Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Maxim Alzoba
21:27
hello all
Terri Agnew
22:23
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Julie Hedlund
23:27
The current meeting schedule will continue through August: Tuesdays at 13:00 UTC and Thursdays at 17:00 UTC. The invites will be sent shortly.
Justine Chew
32:01
I agree with Greg on TMCH vs anxillary db
Griffin Barnett
32:22
Sorry for joining late, had another call run long
Mary Wong
44:00
@Massimo - this PDP doesn’t extend to making policy for anything other than mandatory RPMs. Any additional non-mandatory services that the TMCH provider or a registry operator may wish to offer will therefore generally be limited by the scope of its contract with ICANN org.
Massimo Vittori
44:36
Thank you
Mary Wong
48:45
That’s correct, Phil. Since the WG is so far along the drafting route, staff is simply reminding the group that the AGB is actually an implementation document - and that its “style” will ideally have to be consistent across the entire document (which is an implementation question).
Mary Wong
49:30
So it may be clearer for the IRT to have the PDP WG enunciate clear policy principles, with suggested accompanying AGB proposed text.
Kathy Kleiman
49:34
Greg, maybe you can help tweak?
Greg Shatan
51:58
Kathy, happy to help.
Ariel Liang
56:19
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=1771837429
Griffin Barnett
01:01:58
The only potentially new idea I’m seeing here is the idea of subsidies for certain users of the RPMs, but not sure it is worth focusing on this
Ariel Liang
01:04:20
The spreadsheet is still loading
Ariel Liang
01:04:23
Internet is slow
Cyntia King (USA)
01:07:09
+1 @Phil
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:08:06
agree about the form. the form is too much for most and nearly impossible for those not entrenched in ICANN policy.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:08:34
the space limits are not realistic. appreciate that staff needs an efficient form of collection but this is not it.
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:45
have to drop the call, bye all
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:26
Kathy +1
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:10:53
Also want to acknowledge that staff has been very cooperative when space limits have been exceeded.
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:16
It was very problematic too here and very time consuming
Mary Wong
01:12:04
To be clear, staff is not saying the WG should not provide feedback on methodology; we are suggesting that it be done through the Council liaison and not be made part of the PDP report, especially since the method was used by the EPDP Team and the SubPro group.
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:27
Let's write it up for now... and then work on next steps to come!
Philip Corwin
01:14:06
I'm back
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:37
Back to you, Phil.
Susan.Payne
01:15:05
I think the way we set up phase 1 and phase 2 work, any discussion of that would have been deferred to P2. Good to discuss
Ariel Liang
01:16:52
staff hand up
Cyntia King (USA)
01:18:24
Technology. Love it / Hate it.
Ariel Liang
01:18:28
Hand up
Scott Austin
01:21:30
.XXX
Ariel Liang
01:21:46
This is the question that staff mentioned verbally. Pasted here: “How, and to what extent, does use of Protected Marks Lists (e.g. blocking services) affect the utilization of other RPMs, especially Sunrise registrations?”
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:26
I agree with Susan on this.
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:06
We don't have the data.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:41
We reach the end of the spreadsheet!
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:50
(knowing we return to a few)
Zak Muscovitch
01:32:31
Thanks Phil, Kathy and Staff!
Julie Hedlund
01:32:47
Next Meeting: Tuesday, 04 August at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Julie Hedlund
01:32:53
Agenda to be circulated shortly
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:32:57
Thanks Phil, Kathy, staff and all
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:02
Tx Phil and glad you were able to come back online.
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:18
Thanks Phil & Kathy, bye all
Cyntia King (USA)
01:33:27
Thanks Phil & All!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:28
or get to another call