Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
31:02
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 5 Feb. 2020 at 18:00 UTC.
Lori Schulman
32:09
Hi
Julie Hedlund
36:00
As a reminder for today’s discussion: The URS recommendations and questions have already been discussed and approved by the WG. In addition, the URS context language is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG and that was approved by the WG.
Julie Hedlund
36:30
two meetings
Julie Hedlund
36:37
@phil: two meetings
Maxim Alzoba
36:47
given we know the deadline, could we calculate how many meetings can we devote to what items?
Julie Hedlund
37:14
@Maxim: We have done that for the Initial Report review. In the work plan.
Julie Hedlund
37:27
We will also do that once we get the public comments in from the Initial Report.
Ariel Liang
37:35
This is the doc for URS deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405
Maxim Alzoba
37:35
thanks
Julie Hedlund
37:59
We are starting on Recommendation 3
Julie Hedlund
38:09
We covered that last week
Julie Hedlund
38:19
Recs 1 and 2 were covered last week.
Susan Payne
43:07
There might be some benefit of moving 3 next to 8 in the doc, but I don'tthink we should start deleting or combining recommendations at this stage given the timing pressure we are under
Ariel Liang
43:23
Makes sense Susan
Susan Payne
43:25
we could aways do so at the time of final report if appropriate
David McAuley (Verisign)
43:45
I agree with Phil and Susan
Cyntia King
44:56
+ @Susan
Ariel Liang
49:33
Noted phi. Thanks
Greg Shatan
52:26
Go staff!
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:29
agreed
Ariel Liang
52:39
Thank you (blush)!
Cyntia King
52:43
Absolutely correct, @Phil.
Julie Hedlund
56:04
Hand up from Cyntia
Paul Tattersfield
59:36
just imposing guidance?
Lori Schulman
01:01:24
I seem to be doubled muted
Lori Schulman
01:01:58
sorry, i will type
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:02
just 'imposing guidance' instead of 'numerous elemets of guidance'
Lori Schulman
01:02:04
I can't figure out the mute issue
Lori Schulman
01:02:27
I am wondering if "numrous elements of guidance" makes sense either.
Lori Schulman
01:02:33
Guidance is guidance.
Lori Schulman
01:02:41
Maybe it
Ariel Liang
01:02:48
Or “prescriptive guidance”?
Lori Schulman
01:02:48
should be "onerous"
Susan Payne
01:02:51
maybe "extensive"?
Lori Schulman
01:03:11
guidance is not a requirement
Paul Tattersfield
01:03:34
just guidance
Lori Schulman
01:03:38
detailed guidance still doesn't get to the heart of the matter I think
Ariel Liang
01:03:49
Jason hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:06
unduly detailed?
Lori Schulman
01:04:45
guidance can be followed or not followed
Lori Schulman
01:04:51
is that different than a requirement
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:55
Lori +1
Susan Payne
01:05:28
If there's a proposal to change the 7% can that please be circulated to the group and not just updated in the doc
Lori Schulman
01:05:39
I can accept "burdensome guidance"
Cyntia King
01:05:44
I believe the 7% figure came from Georges Nahitchevansky after a detailed review of the data.
Susan Payne
01:05:56
yep, burdensome would work
Ariel Liang
01:06:01
Yes, that’s correct - re Georges
Paul Tattersfield
01:06:08
if you specify the amount it changes the context
Lori Schulman
01:06:12
Yes, URS is for the "easy" cases so to speak
Lori Schulman
01:06:22
not intended for drawn out arguments
Cyntia King
01:06:57
+1 "burdensome"
Jason Schaeffer
01:07:18
+1 Lori. Easy cases.
Ariel Liang
01:08:45
Yes
Cyntia King
01:09:38
We should delete "the" in the first sentence of "Context:"
Cyntia King
01:10:03
apologies delete "with"
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:30
agree with Cyntia on 'with'
Ariel Liang
01:10:37
Thanks Cyntia
Susan Payne
01:11:29
That is not an agreed figure
Cyntia King
01:13:17
Agree that an issue of fact can be determined offline & presented to the group.
Paul Tattersfield
01:14:16
Some have discussion but only repeat the steps so are not strictly rationale
Susan Payne
01:14:41
I don't think you can call 7% "significant" but I'm sure we can find a descriptor if we need one
Julie Hedlund
01:17:56
relayed
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:11
Shouldn't Determinations para 1 be lower case
Marie Pattullo
01:19:09
To develop = correct in UK English.
Mary Wong
01:20:14
Just a note that staff will be going through the text to catch typos, grammatical errors and these minor mistakes before the final document is circulated.
Cyntia King
01:21:12
I think this sufficiently punts to the IRT.
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:22:34
I don't have the time to review the URS decisions again in the next week, so I suggest we go with something neutral and say that there were several decisions that did not have an articulated decision
Ariel Liang
01:22:48
@Paul - will double check upper case or lower case throughout the doc
Paul Tattersfield
01:24:19
There are -> there have been
Ariel Liang
01:24:27
We got the wording from Forum’s response to Provider Sub Team’s questionnaire, I recall
Julie Hedlund
01:24:35
@Georges: How about this: ““several decisions did not appear to have an articulated rationale.”
Ariel Liang
01:24:40
But can defer to Renee for further clarification
Cyntia King
01:24:50
+1 @Julie
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:25:21
Julie: That is fine with me
Cyntia King
01:26:41
I like "some complaints" @Renee
Susan Payne
01:33:00
agree with Brian's comment that this should be deleted
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:09
good question
Steve Levy
01:33:10
There are, in fact, UDRP and URS cases that move forward despite the current pendency of court cases.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:56
yes - the rule says 'open and active'
Cyntia King
01:35:46
Thanks, @SteveLevy.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:54
I used to try courts-martial - never saw a URS or UDRP complaint
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:23
;-)
Cyntia King
01:39:17
No objection - I find it confusing.
Steve Levy
01:40:18
Have to agree with Greg. Even placing the words in parentheticals will confuse the issue.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:40:52
box talks of 'proceeding'
Greg Shatan
01:41:58
Thanks, David. I think the word “proceeding” needs to be read in context.
Cyntia King
01:42:29
Moving on.....
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:27
Would it be more logical to swap/reodrer the numbering of recommendation #3 & #4
John McElwaine
01:46:15
I think it makes sense as drafted
Jason Schaeffer
01:47:28
That makes sense
John McElwaine
01:47:36
with the revision
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:36
domain name is still in the respondent's name.
Maxim Alzoba
01:51:48
it should be the same
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:01
@Maxim: what should be the same?
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:17
changing registrant is a transfer, and urs was not designed for that
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:41
so registrant should stay the same
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:15
no
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:26
we should not name countries
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:45
I share Phil's reluctance on this
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:02
I think p[eople can think up examples
Susan Payne
01:54:12
@Maxim, I think this is only about changing the registrar isn't it? not changing the registrant
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:40
changing registrar is still a transfer
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:15
has no legal way to pay?
Lori Schulman
01:55:35
agree about citing specific countries - we shouldn't call any ou
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:56
good idea!
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:10
legal way to pay - as a possible way to say that the winner can not use the same registrar
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:27
You cannot engage in the legal transaction at all...
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:37
or can not use services of the registrar for legal reasons
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:56:40
Good 'four' sight, Phil - finish #4 next meeting
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:50
bye all
Greg Shatan
01:56:50
The Registry Requirement does not require the registration to stay with the same Registrar.
Julie Bisland
01:57:14
Next call: Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Julie Hedlund
01:57:31
Next subject is TMCH
Ariel Liang
01:57:36
Note that we have provided the transcript in the sessions where this question was discussed in the Google doc
Ariel Liang
01:57:51
Including page numbers
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:50
Tx Phil!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:59:04
Thanks Phil, staff and all
Greg Shatan
01:59:11
Bye
Cyntia King
01:59:12
Bye!