Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Kathy Kleiman
17:52
the first one
Kathy Kleiman
18:00
the one that said no password required.
Kathy Kleiman
18:08
Ditto for Subpro last night.
Nathalie Peregrine
18:11
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Kathy Kleiman
18:18
Both times stopped until password provided.
Brian Beckham
18:20
Thank you David!
Philip Corwin
18:23
Good day to all
Nathalie Peregrine
18:28
@kathy have you updated Zoom recently?
Nathalie Peregrine
18:54
Version 5.4.2 is the most recent.
Kathy Kleiman
19:13
@Nathalie -- that may be it! I'll give it a shot...
Nathalie Peregrine
19:19
Sorry 5.0.4
Ariel Liang
20:21
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=1163822586
Paul McGrady
20:58
Is it our task to decide what recommendations move on the the full WG as David mentioned, or is it to go through the public comments and see if there was anything new from them that the full WG needs to decide? If the former, I think we have changed our scope significantly during this past week.
Susan Payne
22:41
I think that kind of light touch clarification makes sense
Paul McGrady
23:48
Thanks David.
Philip Corwin
24:10
@Paul--personal view, I think it's the reverse -- first see if new ideas or facts suggest the recommendation should be changed, or indicate that the community strongly favors or disfavors, and then send on to full WG with any modifications as well as a reading on where the community is at
Paul McGrady
24:46
Thanks Phil. Makes sense
Kathy Kleiman
29:06
Good to have this background. Tx Julie.
Kathy Kleiman
33:25
Tx David!
Brian Beckham
33:42
Agree -- thx David
Griffin Barnett
35:17
Is it just me or is David’s audio fading in and out
Kathy Kleiman
35:23
Fading
Justine Chew
35:24
David's audio seems to be fading in and out ...
Paul Tattersfield
35:32
sound is coming and going here too
Philip Corwin
35:39
Fine with moving on. Again, I believe that in our Final Report we should have some language that the required RPMs do not prevent any registry operator from offering additional RPMs. I believe that reflects our actions as a WG and our consideration of private RPMs like DPML.
Kathy Kleiman
38:53
The Working Group generally agreed that some Registry Sunrise or Premium Name[1] pricing practices have limited the ability of some trademark owners to participate during Sunrise. The Working Group is aware of cases where the Registry Operator practices may have unfairly limited the ability of some trademark owners to participate during Sunrise, when pricing set for the trademark owners was significantly higher than other Sunrise pricing or General Availability pricing. The Working Group noted that this problem seems sufficiently extensive that it requires a recommendation to address it.
Griffin Barnett
39:32
The context was included in the context
Griffin Barnett
39:37
If I recall
Griffin Barnett
40:34
Also - as noted last time, I think we were in agreement that this policy recommendation would require more concrete language for purposes of implementation of an actual RA amendment
Griffin Barnett
40:47
It was not intended to be an RA provision in itself
Ariel Liang
41:19
Correct, Griffin - the contextual language is included in the context section in the initial report, right below the recommendation
Mary Wong
42:09
@Griffin, yes it was in the report. If it helps, I can confirm that, during implementation, ICANN org and the IRT look at the entire report to obtain guidance and clarity if needed, not just the rec itself.
Mary Wong
44:53
Also, as mentioned last week, we do not require or request that a PDP WG actually draft contractual text. Implementation guidance can be in the form of examples that the WG considered, for instance.
Ariel Liang
47:26
Clarification - The colored content in the “Sub Group Response” column is just tag, in case you scroll through the tab and get lost where you are
Paul McGrady
48:10
But is this our role? Or is this the role of the full WG?
Paul Tattersfield
48:22
Michael + 1 PICs circumvent RPMs for example
Susan Payne
48:33
@Kathy, as I said I don't dispute that additional implementation guidance may be beneficial here. I was trying to understand what the future status of the context text is, since this is relevant to every recommendation
michaelrgraham
49:44
Agree with Paul — The issue at this point is not whether the language should c
michaelrgraham
50:17
be revised, but how it should be revised for clarity.
John McElwaine
51:56
This should not be hard to provide a bit more detail on this concept. I note the RA in Spec 11 uses broad prohibitions such as "Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies."\
Griffin Barnett
52:04
+1 John
michaelrgraham
52:14
+1 John
Paul McGrady
52:36
+1 John
Paul Tattersfield
52:56
+1 John
Griffin Barnett
53:25
I think Phil is right… why don’t we flag this Rec, take back to full WG, and work on a more fully fleshed out iteration of the text?
Paul McGrady
53:43
+1 Phil. Let's take it back to the full WG.
Griffin Barnett
54:40
I haven’t heard anyone say to throw out the Rec
Kathy Kleiman
54:46
Why don't we figure out a clarified recommendation? Agree with Brian
Philip Corwin
54:59
Thank you Griffin & Paul. I'd encourage members to work on clarifying language and have that ready for when the full WG takes it up.
Susan Payne
55:25
Is there a reason not to recommend "imprevements" here
John McElwaine
55:28
Perhaps a small team here to suggest some clarifying language.
michaelrgraham
55:33
For our work — I do think we need to determine whatt he “Sub Group Response” should be for each proposal and insert those for approval.
Susan Payne
55:35
+1 John
Brian Beckham
55:55
I like that idea John - small team to work it out
Kathy Kleiman
56:03
Agree with John -- to suggest clarifying language
Kathy Kleiman
58:57
Agree with David.
Kathy Kleiman
59:05
Put down my hand
michaelrgraham
59:21
Agreee with David and John
Brian Beckham
01:01:04
Interesting to see on the screen that "ICANN org does not foresee any issues..."
Mary Wong
01:01:59
@Brian, yes - to us, the recommendation text was clear. As I mentioned, the concern was to make sure that implementing it will accurately reflect the intended scope and be consistent with the rest of the RA.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:12
I’m confused as to how a recommendation stating that the status quo is maintained can be construed as too broad or vague?
Brian Beckham
01:03:58
Agree with @Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:04:05
Anything would be considered too broad or vague if you ignore all the contextual background
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:15
can't hear Susan
Philip Corwin
01:04:18
Can't hear Susan
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:50
32% support; 31% significant change; do not support
Julie Hedlund
01:05:28
@Susan: Correct, the context explains the concept of the challenge mechanism
Griffin Barnett
01:05:37
Completely agree Susan
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:53
Susan +100
Ariel Liang
01:06:07
We have included contextual language on the wiki page where the recommendation is posted
Griffin Barnett
01:06:32
Unfortunately I think requiring commenters to take the extra step of following a link to find the context simply prevented many from doing so
michaelrgraham
01:06:32
Agree with Susan — “Too broad/vague” here means they apparently did not understand proposal. Also — “non support” is not clearly supported in the comments.
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:40
David: put to the same small group?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:49
don' think 31% sig change is right Kathy
Griffin Barnett
01:06:52
If we want to encourage proper consumption of the report we may need to have all the context just there with the rec
Justine Chew
01:06:53
@Susan, I empathize but we have what we have, so what do we do?
Paul McGrady
01:07:20
@David - very concerned that everything will be put to a "small group" as Kathy suggests. Now we have a Sub Sub Group making decisions.
Ariel Liang
01:07:30
This is the wiki page set up for Sunrise Recommendation 2, which is linked in the Google Form where people are asked to provide comments for Rec 2: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Sunrise+Recommendation+%232 (context right below the recommendation)
michaelrgraham
01:07:35
@Phil — Isn’t the implementation process here to do nothing?
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:41
Sorry David, I meant 31% (30.9) significant change + do not support
Griffin Barnett
01:07:42
Agree with Paul - we cannot send everything where commuters simply refused to take into consideration full context to mean that a rec is unclear
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:55
+1 Phil on implementation as a serious concern
Griffin Barnett
01:08:02
Only limited to specific cases where reasonable clarifications to a rec are warranted
Paul McGrady
01:08:30
This is the problem with us not sticking to our remit. We will never ever get through these if everything has to go through a Sub Sub Group, then a Sub Group, then the full WG. Let's cut out the 2 middlemen and do what we were told we would be doing.
michaelrgraham
01:09:23
@Brian +1 — Since no agreement, no change.
Griffin Barnett
01:09:25
I think Brian is right… we believe there should be a uniform challenge mechanism but recognize there is not consensus so I think the recommendation of status quo must remain
Griffin Barnett
01:10:15
Agree David
michaelrgraham
01:10:20
Griffin +1
Philip Corwin
01:11:17
The biggest response was no response or opinion - 60%
Brian Beckham
01:12:09
(I hear birds ; )
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:32
It seems to me the problem with placing too much weight on the pie charts is an inherent bias through the difference between bulk support v broad support
Philip Corwin
01:13:17
IPC suggestion does seem new
michaelrgraham
01:13:23
Question: I believe that our remit does include that we should provide response to each comment — some confirmation that we have reviewed the comment and decided X because of Y. These should be prepared for approval by the subgroup — OR are we going to wait and have the Full PDP prepare these responses?
Griffin Barnett
01:14:56
It is a new idea
Griffin Barnett
01:15:04
That I don’t believe had been discussed by the WG
Susan Payne
01:15:30
well I think it's our job in this Sub to consider new ideas isn't it? That's what we were told we were here for
Griffin Barnett
01:15:36
It is a solution to an issue that has been identified, without going so far as to require publication of an ROs reserved names list, which also carries its own set of concerns
Griffin Barnett
01:16:02
Susan I am supporting it’s consideration!
Griffin Barnett
01:16:05
*its
Justine Chew
01:16:47
Yes,
michaelrgraham
01:16:48
Support consideration
Griffin Barnett
01:16:49
I support this being flagged for WG consideration
Paul McGrady
01:16:52
Yes
John McElwaine
01:18:01
My experience has been when you try to register a domain name that has been reserved you get a generic message that "name is not available".
Justine Chew
01:18:12
I imagine that would be up to each RO.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:34
Kathy old hand?
Mary Wong
01:18:39
@MichaelG - FYI, a PDP WG isn’t required to prepare a response to each and every comment. What it is required to do is to make sure that the comments were considered - practically speaking, this is normally done through a combination of the Public Comment Review Tool, WG discussions of the Tool (including sub groups), and the recordings and transcripts. In the Final Report, the text normally points to these meetings and documents so that a reader can ensure all comments were compiled and had ample opportunity to be considered and discussed.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:00
It would not show DN as registered?
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:05
let's give this background to full WG - tx!
Philip Corwin
01:22:31
Let's take yes for an answer ;-)
michaelrgraham
01:23:15
@Mary — Sensible,but I wonder if in light of the importance of the Final Report we will be preparing and the likelihood that some commenters whose suggestions are not accepted may raise this as a last minute issue, I would think a “Considered but not adopted” or “Considered, but thoroughly discussed in ____ stage and not adopted.” etc. would be useful. Referring questioners to “the record” is not generally helpful. Without noting our consideration and decisions here, how do we report our considerations to the full WG, much less GNSO?
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:58
Agree with Michael G
Ariel Liang
01:24:30
Michael - the final report contextual language for each final recommendation should include the high-level summary of how the Sub Group/WG deliberated on the public comments
Susan Payne
01:24:34
ok
Griffin Barnett
01:24:37
I wouldn’t mind flagging this suggestion, but not super strongly
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:48
early is great!
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:50
Tx David
Ariel Liang
01:26:40
In the contextual language of Rec 5, there is a note that “most Registry Operators have run the End Date Sunrise”
Roger Carney
01:27:15
+1 Kathy, I thought we discussed this
michaelrgraham
01:27:22
@Ariel — This process was developed with the express purpose of ensuring and confirming review of all comments. Similar comments can be responded to with the same answers, but alls should be answered. I’m not suggesting more work or analysis, but being responsive to the community — particularly in the context of these reviews.
Griffin Barnett
01:27:46
I would support staff double checking to see about whether this was discussed before
Susan Payne
01:29:28
@Roger and Kathy -I'm happy if we did discuss - I just couldn't remember and it seemed the only possible "new issue"
Philip Corwin
01:29:34
Thanks to everyone/good progress