
31:06
Apologies for not reacting sooner on this question, but I support Option 2

31:31
I'm also fine w/ Pul Tattersfield's emailed suggestion.

33:38
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

33:52
URS PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=872694278

34:21
Thanks Cyntia also I didn't see any other emails suggesting support for either options 1 or 2

35:00
Emails were sent directly to staff and not copied to the list

35:21
so its not public! Julie this really isn't on

36:24
Yes!

37:05
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

37:05
very well said Rebecca

38:03
Agree with Paul M -- we never vote, we always seek consensus

38:05
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

38:18
were we meant to be answering a question on the listserve/ I haven't seen anything from anyone?

39:09
two option were sent by staff following the call

39:18
three responses were received by staff

39:25
options

39:51
Lost Cynthia?

39:59
Cyntia

40:22
I don't think this for staff to decide it is for working group members with staff supporting

40:50
@Paul: This is not a staff decision, sorry if that isn’t clear.

41:23
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.

43:52
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

45:12
I can support Pul's suggestion.

45:16
I can imagine that some successful respondents would actually want their info published

45:25
See my comments above in chat in reaction to Paul T;s suggestion

45:47
One possibility would be to report to the WG that subgroup members had suggestions for what to do, including Paul's

45:53
@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”

46:16
+1 @Griffin

46:38
i could support paul's suggestion as tweaked by Griffin

47:09
I have substantive things to say about that suggestion but I believe this should go o the WG for full discussion

47:42
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?

49:24
Of course there is still justification to publish Respondent info even if they prevail

49:55
Registrants should not have to ask for nondisclosure.

50:21
The proposal includes the ability of the panel to withhold that info from publication even without respondent intervention

50:46
To be clear, I do support passing Paul's proposal on to the WG

50:49
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

51:22
I agree with Paul's M's approach

52:13
IMHO, the subgroup can only identify issues needing full WG resolution, not resolve them -- otherwise we get bogged down

52:34
thank you for taking consideration of the matter Paul

52:39
yes

52:39
yes

52:41
yes

52:45
Further to Georges’s point, the GDPR has express carve-outs for publication/disclosure of personal data in the context of a legal proceeding

52:48
I agree with Paul M and Phil and see that this will go to full WG, best outcome it seems

52:49
loud and clear, Zak

54:11
Seems like pretty overwhelming support for Rec 2… I think we accept as is and move on

55:09
I agree that given the very large support we accept it and move to the next item

55:26
Do registrars ever have a role in forwarding the data for a URS? If not, that reference should go.

56:37
I thought the Registrar is on the hook for the data if for some reason the registry fails to comply?

57:10
In that case, registrar should stay in

58:03
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

58:16
Zak gets all the easy ones. :-)

58:33
To each per their ability

58:36
Haha jk Zak

59:05
I liked Zak's question seeking factual clarification first. Good question.

59:45
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

01:01:29
Go @Kathy

01:01:44
handy advice

01:01:58
Pretty sure Renee just answered Kathy;s question?

01:02:17
Also this is explained, I believe, in the context for this Rec

01:04:07
The point of the IPC comments is to make explicit the impact or not particularly written process that seems to be followed

01:04:15
*implicit not impact

01:04:40
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

01:04:50
sounds ok

01:04:53
Which seems to be the point of the Rec

01:04:58
Agreed

01:05:07
Ok

01:05:12
I'm fine w/ that

01:05:14
ok

01:05:27
(hand up)

01:05:45
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

01:05:56
I think this makes sense (from comment above)

01:06:06
@Zak: Staff has captured this in the analysis summary Google document that is being prepared for Sub Group review

01:06:57
The data that is given is the data that is used, so not sure why it matters

01:07:18
That’s a de facto proxy service....

01:07:35
no idea I'm afraid cyntia

01:07:53
registrar always has the info

01:08:09
as they has the direct relationship with the customer

01:08:12
Would the data ever differ as between the registrar and registry? Don’t think that should happen

01:08:15
If we really want to, we can ask Tucows for followup

01:08:51
Phil is correct as to the main purpose of this Rec

01:11:48
The next recommendation has to do with language of the respondent notice -- this one is about method of delivery

01:12:30
Brian raises a good point… maybe we don’t need to over engineer this

01:12:34
good point

01:12:43
Agree with Griffin

01:12:49
and Brian

01:13:41
agree -- thankfully rare -- but a complicated issue when it does happen

01:14:20
Keep current language?

01:14:43
Having considered Brian’s point, I think we can accept the rec as written and move on

01:16:24
Yes

01:16:29
yes

01:18:50
yes

01:22:33
Susan is right, that is what 4.2 says

01:24:23
The Notice of Complaint shall be in English and translated by the Provider intothe predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory.

01:24:56
Question for Renee: is there any issue here?

01:24:56
Hi all, unfortunately I need to drop now for another call

01:25:03
Will make sure to catch up on any action items on list

01:25:10
Good question, Kathy

01:27:29
India?

01:29:35
"the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory"

01:29:59
Wait

01:30:02
simple correction is fine

01:30:17
It's a fair point, correction seems the right thing to do

01:30:42
indeed Cyntia

01:30:52
that was where I was abut to get to

01:30:56
India - Hindi, English, Bengali Telugu, Marathi

01:33:12
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.

01:33:21
I think we're good.

01:33:22
It seems there are substantial comments stating a preference for the language of the Registration Agreement

01:33:31
Cyntia +1

01:34:06
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?)

01:34:10
yes I think they do rise to that level

01:34:34
extensive comments

01:35:30
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.

01:38:18
CPH says predominant language in registrant's country.

01:38:19
"translation of the predominant language of the Respondent" – doesn’t seem to actually make sense

01:42:49
and two of theyellow comments Kathy

01:45:47
@Zak: We can capture the deliberations and present them to the WG (after review by the Sub Group)

01:46:10
So summarizing the discussion today to provide to the WG (after review of the Sub Group)

01:46:14
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.

01:46:15
Phil's approach makes sense - the problem is the language in the Rec and suggesting clarification to the Rec makes sense to me

01:46:31
@Phil: We can check

01:46:45
Hand up

01:47:02
@Julie--thanks

01:47:35
yes Cyntia

01:48:16
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)

01:48:17
3/4 of GNSO says no change

01:48:22
I take it back - Zak doesn't get the easy ones...

01:50:04
OK, I hope that we all recall these viewpoints when we get to considering Zak's IP

01:51:22
Agree with adopting it

01:52:01
But does the registry, which provides the registrant data, know what language the agreement between the registrar and registrant was in?

01:52:02
We've already heard that a) implementation is taking place today under current rules, and b) there may be unintended consequences.

01:52:08
suggest the change from the subgroup and let the working group decide

01:52:48
Good question @Phil

01:52:55
I would like to hear from proponents of the "predominate language" how they proposed to asses this -- and how compliance would be assessed

01:53:32
Thanks Zak

01:53:40
thanks Zak and Paul

01:53:50
yes, and Paul

01:54:05
Thanx, venerable Co-Chairs!

01:54:06
Tx Paul and Zak!

01:54:12
Thanks Zak & Paul. Bye all