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.

Will the GNSO PDPs be avoiding conflicts?

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?

Mary - looking to avoid conflicts with SubPro?

Great!

Mary--so to clarify, meetings of this WG will be on Mon-Thurs and not on the weekend as originally planned for Cancun?

Is GAC meeting over the first weekend?

Hello all

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

@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.

@Phil - yes, to the maximum extent possible and most likely so.

@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.

Please anyone if there are comments as Ariel walks us through this, do raise your hand

Thanks Ariel

No problem

I think it is good to go

not necessary we need more details there

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

Thanks all - have to drop now. Good luck!

There is proposed new language for #15

From Zak, modified by Claudio.

Reminder to please mute phones :)

can we move down to community rationale?

Note that there is an anonymous comment

right owner looks like it

I agree - it was questioned in the WG

attorneys' fees

Is the person who provided the anonymous comment here?

so it is logical to ask if it is required at all

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

I agree that the broader question (appropriatness of the model) is material to ask

Staff is trying to capture the text

over a time period

Good point Susan

Yes, #4

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

+1 @Susan & @Phil

I can't see any harm to the community by letting them know that there is a corresponding charter question. Footnote works.

works for me

Footnote is fine, in my personal view

WG has not yet addressed *this* overarching question?

Great save, Greg! :)

+1 Greg

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

They are included in an annex and can be commented on

What you are seeing is the questions in the annex

Thanks Julie. That's good news.

They are already there

agree, thanks Julie

This seems a hard thing to do right now - in the midst of an Individua Proposal analysis

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

a fair formulation, Greg, +1 and Phil +1

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.

*existence (not existing)

Agree with Justine -- these are Front Of Mind questions and issues.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s not the ideal way to do it. But we do what we can at this point.

indenting helps yes

thanks so much

yes, that helkps

helps

Good pick up @Susan

Sorry I need to hop to another call.

Bye all.

links would be good and helpful

especially here as this is complicated

Could we swap "replace" with "reset"? The phrase "replace to" just sounds wierd to me.

reset for something already started (usually)

I believe the proponent was George Krikos.

I don't think we can. we've taken a view not to edit

+1 kathy

+1 Susan

We have not edited the proponent’s text.

Even if not clear.

so it might be to change from ___ to ___

#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)

+1 Brian

If at all, Cyntia's point should be addressed in the Context section.

So we don't start editing the original text of proposals

Agree with Justine -- we shouldn't be changing the text of an individual proposal. Address in context

but not in the context of this proposal

that is the data

Very few

so not part of this context

I agree w/o going back to look "very few" is right

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

agree Julie - we didn't discuss this

in this context

But it's part of the proposal...

But the others' proposal seems to have been based on data

Sorry, have to jump.

I just am not familiar with that data

It’s not referenced in this proposal, but in a related one.

#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

So, what will the revised text look like?

new

was there merger?

No, not a merger

superceded

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

But we aren’t publishing #10

Is it possible to see the proposed text?

so merger wasn't important to me - was happy with a superceding proposal

Sorry Julie I am losing audio

footnote has no substance... we're looking for data

The survey questions are linked, as Julie says

Dialing back in

9 and 10 should remain superseded

bye all, have to drop

But the data is not part of #36

It isn’t reference in #36

To include it would mean that we’d be pulling it from #10

But the data wasn’t discussed by the WG as part of this proposal. So it doesn’t make sense for this context.

I am going to disagree with us creating a record of discussion on data that we did not have

sure - if Staff could send out an email with links to all docs we just discussed. Tx!

@Susan +1

So we're inserting data that we didn't have?

Want to speak AFTER staff

This deadline is a good thing, IMO

good idea to focus on sept wrap-up

Good!

awesome Julie

tbhanks brian

Thanks Brian and all