Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 29 January 2020 at 18:00 UTC

Sunrise & Claims: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit#

It was misspelt as “nae” previously

In this case it was a typo — “nae” and should have been “name”

That's helpful, Ariel, thanks

No problem!

seems that removal is warranted

I like the newer version

Just switching the question numbers

Hi All, I've joined now. Sorry to be late - busy days!

Agree with Brian on this

Tx Brian for chairing now!

All covered

We think you’ve covered everything Brian

URS Individual Proposal assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zErN2k/edit

The introduction is intended for GNSO review, and not publication? I ask because where we note the two Asks we have not included that we are asking for comments and an indication of support -- this should be before the request to provide suggested revisions. Am I understanding context of this document?

The Introductory Notes.

See 4th bullet -- and its two sub questions

notes answered my question, hand down now

Staff will be circulating the text of the Initial Report pertaining to URS Individual Proposals

This is not that text

correct Brian

This is our WG table -- not text for thepublic.

it really depends on the type of question

We really need to explain to the public what an individual URS proposal means...

Context will be provided in the Initial Report text

So it is clear what are the Individual Proposals and what we are asking the public to comment on

Thanks

That's my understanding as well - thanks to co-chairs and John for distilling the deliberations into an outcome

it was for sake of clarity

I'm afraid I don't agree w/ @Rebecca here.

apologies, I need to drop early

Not only was there little support for this, there were grave concerns that these proposals were not feasible.

because the court has standards!

@Cyntia +1

@Cyntia -- Agree. I think the draft comments and decisions reflect the sentiment of the group in discussion. This is not the time to resurrect the discussion.

Rebecca+1

The other problem is the inflexibility of the proposers to accept friendly amendments

If not consensus, tell us what the standard was: the sense of the WG is a standard, but it sounds an awful lot like a majority standard, which is wrong.

Consensus was not the standard, and many individual proposals that did not have majority support in the survey or among WG members are being put out for community comment. But not proposals that had virtually no support and significant opposition

@Paul +1

I think other unworable proposals should also be remmoved

Apologies, I have to drop off for another call.

I agree these 3 are problematic but I think other easily demonstrable unworkable proposals should also be removed then there would be balance

How else should support be gauged if not by the discussions over the duration our wok?

If there's no precedent, then have them or don't.

@Paul -- These proposals are not only unworkable, but beyond the scope of ICANN regulatory action.

@Cyntia -- +1

Cyntia, my point is that now my support is being characterized as the support of one person because not everyone decided/could make this call, despite minority support

earlier on

You shouldn't have to show up every single time to count

A number of members of our WG are at NamesCon this week.

@Paul - the idea that there must be "balance" rather than just good work work product is problematic.

I think the co-chairs have endeavored at length and in good faith to consider what to do with individual proposals that appear to lack enough support to be put out in a request for comment from the RPM PDP. I also don’t think the standard is vague – I understand it is to cull those individual proposals that have little support and substantial opposition.

URS internal appeal?

@Rebecca - my point is that these proposals weren't discussed on a single call that folks may have missed. They were discussed repeatedly in the sub-teams, again w/ teh full group, they were in the survey, and were discussed again.

I despair that we're making this about factional support rather than what's good for the community, has the possibility for consensus support, AND feasible.

Perhaps we need [in future] a formal mechanism for amendments of individual proposals which the WG can see if there is consensus for the amended proposal only. This would help improve proposals when there was some of the inflexibility from the original proponent.

No matter who showed up to a particular call or participated in the email list, the result was the same for 18-20. It’s not about 1 person or 1 call....

I wouldn't publish others too Greg - the number going out should be lower

Agree - do not publlish

'@Greg +1

Yea!!

Thanks co-chairs and John

URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

Not the first time for recommendations

Or questions for community iput

probable mtg dates in Cancun? - any indication

as AOB

Sat, Sun, Monday

right at start of meeting

thanks Kathy

Please note that the language of recommendations and questions for community is not new

The WG has reviewed it in November / December

Thanks Ariel

expect we will revisit this doc next week

I will need to drop for a 2:30

wrap now, review doc for next week

next week

Next week

+1

many thanks Kathy and Brian

Agree. Thanks all,

Thanks all