Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view

Playback Range -

Julie Bisland

31:02

Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 5 Feb. 2020 at 18:00 UTC.

Lori Schulman

32:09

Julie Hedlund

36:00

As a reminder for today’s discussion: The URS recommendations and questions have already been discussed and approved by the WG. In addition, the URS context language is based on the Super Consolidated Table that the Sub Teams presented to the WG and that was approved by the WG.

Julie Hedlund

36:30

two meetings

Julie Hedlund

36:37

@phil: two meetings

Maxim Alzoba

36:47

given we know the deadline, could we calculate how many meetings can we devote to what items?

Julie Hedlund

37:14

@Maxim: We have done that for the Initial Report review. In the work plan.

Julie Hedlund

37:27

We will also do that once we get the public comments in from the Initial Report.

Ariel Liang

37:35

This is the doc for URS deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

Maxim Alzoba

37:35

thanks

Julie Hedlund

37:59

We are starting on Recommendation 3

Julie Hedlund

38:09

We covered that last week

Julie Hedlund

38:19

Recs 1 and 2 were covered last week.

Susan Payne

43:07

There might be some benefit of moving 3 next to 8 in the doc, but I don'tthink we should start deleting or combining recommendations at this stage given the timing pressure we are under

Ariel Liang

43:23

Makes sense Susan

Susan Payne

43:25

we could aways do so at the time of final report if appropriate

David McAuley (Verisign)

43:45

I agree with Phil and Susan

Cyntia King

44:56

+ @Susan

Ariel Liang

49:33

Noted phi. Thanks

Greg Shatan

52:26

Go staff!

David McAuley (Verisign)

52:29

agreed

Ariel Liang

52:39

Thank you (blush)!

Cyntia King

52:43

Absolutely correct, @Phil.

Julie Hedlund

56:04

Hand up from Cyntia

Paul Tattersfield

59:36

just imposing guidance?

Lori Schulman

01:01:24

I seem to be doubled muted

Lori Schulman

01:01:58

sorry, i will type

Paul Tattersfield

01:02:02

just 'imposing guidance' instead of 'numerous elemets of guidance'

Lori Schulman

01:02:04

I can't figure out the mute issue

Lori Schulman

01:02:27

I am wondering if "numrous elements of guidance" makes sense either.

Lori Schulman

01:02:33

Guidance is guidance.

Lori Schulman

01:02:41

Maybe it

Ariel Liang

01:02:48

Or “prescriptive guidance”?

Lori Schulman

01:02:48

should be "onerous"

Susan Payne

01:02:51

maybe "extensive"?

Lori Schulman

01:03:11

guidance is not a requirement

Paul Tattersfield

01:03:34

just guidance

Lori Schulman

01:03:38

detailed guidance still doesn't get to the heart of the matter I think

Ariel Liang

01:03:49

Jason hand up

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:04:06

unduly detailed?

Lori Schulman

01:04:45

guidance can be followed or not followed

Lori Schulman

01:04:51

is that different than a requirement

Paul Tattersfield

01:04:55

Lori +1

Susan Payne

01:05:28

If there's a proposal to change the 7% can that please be circulated to the group and not just updated in the doc

Lori Schulman

01:05:39

I can accept "burdensome guidance"

Cyntia King

01:05:44

I believe the 7% figure came from Georges Nahitchevansky after a detailed review of the data.

Susan Payne

01:05:56

yep, burdensome would work

Ariel Liang

01:06:01

Yes, that’s correct - re Georges

Paul Tattersfield

01:06:08

if you specify the amount it changes the context

Lori Schulman

01:06:12

Yes, URS is for the "easy" cases so to speak

Lori Schulman

01:06:22

not intended for drawn out arguments

Cyntia King

01:06:57

+1 "burdensome"

Jason Schaeffer

01:07:18

+1 Lori. Easy cases.

Ariel Liang

01:08:45

Yes

Cyntia King

01:09:38

We should delete "the" in the first sentence of "Context:"

Cyntia King

01:10:03

apologies delete "with"

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:10:30

agree with Cyntia on 'with'

Ariel Liang

01:10:37

Thanks Cyntia

Susan Payne

01:11:29

That is not an agreed figure

Cyntia King

01:13:17

Agree that an issue of fact can be determined offline & presented to the group.

Paul Tattersfield

01:14:16

Some have discussion but only repeat the steps so are not strictly rationale

Susan Payne

01:14:41

I don't think you can call 7% "significant" but I'm sure we can find a descriptor if we need one

Julie Hedlund

01:17:56

relayed

Paul Tattersfield

01:18:11

Shouldn't Determinations para 1 be lower case

Marie Pattullo

01:19:09

To develop = correct in UK English.

Mary Wong

01:20:14

Just a note that staff will be going through the text to catch typos, grammatical errors and these minor mistakes before the final document is circulated.

Cyntia King

01:21:12

I think this sufficiently punts to the IRT.

Georges Nahitchevansky

01:22:34

I don't have the time to review the URS decisions again in the next week, so I suggest we go with something neutral and say that there were several decisions that did not have an articulated decision

Ariel Liang

01:22:48

@Paul - will double check upper case or lower case throughout the doc

Paul Tattersfield

01:24:19

There are -> there have been

Ariel Liang

01:24:27

We got the wording from Forum’s response to Provider Sub Team’s questionnaire, I recall

Julie Hedlund

01:24:35

@Georges: How about this: ““several decisions did not appear to have an articulated rationale.”

Ariel Liang

01:24:40

But can defer to Renee for further clarification

Cyntia King

01:24:50

+1 @Julie

Georges Nahitchevansky

01:25:21

Julie: That is fine with me

Cyntia King

01:26:41

I like "some complaints" @Renee

Susan Payne

01:33:00

agree with Brian's comment that this should be deleted

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:33:09

good question

Steve Levy

01:33:10

There are, in fact, UDRP and URS cases that move forward despite the current pendency of court cases.

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:34:56

yes - the rule says 'open and active'

Cyntia King

01:35:46

Thanks, @SteveLevy.

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:37:54

I used to try courts-martial - never saw a URS or UDRP complaint

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:38:23

;-)

Cyntia King

01:39:17

No objection - I find it confusing.

Steve Levy

01:40:18

Have to agree with Greg. Even placing the words in parentheticals will confuse the issue.

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:40:52

box talks of 'proceeding'

Greg Shatan

01:41:58

Thanks, David. I think the word “proceeding” needs to be read in context.

Cyntia King

01:42:29

Moving on.....

Paul Tattersfield

01:44:27

Would it be more logical to swap/reodrer the numbering of recommendation #3 & #4

John McElwaine

01:46:15

I think it makes sense as drafted

Jason Schaeffer

01:47:28

That makes sense

John McElwaine

01:47:36

with the revision

Kathy Kleiman

01:51:36

domain name is still in the respondent's name.

Maxim Alzoba

01:51:48

it should be the same

Kathy Kleiman

01:52:01

@Maxim: what should be the same?

Maxim Alzoba

01:52:17

changing registrant is a transfer, and urs was not designed for that

Maxim Alzoba

01:52:41

so registrant should stay the same

Maxim Alzoba

01:53:15

Maxim Alzoba

01:53:26

we should not name countries

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:53:45

I share Phil's reluctance on this

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:54:02

I think p[eople can think up examples

Susan Payne

01:54:12

@Maxim, I think this is only about changing the registrar isn't it? not changing the registrant

Maxim Alzoba

01:54:40

changing registrar is still a transfer

Maxim Alzoba

01:55:15

has no legal way to pay?

Lori Schulman

01:55:35

agree about citing specific countries - we shouldn't call any ou

Kathy Kleiman

01:55:56

good idea!

Maxim Alzoba

01:56:10

legal way to pay - as a possible way to say that the winner can not use the same registrar

Kathy Kleiman

01:56:27

You cannot engage in the legal transaction at all...

Maxim Alzoba

01:56:37

or can not use services of the registrar for legal reasons

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:56:40

Good 'four' sight, Phil - finish #4 next meeting

Maxim Alzoba

01:56:50

bye all

Greg Shatan

01:56:50

The Registry Requirement does not require the registration to stay with the same Registrar.

Julie Bisland

01:57:14

Next call: Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes

Julie Hedlund

01:57:31

Next subject is TMCH

Ariel Liang

01:57:36

Note that we have provided the transcript in the sessions where this question was discussed in the Google doc

Ariel Liang

01:57:51

Including page numbers

Kathy Kleiman

01:58:50

Tx Phil!

David McAuley (Verisign)

01:59:04

Thanks Phil, staff and all

Greg Shatan

01:59:11

Bye

Cyntia King

01:59:12

Bye!

Download

Upcoming Meetings