Apologies for not reacting sooner on this question, but I support Option 2

I'm also fine w/ Pul Tattersfield's emailed suggestion.

I don't recall making a suggestion last week -- but, if she wishes to, I would like to hear from Renee who was not on last week's call

URS PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=872694278

Thanks Cyntia also I didn't see any other emails suggesting support for either options 1 or 2

Emails were sent directly to staff and not copied to the list

so its not public! Julie this really isn't on

Yes!

I saw Paul T's email, so presumed everyone in the subgroup saw it. It is this -- The default position is to publish the underlying respondent data, however:If the complainant is successful the panellist has the discretion to withhold publicationIf the respondent is successful the respondent may require publication to be withheld

very well said Rebecca

Agree with Paul M -- we never vote, we always seek consensus

I could support Paul T’s suggestion, with the change that if respondent is successful the respondent may request that publication of their identifying info be redacted subject to the panelist’s discretion to hold otherwise

were we meant to be answering a question on the listserve/ I haven't seen anything from anyone?

two option were sent by staff following the call

three responses were received by staff

options

Lost Cynthia?

Cyntia

I don't think this for staff to decide it is for working group members with staff supporting

@Paul: This is not a staff decision, sorry if that isn’t clear.

Staff simply sent the action item to the list with the two option and collected responses — the wording of the options came from the Co-Chairs.

Paul’s: It is this -- The default position is to publish the underlying respondent data, however:If the complainant is successful the panellist has the discretion to withhold publicationIf the respondent is successful the respondent may require publication to be withheld

I can support Pul's suggestion.

I can imagine that some successful respondents would actually want their info published

See my comments above in chat in reaction to Paul T;s suggestion

One possibility would be to report to the WG that subgroup members had suggestions for what to do, including Paul's

@Griffin — here it is: “I could support Paul T’s suggestion, with the change that if respondent is successful the respondent may request that publication of their identifying info be redacted subject to the panelist’s discretion to hold otherwise”

+1 @Griffin

i could support paul's suggestion as tweaked by Griffin

I have substantive things to say about that suggestion but I believe this should go o the WG for full discussion

so, this seems to be the same issue we were having in SubGroup A. Is it the role of the SubGroups to suggest a fix or just to identify an issue that the full WG has to take time to fully consider?

Of course there is still justification to publish Respondent info even if they prevail

Registrants should not have to ask for nondisclosure.

The proposal includes the ability of the panel to withhold that info from publication even without respondent intervention

To be clear, I do support passing Paul's proposal on to the WG

The GDPR is only applicable to Europe and it is being treated as a universal law. Moreover, I believe that under GDPR court actions do not redact the names of the parties. why would it be different then for a URS

I agree with Paul's M's approach

IMHO, the subgroup can only identify issues needing full WG resolution, not resolve them -- otherwise we get bogged down

thank you for taking consideration of the matter Paul

yes

yes

yes

Further to Georges’s point, the GDPR has express carve-outs for publication/disclosure of personal data in the context of a legal proceeding

I agree with Paul M and Phil and see that this will go to full WG, best outcome it seems

loud and clear, Zak

Seems like pretty overwhelming support for Rec 2… I think we accept as is and move on

I agree that given the very large support we accept it and move to the next item

Do registrars ever have a role in forwarding the data for a URS? If not, that reference should go.

I thought the Registrar is on the hook for the data if for some reason the registry fails to comply?

In that case, registrar should stay in

As long as we are agreeing to keep in the reference to registrars here for the reasons stated I think we are good re Rec 2

Zak gets all the easy ones. :-)

To each per their ability

Haha jk Zak

I liked Zak's question seeking factual clarification first. Good question.

Good point from Susan - might be worth making this clarification, if necessary to clarify something that may be implicit but not explicit in the process

Go @Kathy

handy advice

Pretty sure Renee just answered Kathy;s question?

Also this is explained, I believe, in the context for this Rec

The point of the IPC comments is to make explicit the impact or not particularly written process that seems to be followed

*implicit not impact

I don’t think we have any problem with the process Renee stated, although again not clear that other providers do this, and might be helpful for it to be explicit and uniform

sounds ok

Which seems to be the point of the Rec

Agreed

Ok

I'm fine w/ that

ok

(hand up)

I don’t think we have any problem with the process Renee stated, although again not clear that other providers do this, and might be helpful for it to be explicit and uniform

I think this makes sense (from comment above)

@Zak: Staff has captured this in the analysis summary Google document that is being prepared for Sub Group review

The data that is given is the data that is used, so not sure why it matters

That’s a de facto proxy service....

no idea I'm afraid cyntia

registrar always has the info

as they has the direct relationship with the customer

Would the data ever differ as between the registrar and registry? Don’t think that should happen

If we really want to, we can ask Tucows for followup

Phil is correct as to the main purpose of this Rec

The next recommendation has to do with language of the respondent notice -- this one is about method of delivery

Brian raises a good point… maybe we don’t need to over engineer this

good point

Agree with Griffin

and Brian

agree -- thankfully rare -- but a complicated issue when it does happen

Keep current language?

Having considered Brian’s point, I think we can accept the rec as written and move on

Yes

yes

yes

Susan is right, that is what 4.2 says

The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.

Question for Renee: is there any issue here?

Hi all, unfortunately I need to drop now for another call

Will make sure to catch up on any action items on list

Good question, Kathy

India?

"the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory"

Wait

simple correction is fine

It's a fair point, correction seems the right thing to do

indeed Cyntia

that was where I was abut to get to

India - Hindi, English, Bengali Telugu, Marathi

Actually, our remit allows us to change the language of this Rec to reflect the public comments, many of which suggest we use language of the registration agreement.

I think we're good.

It seems there are substantial comments stating a preference for the language of the Registration Agreement

Cyntia +1

Many commenters suggested language of the registration agreement -- but as in almost all URS proceedings it is the registry providing the contact date, would it even know the language of the registration agreement? (the registrar would, but is that communicated?)

yes I think they do rise to that level

extensive comments

Did the ALAC provide a solution on how to figure that language out? Also, if someone has signed up to a contract, they can be charged with ability to read it in that language.

CPH says predominant language in registrant's country.

"translation of the predominant language of the Respondent" – doesn’t seem to actually make sense

and two of theyellow comments Kathy

@Zak: We can capture the deliberations and present them to the WG (after review by the Sub Group)

So summarizing the discussion today to provide to the WG (after review of the Sub Group)

I can't recall whether we previously discussed a change to language of the registration agreement -- that is, is it a new suggestion? Staff should check and report back.

Phil's approach makes sense - the problem is the language in the Rec and suggesting clarification to the Rec makes sense to me

@Phil: We can check

Hand up

@Julie--thanks

yes Cyntia

Staff just checked the summary notes when the WG deliberated on these URS recommendations. This recommendation is intended to reference section 4.2 (language of registrant’s country/territory)

3/4 of GNSO says no change

I take it back - Zak doesn't get the easy ones...

OK, I hope that we all recall these viewpoints when we get to considering Zak's IP

Agree with adopting it

But does the registry, which provides the registrant data, know what language the agreement between the registrar and registrant was in?

We've already heard that a) implementation is taking place today under current rules, and b) there may be unintended consequences.

suggest the change from the subgroup and let the working group decide

Good question @Phil

I would like to hear from proponents of the "predominate language" how they proposed to asses this -- and how compliance would be assessed

Thanks Zak

thanks Zak and Paul

yes, and Paul

Thanx, venerable Co-Chairs!

Tx Paul and Zak!

Thanks Zak & Paul. Bye all