
36:05
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

39:23
Sunrise & Claims: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-AUekmrPgnPge6-pt57EFqnQH4DY3R0OY_zmtT20obA/edit#

42:16
It was misspelt as “nae” previously

42:29
In this case it was a typo — “nae” and should have been “name”

45:32
That's helpful, Ariel, thanks

45:55
No problem!

45:56
seems that removal is warranted

49:05
I like the newer version

51:13
Just switching the question numbers

51:26
Hi All, I've joined now. Sorry to be late - busy days!

52:37
Agree with Brian on this

52:40
Tx Brian for chairing now!

55:46
All covered

56:00
We think you’ve covered everything Brian

56:42
URS Individual Proposal assessment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110tgExAlgzrCbuiy0OiefXG2mKbo_SCLrU037zErN2k/edit

59:35
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?

01:00:10
The Introductory Notes.

01:00:27
See 4th bullet -- and its two sub questions

01:01:09
notes answered my question, hand down now

01:04:03
Staff will be circulating the text of the Initial Report pertaining to URS Individual Proposals

01:04:08
This is not that text

01:04:45
correct Brian

01:06:10
This is our WG table -- not text for thepublic.

01:06:27
it really depends on the type of question

01:06:50
We really need to explain to the public what an individual URS proposal means...

01:07:30
Context will be provided in the Initial Report text

01:07:54
So it is clear what are the Individual Proposals and what we are asking the public to comment on

01:09:25
Thanks

01:09:55
That's my understanding as well - thanks to co-chairs and John for distilling the deliberations into an outcome

01:15:47
it was for sake of clarity

01:20:48
I'm afraid I don't agree w/ @Rebecca here.

01:20:56
apologies, I need to drop early

01:21:50
Not only was there little support for this, there were grave concerns that these proposals were not feasible.

01:22:42
because the court has standards!

01:23:25
@Cyntia +1

01:24:44
@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.

01:24:57
Rebecca+1

01:25:43
The other problem is the inflexibility of the proposers to accept friendly amendments

01:26:55
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.

01:27:07
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

01:30:14
@Paul +1

01:30:42
I think other unworable proposals should also be remmoved

01:31:34
Apologies, I have to drop off for another call.

01:33:12
I agree these 3 are problematic but I think other easily demonstrable unworkable proposals should also be removed then there would be balance

01:34:54
How else should support be gauged if not by the discussions over the duration our wok?

01:35:15
If there's no precedent, then have them or don't.

01:35:39
@Paul -- These proposals are not only unworkable, but beyond the scope of ICANN regulatory action.

01:35:46
@Cyntia -- +1

01:35:54
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

01:35:57
earlier on

01:36:11
You shouldn't have to show up every single time to count

01:36:34
A number of members of our WG are at NamesCon this week.

01:36:56
@Paul - the idea that there must be "balance" rather than just good work work product is problematic.

01:37:16
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.

01:38:07
URS internal appeal?

01:38:38
@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.

01:40:06
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.

01:42:17
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.

01:42:59
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....

01:44:39
I wouldn't publish others too Greg - the number going out should be lower

01:44:52
Agree - do not publlish

01:45:17
'@Greg +1

01:46:33
Yea!!

01:46:41
Thanks co-chairs and John

01:47:09
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

01:47:15
Not the first time for recommendations

01:47:22
Or questions for community iput

01:47:46
probable mtg dates in Cancun? - any indication

01:48:02
as AOB

01:48:37
Sat, Sun, Monday

01:48:46
right at start of meeting

01:48:54
thanks Kathy

01:52:57
Please note that the language of recommendations and questions for community is not new

01:53:08
The WG has reviewed it in November / December

01:56:00
Thanks Ariel

01:56:35
expect we will revisit this doc next week

01:58:51
I will need to drop for a 2:30

01:58:51
wrap now, review doc for next week

02:01:26
next week

02:01:32
Next week

02:01:38
+1

02:01:51
many thanks Kathy and Brian

02:01:57
Agree. Thanks all,

02:01:59
Thanks all