Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC

hand up

noted Kathy

Hi Everyone. INTA was on a staff retreat last week so I have not read this. But will make it a priority.

I saaw it last week as I recall - the deliberations part

I think it went out on Thursday

Quick note - I think here 3.1 is duplicated - should probably be 3.1 TMCH Proposals and 3.2 URS Proposals?

I think Kathy makes a good point

Noted Kathy, Griffin, and David

I don't have strong feelings either way re Kathy's suggestion, although we still deliberated on the individual proposals, so I think the current order would be OK

Thanks Griffin

No strong feelings here, either.

Re 3.1 duplication :)

Great!

no more comments

from me

are the proposals WG proposals or the individual ones. will there be a clear distinction between the two

Yes Susan we will make that distinction

yes - the title was not precise. Will make that adjustment

David hand up

A good use of the review!

@David: You could feel free to directly comment in the document.

on the typos

OK - will make suggestions there Julie, thanks

I think this hones to our work in Morocco and Montreal

Thanks David

Thanks David!

@David and all: We’ll re-open the document for comments after this call.

It is already open for comment, as staff have some comments on the side for the WG to consider

Subteam co-chairs?

I don't recall at this time

regarding 'in general' -

I wonder if it is an oblique acknowledgement that there are already exceptions to running SUnrise?

Delete it.

If so that should be clarified

How about replacing it with “except in certain specified circumstances.,”?

If in fact, we are specifying exceptions. If not, it should go.

Agree that "in general" adds nothing -- except general confusion.

if they have specific meaning, they should not say "in general"

Kathy or staff, can you identify the specified exception that requires the use of “in general” in Rec. 5?

@Greg: Staff will look, although from our recollection there isn’t a specific exception to justify that language.

You may access the doc directly here (forgot to put the link earlier): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit#

Thnx Ariel

No problem

hand up

@Greg -- to your question, a number of Sunrise questions ahead shed light on our use of "in general..."

I have no objection to combining 1 and 2, as 1 seems more like a preamble to 2

I think joinder of some soryt is warranted

sort

Agree let's not try and rewrite, just add 1 text and 2 text together (might be some redundancy but that's probably ok)

Right Preamble is the word :) (not precursor) We just simply combine these two without rewriting

It's very readable now.

agree we shouldn’t rewrite now

Confirm as Ariel says, we can combine without rewriting

keep them together probably better

Agree with Brian

Also support Rebecca's point about not rewriting

As the entire process is electronic, wouldn't a link always be feasible?

I think it should say: "The Claims Notice should include a link to a web page on the ICANN Org website containing translations of the Claims Notice in all six UN languages"

I now that is some word smithing, but hopefully just for clarity and not changing intended meaning

*know

hand up

Staff suggests that it relates to the terminology “the WG generally agreed” in the context.

Not to specific exceptions

Please see Question 1 for TM

Hand up

Maybe (re Rec #3) the 'where feasible' should be 'when possible' given that the Claims Notice will be revised and the effort to translate will probably take some time

Thanks Ariel - since we are asking these questions about possible exceptions to the current requirement re Claims Period - we should specify that in the Recommendation rather than just using the vague "in general" language

Same goes for the other Recommendation(s) for which we obliquely acknowledge these issues using "in general" language

Are we really using "generally" to indicate lack of full consensus? If so, maybe we say that.

The group agreed but without full consensus.

I don't think changing the "in general" language in the formulation of the recommendations closes the door on public comment in any way - we just want to clarify that there are other questions relevant to the recommendation that could precipitate exceptions

@Lori: Note that we have not done a consensus call on these recommendations as that is not done for the Initial Report. We are indicating whether the WG agreed “in general”.

Ok. Agree that using "consensus" could be confusing.

Right, Phil, two different uses of "in general" are compounding the confusion here

@All: The cleanest option would be taking it out when there is no exception being specified

I agree with Phil and not just in general.

I also agree with @Julie, with specificity.

Yeah I would be OK with clarifying "in general" in the contextual language as opposed to the language of the recommendation itself but it should be clarified somewhere in my opinion, in the vein of cross-referencing to the specific other questions/recommendations for the community that relate back to why we are putting the "in general" placeholder in the recommendations

PPretty sure that was my prior suggestion Cyntia....

Cyntia - I agree with that (in general) :)

Cyntia's suggestion was useful

A quick search shows that “in general” only appeared on two recommendations (Sunrise #5 and Trade Marks #5)

@Kathy - yes so let's cross-reference that specific other question/set of questions instead of saying "in general" ... no?

Sounds like we're in general agreement of a sort

:) that’s the phrase of today

Hand up

Sunrise Rec #5-> Sunrise Question #3 (with numerous questions on ALP, QLP, LRP)

I think in this case, there are some nuances to 5 and 6 that support leaving them separate... one talks about maintaining mandatory Claims and the other talks about uniformity for all gTLD types

Should we include a definition?

In a footnote?

Agree with you!

@Kathy - how could there be any inadequacies? It was written by the best there is...

Claims Q#2 will, let's hope, get some good suggestions coming in, 2b especially

Good - tx for chairing Brian!

We made good progress, in general.

lol

Good progress. Let's keep it up.

i like to leave open, for a short while at least

Thank you Brian and all.. and especially staff for putting this all together for us and taking our revisions

Thanks for everyone’s review and feedback

Next call: Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thanks Brian and all

Bye all!