Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Justine Chew
23:04
Just a note to inform that I am now seated as a member of the ALAC. However, unless otherwise stated, my views in this WG is that of my own.
ariel.liang
24:33
This is the Sub Team proposals for URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit
Zak Muscovitch
31:44
Congrats, Justine :). Have followed your work in At Large. Well done.
Justine Chew
36:24
Thanks, Zak.
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:35
fine
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:27
no problem
ariel.liang
41:49
Staff’s intent is to put out the entirety of text in column 2 for public comment
David McAuley (Verisign)
46:34
sounds fair
Greg Shatan
57:44
David M. I think your mic is open....
Phil Marano
59:33
Apologies for background noise all. I thought I was on mute--not sure why that default setting changed.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:30
Thanks Greg - it was but was muted here - I double mute except when speaking.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:01:33
Why table and not just delete?
Renee Fossen
01:05:06
For a bit of background, we have never collected these fees because it hasn't presented itself.
Jay Chapman
01:05:36
Also agree it is a fair question, Kathy
Rebecca Tushnet
01:05:41
+1 Kathy
Justine Chew
01:06:02
I agree with Kathy. I think it acts as a deterrent against late response.
Justine Chew
01:07:37
+1 Kathy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:07:58
none here
John McElwaine
01:10:31
No objection
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:37
nope
Justine Chew
01:13:24
Agree with Renee's feedback.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:13
It hekps to know advice to examiner may be too late in process, thanks Renee
Paul Tattersfield
01:14:14
helping, thanks
John McElwaine
01:14:34
Agree with Renee we shouldn't make a recommendation that makes no sense with how a UDRP proceeds.
Julie Hedlund
01:14:45
Change it to “guidance to assist providers”?
John McElwaine
01:15:27
Did we not cover this topic earlier?
Justine Chew
01:15:39
If I recall correctly, the recommendation was to positioned to not disadvantage the registrant in event their language was not English
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:53
Renee - can you comment on how much of an issue language has been in practice so far at your orhganization
John McElwaine
01:16:26
I'm sorry - I meant I can't scroll but didn't the Docs Subteam (right above) determine that this is not a problem
ariel.liang
01:16:56
Staff have a record of the context of this recommendation. Pasted below:
ariel.liang
01:17:20
A review of the 29 cases where a De Novo Review occurred (indicating a Response was filed after Default) showed a few cases where respondents were located in China or a European country, but no indications on the record that English was an issue. Only 1 out of the 29 cases saw a Final Determination issued in Spanish
ariel.liang
01:17:32
- Rebecca Tushnet’s coding research shows several cases where Examiners noted a Respondent might have had possible issues with language. Staff has reviewed all the 15 cases tagged on this point where responses were filed by respondents whose primary language was not English, but where a Determination was issued in English (another 2 cases aw the Determination issued in the Respondent’s primary language).. In some cases, the Examiners stated clearly their reasons for not using the Respondent’s primary language; in the remaining cases, it seems clear from the reasons provided in relation to one or more of the 3 required elements. Reasons included the filing of a Response in English, or in both languages; evidence that the Respondent could communicate in English; and evidence that the Respondent knew of the trademark at issue (e.g. via a Claims Notice)
ariel.liang
01:17:48
- WG member observation that the current practice is that the Providers’ original notice to a registry operator is sent in English, but that notices to registrars may be in both English as well as the registrant’s language (if not English) – but note that ADNDRC and FORUM do not think it would be feasible to mandate sending Registry and Registrar notices in the same language(s).. Documents Sub Team noted the possible need to clarify which notice(s) this observation related to.
Justine Chew
01:18:18
+1 Susan, and overlap with Providers Subteam's work?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:05
Thanks Renee
John McElwaine
01:23:41
Looks good to me.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:46
Seems a fair question
Susan Payne
01:23:53
me too
Justine Chew
01:24:02
All good
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:04
and thanks staff for indicating what those costs are in col 2
ariel.liang
01:26:03
No problem David
Susan Payne
01:26:11
we already did
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:34
It would be nice to know the answer to the who does this question
Susan Payne
01:28:16
no, we did not agree that
Susan Payne
01:28:27
as the doc indicates
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:30:57
sounds good
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:55
ok thanks, yes
Justine Chew
01:34:03
Why do we need to delete this since it doesn't raise inconsistency?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:56
we could keep language and simply make reference to the paragraph that deals with it comprehensively
ariel.liang
01:35:04
This recommendation only impacts FORUM
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:07
in each section as appropriate
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:30
are they only one who use whois to populate
Susan Payne
01:36:36
yes that's my rcollection
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:34
probably better afterwards
Cyntia King
01:45:28
Will this allow PDPs like ours to use teh underlying data for future reoports?
Justine Chew
01:45:40
But doesn't this relate to registrants using privacy services?
Justine Chew
01:45:58
Or am I mistaken?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:03
I don't see a downside to deleting the sentence about outreach and education efforts in this respect
ariel.liang
01:47:34
Btw, this specific language was proposed by MFSD
ariel.liang
01:47:42
regarding revising 3.3
Terri Agnew
01:48:18
Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call scheduled for Wednesday 04 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
paulovics
01:48:19
Thios was proposed to enavble Complainant to update the arguments on the second and third elemetns
ariel.liang
01:48:32
Upcoming deadline: Members wishing to propose that an individual URS proposal becomes a Working Group recommendation must inform the Working Group leadership team and ICANN support staff by Sunday, December 1, to allow for advance notice and planning.
paulovics
01:48:53
Sorry for the typos
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:24
Good questions
Steve Levy
01:53:52
Does it mean that any new URS proposals may be submitted? I foolishly missed the deadline but have a new proposal that I feel would have strong support from all WG members.
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:17
anyone would be better
Justine Chew
01:55:07
Agree. Open to any member(s).
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:55:39
Thanks Kathy, Julie, Ariel, Terri and all
Steve Levy
01:55:41
Thanks
Justine Chew
01:55:52
Thanks all
Paul Tattersfield
01:55:53
thanks all bye
ariel.liang
01:55:58
Thanks all