89u-b19RoJJppib_nRmgbjkv2LuY-k8y5ElK-OznBw/edit

01:20:52
Seems like a good section to me, including Susan's additional sentence

01:22:20
As opposed to, say, Yosemite

01:22:51
adding "RPM" fine by me Phil

01:23:23
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)?

01:23:55
Good point, Griffin, thanks! We’ll check for consistency and follow accordingly.

01:24:03
Thanks Mary

01:24:24
That’s it

01:26:02
We're ahead of schedule :-)

01:26:35
Staff is finalizing the text.

01:28:46
Apologies for the slight delay in finalizing this document - staff were originally preparing for a first meeting at ICANN67 next week :)

01:29:14
@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.

01:31:34
Sorry, need to leave early.

01:31:52
I have to drop off now; will review this last doc after staff circulates the link.

01:32:33
Thanks Justine!

01:34:57
A lot of great staff work on all of these sections we have reviewed recently, thank you

01:35:23
Thank you David!

01:35:24
Thanks so much David!

01:35:48
Yes, thanks so much David!

01:36:01
+1 @David Lots of excellent staff support herein.

01:36:17
Thank you Cyntia!

01:36:36
Thanks Cyntia

01:36:54
great

01:37:06
excellent - the end of phase 1 in sight

01:37:34
@David, indeed!

01:38:03
Go have a tequila everyone! Oh wait....

01:38:05
Thanks Phil, staff, and all

01:38:06
bye all and thanks (see you in zoom next week )

01:38:39
Thanks Phil, staff, and all - I'm taking a virtual drone to the next mtg

01:38:41
Bye!