Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Andrea Glandon
40:04
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Philip Corwin
40:49
Thanks for the backup, John
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:52
Thank you, John
Cyntia King (USA)
40:59
Thanks, @John
Julie Hedlund
41:20
hand up for agenda item 2
Paul McGrady
42:02
FYI, I am in transit so may drop and have to rejoin.
Julie Hedlund
42:49
hand up
Ariel Liang
43:34
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit#
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
43:48
hand up
Julie Hedlund
44:49
@All: Actually, most of the document text is not new, but staff will be happy to walk through it.
Mary Wong
48:25
This review will help make sure that staff has accurately captured all the WG’s agreements, especially in those places where updates were made following review of public comments, so that the group can move forward to the consensus call once you’ve reviewed all the draft final recommendations.
Julie Hedlund
49:53
Nothing to add to what Ariel has said
Griffin Barnett
51:23
This seems like a pretty straightforward change that captures the spirit and intent of our earlier discussions ; I personally think it should be supported
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
51:56
Tx Ariel!
Mary Wong
52:10
This is basically the consolidation of the previous discussions and documents - including updates made following each WG call - and we are presenting it to the WG for your review so that we can place them into the draft Final Report, in basically this format.
Lori Schulman, INTA
52:25
This is a change that INTA supports.
Julie Hedlund
52:28
Staff is following the same format with WG review as it has with previous meetings — that there is an opportunity to review text in a meeting and after the meeting with possible updates.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
52:29
Great!
Julie Hedlund
53:19
hand up
Mary Wong
55:36
We ask the WG to pay particular attention to the wording of the actual recommendation.
Mary Wong
57:59
As Ariel is saying, in the interests of time, please let us know after the call and after you’ve had a chance to review, whether you spotted any factual errors or omissions in the Context and Public Comment Review sections.
Julie Hedlund
59:12
hand up
Griffin Barnett
59:23
Don’t the footnotes refer to the relevant RA sections?
Mary Wong
01:00:02
The Context is likely to be particularly important for the IRT during the implementation phase.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:55
But might be good to note footnote numbers in text of rec
Julie Hedlund
01:01:32
hand up
Julie Hedlund
01:01:51
@Kathy: The context language is from the Initial Report.
John McElwaine
01:01:51
For clarity, Footnote 5 references Spec 13.
Julie Hedlund
01:02:04
@Susan: That’s right
Julie Hedlund
01:05:59
@Kathy: The context language has already been approved by the WG for the Initial Report.
Julie Hedlund
01:07:39
@Jason: only in instances where there might be changes to the context. Other changes already are redlined.
Julie Hedlund
01:08:21
But as Mary says we are asking the WG members to focus on the recommendation text. The context is taken from Initial Report which has been approved by the WG.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:17
Agree with Mary's comment about the importance of the actual rec. language, and John's
Julie Hedlund
01:09:18
This is meant to be a review of the WG of the draft Final Recommendations.
Mary Wong
01:10:01
Just being conscious that we made punctuation, grammar and other such non-substantive changes (which will be reflected in a scarier-than-necessary redline).
Philip Corwin
01:10:44
If we haven't modified a recommendation based on public comments there is no real need to review contextual language that was in the IR. If there has been a modification we may wish to review new language explaining its purpose and rationale.
Julie Hedlund
01:11:51
This recommendation has not changed from the preliminary recommendation that appeared in the Initial Report based on the WG’s deliberation.
Mary Wong
01:12:23
@Phil, yes, IIRC, substantive changes to the Context section were the result of updating/modifying what was previously a preliminary to become a draft final recommendation (based on WG discussions following the public comments review).
Susan.Payne
01:14:58
that minor change reas better
Susan.Payne
01:15:05
reads
Marie Pattullo
01:15:21
+1, Susan.
Mary Wong
01:16:18
And for anyone who may have joined the call late (or is reviewing the call recording and chat transcript after the call), just another note that this document will remain available to the full WG to review after this call. This walk through is (as we explained) to highlight any changes that were made, especially to a preliminary recommendation.
Mary Wong
01:17:56
Without this new language, the nature of the challenge mechanism may not have been clear.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:19:00
Me too!
Mary Wong
01:24:24
We want to make clear what are new policy recommendations versus implementation guidance to clarify existing policy as well as recommendations to maintain the status quo, etc.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:36:58
fair points by John and Phil
Rebecca Tushnet
01:46:00
I think it's fair to clearly signal as Susan indicated
Susan.Payne
01:46:38
so same point here too
Ariel Liang
01:46:48
Got it. Thanks Susan
Julie Hedlund
01:47:01
Noted @Susan.
Julie Hedlund
01:49:11
@Kathy: that will be updated per Susan’s note that this is a new — not status quo — recommendation.
Julie Hedlund
01:50:38
That’s correct John
Julie Hedlund
01:50:48
We have to rewrite slightly
Julie Hedlund
01:51:09
we’ll present the updated language to the WG to review
Griffin Barnett
01:51:16
Seems like the context here was not updated whereas the additional “context” for the change is captured in the discussion re public comment revie
Griffin Barnett
01:51:18
*review
Julie Hedlund
01:51:38
That seems right Griffin
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:51:51
To me, "status quo" means length of claims period and that should be clarified.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:52:09
And then we get to .brand exceptions.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:52:31
So Kathy's point is fair but only to the length of the claims period not the exceptions.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:53:18
@Paul - that's how I read it too. But it might not be clear to others.
Julie Hedlund
01:54:48
@Kathy: That is what staff is planning to do.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:55:26
Remove what - can it be highlighted?
Paul McGrady
01:55:59
agree with Susan
Julie Hedlund
01:56:01
@John: That sounds right. Noted.
Griffin Barnett
01:56:04
I agree with Susan’s suggestion, seems fine
Griffin Barnett
01:56:15
Make general reference here to exceptions and capture the exceptions in the next rec
Julie Hedlund
01:56:24
Staff have captured that as an action item.
Ariel Liang
01:56:40
Hand up
Susan.Payne
01:57:23
good idea Ariel
Griffin Barnett
01:57:27
Sounds good to me Ariel
Paul McGrady
01:57:36
+1 Ariel
Paul Tattersfield
02:06:08
I have another back to back meeting - thanks John, bye all.
Rebecca Tushnet
02:07:58
have to leave for next call, sorry
Jason Schaeffer
02:08:12
Thanks all.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
02:08:36
Tx to John for chairing today!
Philip Corwin
02:08:38
Well done John
Paul McGrady
02:09:02
well done John
Lori Schulman, INTA
02:09:12
Excellent chairing John. Many thanks.
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:09:15
Thanks John, Ariel, and all
Susan.Payne
02:09:16
thanks John
John McElwaine
02:09:29
Y'all were easy today!