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.

Hi

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.

two meetings

@phil: two meetings

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

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

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

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

thanks

We are starting on Recommendation 3

We covered that last week

Recs 1 and 2 were covered last week.

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

Makes sense Susan

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

I agree with Phil and Susan

+ @Susan

Noted phi. Thanks

Go staff!

agreed

Thank you (blush)!

Absolutely correct, @Phil.

Hand up from Cyntia

just imposing guidance?

I seem to be doubled muted

sorry, i will type

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

I can't figure out the mute issue

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

Guidance is guidance.

Maybe it

Or “prescriptive guidance”?

should be "onerous"

maybe "extensive"?

guidance is not a requirement

just guidance

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

Jason hand up

unduly detailed?

guidance can be followed or not followed

is that different than a requirement

Lori +1

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

I can accept "burdensome guidance"

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

yep, burdensome would work

Yes, that’s correct - re Georges

if you specify the amount it changes the context

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

not intended for drawn out arguments

+1 "burdensome"

+1 Lori. Easy cases.

Yes

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

apologies delete "with"

agree with Cyntia on 'with'

Thanks Cyntia

That is not an agreed figure

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

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

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

relayed

Shouldn't Determinations para 1 be lower case

To develop = correct in UK English.

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.

I think this sufficiently punts to the IRT.

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

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

There are -> there have been

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

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

But can defer to Renee for further clarification

+1 @Julie

Julie: That is fine with me

I like "some complaints" @Renee

agree with Brian's comment that this should be deleted

good question

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

yes - the rule says 'open and active'

Thanks, @SteveLevy.

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

;-)

No objection - I find it confusing.

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

box talks of 'proceeding'

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

Moving on.....

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

I think it makes sense as drafted

That makes sense

with the revision

domain name is still in the respondent's name.

it should be the same

@Maxim: what should be the same?

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

so registrant should stay the same

no

we should not name countries

I share Phil's reluctance on this

I think p[eople can think up examples

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

changing registrar is still a transfer

has no legal way to pay?

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

good idea!

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

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

or can not use services of the registrar for legal reasons

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

bye all

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

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

Next subject is TMCH

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

Including page numbers

Tx Phil!

Thanks Phil, staff and all

Bye

Bye!