Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
26:28
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
Kathy Kleiman
34:35
hand up
Julie Hedlund
34:45
noted Kathy
Lori Schulman
35:08
Hi Everyone. INTA was on a staff retreat last week so I have not read this. But will make it a priority.
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:51
I saaw it last week as I recall - the deliberations part
Julie Hedlund
36:13
I think it went out on Thursday
Griffin Barnett
38:09
Quick note - I think here 3.1 is duplicated - should probably be 3.1 TMCH Proposals and 3.2 URS Proposals?
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:16
I think Kathy makes a good point
Julie Hedlund
38:46
Noted Kathy, Griffin, and David
Griffin Barnett
39:09
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
Ariel Liang
39:20
Thanks Griffin
Cyntia King
39:29
No strong feelings here, either.
Ariel Liang
39:33
Re 3.1 duplication :)
Kathy Kleiman
39:54
Great!
Julie Hedlund
40:16
no more comments
Julie Hedlund
40:21
from me
Susan Payne’s iPhone
40:49
are the proposals WG proposals or the individual ones. will there be a clear distinction between the two
Julie Hedlund
41:17
Yes Susan we will make that distinction
Ariel Liang
41:36
yes - the title was not precise. Will make that adjustment
Ariel Liang
42:37
David hand up
Kathy Kleiman
43:37
A good use of the review!
Julie Hedlund
43:42
@David: You could feel free to directly comment in the document.
Julie Hedlund
43:47
on the typos
David McAuley (Verisign)
43:56
OK - will make suggestions there Julie, thanks
Kathy Kleiman
44:06
I think this hones to our work in Morocco and Montreal
Ariel Liang
44:09
Thanks David
Julie Hedlund
44:11
Thanks David!
Julie Hedlund
45:38
@David and all: We’ll re-open the document for comments after this call.
Ariel Liang
46:40
It is already open for comment, as staff have some comments on the side for the WG to consider
Kathy Kleiman
47:14
Subteam co-chairs?
David McAuley (Verisign)
47:29
I don't recall at this time
David McAuley (Verisign)
47:46
regarding 'in general' -
Griffin Barnett
47:47
I wonder if it is an oblique acknowledgement that there are already exceptions to running SUnrise?
Cyntia King
47:57
Delete it.
Griffin Barnett
47:57
If so that should be clarified
Greg Shatan
51:44
How about replacing it with “except in certain specified circumstances.,”?
Greg Shatan
52:33
If in fact, we are specifying exceptions. If not, it should go.
Philip Corwin
52:38
Agree that "in general" adds nothing -- except general confusion.
Griffin Barnett
53:31
if they have specific meaning, they should not say "in general"
Greg Shatan
53:59
Kathy or staff, can you identify the specified exception that requires the use of “in general” in Rec. 5?
Julie Hedlund
55:41
@Greg: Staff will look, although from our recollection there isn’t a specific exception to justify that language.
Ariel Liang
57:32
You may access the doc directly here (forgot to put the link earlier): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit#
Cyntia King
57:52
Thnx Ariel
Ariel Liang
57:59
No problem
Ariel Liang
58:38
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:00
@Greg -- to your question, a number of Sunrise questions ahead shed light on our use of "in general..."
Griffin Barnett
01:02:40
I have no objection to combining 1 and 2, as 1 seems more like a preamble to 2
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:50
I think joinder of some soryt is warranted
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:54
sort
Griffin Barnett
01:03:44
Agree let's not try and rewrite, just add 1 text and 2 text together (might be some redundancy but that's probably ok)
Ariel Liang
01:03:53
Right Preamble is the word :) (not precursor) We just simply combine these two without rewriting
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:06
It's very readable now.
Susan Payne’s iPhone
01:04:13
agree we shouldn’t rewrite now
Julie Hedlund
01:04:18
Confirm as Ariel says, we can combine without rewriting
Susan Payne’s iPhone
01:04:30
keep them together probably better
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:33
Agree with Brian
Lori Schulman
01:04:37
Also support Rebecca's point about not rewriting
Lori Schulman
01:06:32
As the entire process is electronic, wouldn't a link always be feasible?
Griffin Barnett
01:09:44
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"
Griffin Barnett
01:10:04
I now that is some word smithing, but hopefully just for clarity and not changing intended meaning
Griffin Barnett
01:10:07
*know
Ariel Liang
01:13:34
hand up
Julie Hedlund
01:13:50
Staff suggests that it relates to the terminology “the WG generally agreed” in the context.
Julie Hedlund
01:13:56
Not to specific exceptions
Ariel Liang
01:14:01
Please see Question 1 for TM
Ariel Liang
01:14:04
Hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:24
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
Griffin Barnett
01:15:53
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
Griffin Barnett
01:16:16
Same goes for the other Recommendation(s) for which we obliquely acknowledge these issues using "in general" language
Lori Schulman
01:19:10
Are we really using "generally" to indicate lack of full consensus? If so, maybe we say that.
Lori Schulman
01:19:19
The group agreed but without full consensus.
Griffin Barnett
01:20:06
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
Julie Hedlund
01:20:28
@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”.
Lori Schulman
01:21:35
Ok. Agree that using "consensus" could be confusing.
Brian Beckham
01:23:30
Right, Phil, two different uses of "in general" are compounding the confusion here
Julie Hedlund
01:23:37
@All: The cleanest option would be taking it out when there is no exception being specified
Greg Shatan
01:23:49
I agree with Phil and not just in general.
Greg Shatan
01:24:12
I also agree with @Julie, with specificity.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:33
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
Griffin Barnett
01:24:50
PPretty sure that was my prior suggestion Cyntia....
Paul McGrady
01:25:04
Cyntia - I agree with that (in general) :)
Philip Corwin
01:25:04
Cyntia's suggestion was useful
Ariel Liang
01:26:03
A quick search shows that “in general” only appeared on two recommendations (Sunrise #5 and Trade Marks #5)
Griffin Barnett
01:26:52
@Kathy - yes so let's cross-reference that specific other question/set of questions instead of saying "in general" ... no?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:27:18
Sounds like we're in general agreement of a sort
Ariel Liang
01:27:36
:) that’s the phrase of today
Ariel Liang
01:27:56
Hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:03
Sunrise Rec #5-> Sunrise Question #3 (with numerous questions on ALP, QLP, LRP)
Griffin Barnett
01:29:06
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:28
Should we include a definition?
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:32
In a footnote?
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:21
Agree with you!
Paul McGrady
01:44:15
@Kathy - how could there be any inadequacies? It was written by the best there is...
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:44:35
Claims Q#2 will, let's hope, get some good suggestions coming in, 2b especially
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:08
Good - tx for chairing Brian!
Greg Shatan
01:45:29
We made good progress, in general.
Ariel Liang
01:46:01
lol
Philip Corwin
01:46:01
Good progress. Let's keep it up.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:14
i like to leave open, for a short while at least
Griffin Barnett
01:47:32
Thank you Brian and all.. and especially staff for putting this all together for us and taking our revisions
Ariel Liang
01:47:57
Thanks for everyone’s review and feedback
Julie Bisland
01:48:49
Next call: Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:50
Thanks Brian and all
Greg Shatan
01:49:00
Bye all!