Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Thanks for the backup, John

Thank you, John

Thanks, @John

hand up for agenda item 2

FYI, I am in transit so may drop and have to rejoin.

hand up

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit#

hand up

@All: Actually, most of the document text is not new, but staff will be happy to walk through it.

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.

Nothing to add to what Ariel has said

This seems like a pretty straightforward change that captures the spirit and intent of our earlier discussions ; I personally think it should be supported

Tx Ariel!

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.

This is a change that INTA supports.

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.

Great!

hand up

We ask the WG to pay particular attention to the wording of the actual recommendation.

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.

hand up

Don’t the footnotes refer to the relevant RA sections?

The Context is likely to be particularly important for the IRT during the implementation phase.

But might be good to note footnote numbers in text of rec

hand up

@Kathy: The context language is from the Initial Report.

For clarity, Footnote 5 references Spec 13.

@Susan: That’s right

@Kathy: The context language has already been approved by the WG for the Initial Report.

@Jason: only in instances where there might be changes to the context. Other changes already are redlined.

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.

Agree with Mary's comment about the importance of the actual rec. language, and John's

This is meant to be a review of the WG of the draft Final Recommendations.

Just being conscious that we made punctuation, grammar and other such non-substantive changes (which will be reflected in a scarier-than-necessary redline).

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.

This recommendation has not changed from the preliminary recommendation that appeared in the Initial Report based on the WG’s deliberation.

@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).

that minor change reas better

reads

+1, Susan.

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.

Without this new language, the nature of the challenge mechanism may not have been clear.

Me too!

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.

fair points by John and Phil

I think it's fair to clearly signal as Susan indicated

so same point here too

Got it. Thanks Susan

Noted @Susan.

@Kathy: that will be updated per Susan’s note that this is a new — not status quo — recommendation.

That’s correct John

We have to rewrite slightly

we’ll present the updated language to the WG to review

Seems like the context here was not updated whereas the additional “context” for the change is captured in the discussion re public comment revie

*review

That seems right Griffin

To me, "status quo" means length of claims period and that should be clarified.

And then we get to .brand exceptions.

So Kathy's point is fair but only to the length of the claims period not the exceptions.

@Paul - that's how I read it too. But it might not be clear to others.

@Kathy: That is what staff is planning to do.

Remove what - can it be highlighted?

agree with Susan

@John: That sounds right. Noted.

I agree with Susan’s suggestion, seems fine

Make general reference here to exceptions and capture the exceptions in the next rec

Staff have captured that as an action item.

Hand up

good idea Ariel

Sounds good to me Ariel

+1 Ariel

I have another back to back meeting - thanks John, bye all.

have to leave for next call, sorry

Thanks all.

Tx to John for chairing today!

Well done John

well done John

Excellent chairing John. Many thanks.

Thanks John, Ariel, and all

thanks John

Y'all were easy today!