
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.

32:09
Hi

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.

36:30
two meetings

36:37
@phil: two meetings

36:47
given we know the deadline, could we calculate how many meetings can we devote to what items?

37:14
@Maxim: We have done that for the Initial Report review. In the work plan.

37:27
We will also do that once we get the public comments in from the Initial Report.

37:35
This is the doc for URS deliberation: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wZWow09gE6-YmZYcty81CT2Tujm-3vTZE7lHj2fIZXE/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405

37:35
thanks

37:59
We are starting on Recommendation 3

38:09
We covered that last week

38:19
Recs 1 and 2 were covered last week.

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

43:23
Makes sense Susan

43:25
we could aways do so at the time of final report if appropriate

43:45
I agree with Phil and Susan

44:56
+ @Susan

49:33
Noted phi. Thanks

52:26
Go staff!

52:29
agreed

52:39
Thank you (blush)!

52:43
Absolutely correct, @Phil.

56:04
Hand up from Cyntia

59:36
just imposing guidance?

01:01:24
I seem to be doubled muted

01:01:58
sorry, i will type

01:02:02
just 'imposing guidance' instead of 'numerous elemets of guidance'

01:02:04
I can't figure out the mute issue

01:02:27
I am wondering if "numrous elements of guidance" makes sense either.

01:02:33
Guidance is guidance.

01:02:41
Maybe it

01:02:48
Or “prescriptive guidance”?

01:02:48
should be "onerous"

01:02:51
maybe "extensive"?

01:03:11
guidance is not a requirement

01:03:34
just guidance

01:03:38
detailed guidance still doesn't get to the heart of the matter I think

01:03:49
Jason hand up

01:04:06
unduly detailed?

01:04:45
guidance can be followed or not followed

01:04:51
is that different than a requirement

01:04:55
Lori +1

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

01:05:39
I can accept "burdensome guidance"

01:05:44
I believe the 7% figure came from Georges Nahitchevansky after a detailed review of the data.

01:05:56
yep, burdensome would work

01:06:01
Yes, that’s correct - re Georges

01:06:08
if you specify the amount it changes the context

01:06:12
Yes, URS is for the "easy" cases so to speak

01:06:22
not intended for drawn out arguments

01:06:57
+1 "burdensome"

01:07:18
+1 Lori. Easy cases.

01:08:45
Yes

01:09:38
We should delete "the" in the first sentence of "Context:"

01:10:03
apologies delete "with"

01:10:30
agree with Cyntia on 'with'

01:10:37
Thanks Cyntia

01:11:29
That is not an agreed figure

01:13:17
Agree that an issue of fact can be determined offline & presented to the group.

01:14:16
Some have discussion but only repeat the steps so are not strictly rationale

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

01:17:56
relayed

01:18:11
Shouldn't Determinations para 1 be lower case

01:19:09
To develop = correct in UK English.

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.

01:21:12
I think this sufficiently punts to the IRT.

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

01:22:48
@Paul - will double check upper case or lower case throughout the doc

01:24:19
There are -> there have been

01:24:27
We got the wording from Forum’s response to Provider Sub Team’s questionnaire, I recall

01:24:35
@Georges: How about this: ““several decisions did not appear to have an articulated rationale.”

01:24:40
But can defer to Renee for further clarification

01:24:50
+1 @Julie

01:25:21
Julie: That is fine with me

01:26:41
I like "some complaints" @Renee

01:33:00
agree with Brian's comment that this should be deleted

01:33:09
good question

01:33:10
There are, in fact, UDRP and URS cases that move forward despite the current pendency of court cases.

01:34:56
yes - the rule says 'open and active'

01:35:46
Thanks, @SteveLevy.

01:37:54
I used to try courts-martial - never saw a URS or UDRP complaint

01:38:23
;-)

01:39:17
No objection - I find it confusing.

01:40:18
Have to agree with Greg. Even placing the words in parentheticals will confuse the issue.

01:40:52
box talks of 'proceeding'

01:41:58
Thanks, David. I think the word “proceeding” needs to be read in context.

01:42:29
Moving on.....

01:44:27
Would it be more logical to swap/reodrer the numbering of recommendation #3 & #4

01:46:15
I think it makes sense as drafted

01:47:28
That makes sense

01:47:36
with the revision

01:51:36
domain name is still in the respondent's name.

01:51:48
it should be the same

01:52:01
@Maxim: what should be the same?

01:52:17
changing registrant is a transfer, and urs was not designed for that

01:52:41
so registrant should stay the same

01:53:15
no

01:53:26
we should not name countries

01:53:45
I share Phil's reluctance on this

01:54:02
I think p[eople can think up examples

01:54:12
@Maxim, I think this is only about changing the registrar isn't it? not changing the registrant

01:54:40
changing registrar is still a transfer

01:55:15
has no legal way to pay?

01:55:35
agree about citing specific countries - we shouldn't call any ou

01:55:56
good idea!

01:56:10
legal way to pay - as a possible way to say that the winner can not use the same registrar

01:56:27
You cannot engage in the legal transaction at all...

01:56:37
or can not use services of the registrar for legal reasons

01:56:40
Good 'four' sight, Phil - finish #4 next meeting

01:56:50
bye all

01:56:50
The Registry Requirement does not require the registration to stay with the same Registrar.

01:57:14
Next call: Wednesday, 12 February 2020 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes

01:57:31
Next subject is TMCH

01:57:36
Note that we have provided the transcript in the sessions where this question was discussed in the Google doc

01:57:51
Including page numbers

01:58:50
Tx Phil!

01:59:04
Thanks Phil, staff and all

01:59:11
Bye

01:59:12
Bye!