Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Maxim Alzoba
18:58
hello all
Ariel Liang
21:29
=== We are now discussing proposal #11 ===
Griffin Barnett
22:43
I mean.. 10 WG members already indicated support in light of their initial co-sponsorship of the proposal..
Griffin Barnett
22:53
seems that this would meet the threshold on its own
Ariel Liang
22:54
You may download the slides for all URS individual proposals here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS%20Individual%20Proposal%20Survey%20Result.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1576086277000&api=v2
Paul Tattersfield
24:07
Rebecaa +1
Paul Tattersfield
24:20
It seems others are too.https://marker.medium.com/why-so-many-entrepreneurs-hoard-secret-stashes-of-domain-names-c834885c4ba4
Paul Tattersfield
24:39
DribbleUP is currently using new gTLDs in this wayhttps://domaininvesting.com/dribbleup-using-new-gtlds-in-marketing-campaign/
Paul Tattersfield
24:48
DU.FitnessDU.SoccerDU.Football
Rebecca Tushnet
24:55
But the proposal is somehow … to not charge the fee if they say they aren't the registrant of all?
Rebecca Tushnet
25:01
Or to remit it?
Paul McGrady
25:20
+1 Griffin
Paul Tattersfield
25:33
As currently worded it isn't a reasonable proposal
Rebecca Tushnet
26:03
The "confirmation" part is the problem that extends the URS, which for other proposals is a reason not to support them
Paul Tattersfield
26:47
At the Forum the response fee for 15-50 domains = $400. URS is a very low cost and as a result has very few safeguards and the 3 proposal is very low, so low that it could be used to deter genuine use.
Paul McGrady
29:13
+1 Brian - this call is ultimately a temperature taking by the co-chairs, not a decisional process for WG members
Michael R. Graham
30:20
I would support the Proposal #11 with the caveat that we should be asking for public comments on the proposal in two parts: 1() Whether threshold should be reduced from 15, and (2) what do you believe would be an appropriate number of names -- 3 has been suggested.
Rebecca Tushnet
30:24
new
Griffin Barnett
30:31
Paul - I think your point is a fair one - appropriate for public comment, and we might consider tweaking this proposal based on that feedback... personally I might be happy to revise to some number other than 3 - e.g. 5, 7 whatever...
Kathy Kleiman
30:35
My hand is raised too
Griffin Barnett
30:36
(Paul T. that is)
Ariel Liang
31:11
Just as a procedure reminder, staff will start timing each new intervention for 2 min, and second intervention by the same person for the same proposal for 1 min — this is for the interest of time of covering as many proposals as possible during today’s meeting (total 25 proposals to address)
Scott Austin
31:20
+1 Greg binary unnecessary limiting
John McElwaine
31:28
I seem to recall that the number was a question that had been included in being put out for comment
Griffin Barnett
31:47
Agree Greg
Cyntia King
32:51
Support putting thid out as 2-part question: should threshold be reduced & inpput on #.
Griffin Barnett
33:33
I mean - put out the proposal as is.... it will invite comment on any aspect, including potential delay, number, etc
Kathy Kleiman
33:36
Zak's hand is raised too.
Griffin Barnett
33:43
no constraint on who can comment on what
Griffin Barnett
34:59
I don't believe we are trying to evaluate any of these proposals to determine substantive level of support to convert from "proposal" into "recommendation"... I think only support in terms of threshold for publishing for public comment in initial report....?
Julie Hedlund
36:10
@Griffin: That’s correct
Griffin Barnett
36:31
And when Brian says "the bar" I think he means re publication in the initial report as an "individual proposal" and not as a WG rec
Rebecca Tushnet
36:35
Griffin, I just note that the announced procedures say that the chairs can come back with a proposal to promote to WG recommendation, contradicting the other statement that it would require a member nomination. If the chairs dont' want to do that then we can work a lot faster.
Rebecca Tushnet
36:40
*don't
Griffin Barnett
37:35
Rebecca - point understood
Paul Tattersfield
38:20
My concerns are if there are no public comments the inference will be 3 will be acceptable. I would support putting out to public proposal if no number is put on the proposal.
Jay Chapman
38:42
My thoughts as well, Paul
Rebecca Tushnet
39:09
I am ok with publishing individual proposals where there is nontrivial support and nontrivial opposition. I am concerned about whether the standard will morph for different proposals if we don't lock it down as we move into the more controversial proposals.
Paul McGrady
40:26
+1 Kathy
Zak Muscovitch
40:32
Yeah, Kathy, if this was open ended, I would support it, i.e. should the number be lowered..
Cyntia King
41:12
@Paul & @Jay: I think the liklihood that there will be no publiccomment on the number. But my understanding is that proposals sent out for public comment come back to the group?
Griffin Barnett
41:15
Agree that unless there is virtually no support, default to publication of proposal as individual proposal; would suggest against co-chairs elevating any individual proposals to any kind of WG recommendation level status unless a particular proposal has virtually consensus support within the WG, which at this stage I don't think we should be measuring
Rebecca Tushnet
41:33
I'm fine with Phil's standard but query then whether we should spend much time on opposition as opposed to determining whether there is enough support to publish.
Paul McGrady
42:11
+1 Phil
Griffin Barnett
42:24
Agree with Phil - comment will happen on the number for this proposal... I don't know that we need to add some kind of special highlighting to invite questions/comments on this
Paul Tattersfield
43:19
Exactly !
Jay Chapman
43:30
+1 Zak
Griffin Barnett
43:36
I mean... we were asked to submit individual proposals.... that was the exercise...
Kathy Kleiman
43:57
That's reasonable as well.
Griffin Barnett
44:01
we were not asked to discuss individual proposals and tweak them with input from other WG members and have that kind of robust discussion on each of these
Philip Corwin
44:03
@Rebecca -- if something has little support and lots of opposition, then perhaps it should not be published. But this proposal under discussion has substantial WG member support.
Rebecca Tushnet
44:52
Just to be clear: I am happy to have this published but I am concerned about "opposition" suddenly becoming a reason to not publish when there is substantial support to publish as well.
Rebecca Tushnet
45:59
If the standard is not "could become consensus," then even some support ought to justify publication. If the standard is could become consensus almost nothing should be published.
Griffin Barnett
46:32
I agree Rebecca - we should only be identifying and weeding out proposals that have virtually no support for publication beyond the original proponent... if there is split support/opposition, publication should be the default (per Kathy's earlier suggestion)
Rebecca Tushnet
46:40
Greg's standard is not acceptable--it shouldn't be majority rule for individual proposals
John McElwaine
46:43
@Greg Agree with your characterization of the classes. Substantial support and substantial opposition did not make sense.
Paul Tattersfield
46:45
That just plays to the largest group
Rebecca Tushnet
47:08
Substantial is not majority and should not be
Rebecca Tushnet
47:18
(for individual proposals)
Susan Payne (for SCA)
47:59
I'm not sure what the purpose of the survey was in asking "do you support publishing with amendment" if we then weren't going to find a process to allow for amendment
Zak Muscovitch
48:27
That's a good point too, Susan
Griffin Barnett
48:35
We are literally talking about whether or not to publish in an INITIAL REPORT for public comment - there will obviously be further discussion with public comment in hand, which will help us as the WG determine whether proposals should be tweaked, and whether there could be WG consensus to move a proposal forward as a WG recommendation
Rebecca Tushnet
48:43
+1 Susan
Griffin Barnett
49:36
Tweaking should happen with public comment on current proposals + further WG discussion with those comments in hand... that is how I always envisioned this process playing out
Kathy Kleiman
49:41
or substantial opposition to not publish. I think both sides have to be considered.
Paul Tattersfield
49:50
Don't put a number on it then
Paul McGrady
50:42
+1 Kathy. Correct. Didn't mean to ignore the "nays"
Scott Austin
51:24
+1 Griffin
Michael R. Graham
51:45
Suggest revise to two part open-ended question for public.
Jay Chapman
52:11
Agree w/ Michael
Ariel Liang
52:39
=== We are now discussing proposal #18 ===
Michael R. Graham
53:00
Oppose #18
Griffin Barnett
53:53
I frankly don't really understand Proposal 18 - access to the courts is already available under URS?
Kathy Kleiman
53:55
Proposal #11- I think Michael Graham's suggestion reflects the direction of a good number of respondents to the survey and on this call last week and this week.
Zak Muscovitch
55:30
+1 Michael Graham and Kathy re #11
Julie Hedlund
55:42
@Kathy: We’ve noted Michael Graham’s suggestions and other similar suggestions.
Paul Tattersfield
55:56
I support putting out to comment #18 unless Zac says there is a good reason not to
Kathy Kleiman
56:02
@Julie - tx!
Paul McGrady
56:54
I do not support publication. The proposal, as written, is out of scope of Phase 1.
Kathy Kleiman
57:01
can we do one proposal at a time?
Cyntia King
57:02
Do not support these proposals, but would prefer 20 rather than 18 or 19.
Scott Austin
57:46
+1 Phil
Griffin Barnett
57:56
I also am struggling to understand why P18 is necessary... URS "appeals" already provide for an avenue of de novo review by courts
Griffin Barnett
58:02
As Phil suggested
Cyntia King
59:02
Good thought, Phil, on the practical problems w/ these proposals.
Philip Corwin
59:08
We should not be proposing UDRP changes in our Phase One Initial Report -- 18, 19, 20 are all out of scope (personal view, co-chair hat off)
Griffin Barnett
59:44
Even striking out UDRP from these proposals, as Susan is suggesting the proposals seem more geared toward addressing a concern under the UDRP and not an issue under the URS
Rebecca Tushnet
59:45
Susan, but not factfinding by a traditional factfinder--the evidentiary showing is deliberately limited; appeal to another arbitrator doesn't deal with that
Scott Austin
59:58
Do not support 18, 19, 20 for the reasons Susan suggests.
Griffin Barnett
01:00:08
Rebecca - a party under a URS is not barred from seeking de novo review by a court
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:11
I think last week we agreed that UDRP parts were out of scope
Griffin Barnett
01:00:28
Despite the built-in URS appeal mechanisms
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:38
Griffin, the problem is not that the URS bars it but that some judicial systems won't take the case (as previously detailed)
Susan Payne (for SCA)
01:00:58
accept that Kathy but my point was that the rationale for this is a UDRP rationale not a URS one
Griffin Barnett
01:02:05
If a court won't take a case for lack of jurisdiction (no cause of action or personal) I don't know that we can solve that by instructing a court to take these appeals through the URS - wouldn't that require legislation in the applicable jurisdiction?
Philip Corwin
01:02:54
@Rebecca - we lack the authority to create causes of action in every nation-state--however, domain registrants can choose a registrar in a jurisdiction that has a law that can be utilized to "appeal" a domain name decision (e.g., USA has ACPA)
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:59
There's a case or controversy if the URS decision is set aside, because of the underlying TM dispute
Michael R. Graham
01:03:16
Agree +1 with Phils comment -- We/ICANN is in no position to instruct the Courts how to deal with ADR decisions and analysis.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:19
So then that's a decision for each court to make under its applicable laws
Griffin Barnett
01:03:48
We can solve for bad complaint-drafting by someone seeking civil litigation to address a URS decision
Griffin Barnett
01:03:52
*can't solve
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:27
That's why this proposal is to set aside the decision: it ensures that there is a case or controversy regardless of the local law about arbitration/potential tortious interference w/business or other grounds
Michael R. Graham
01:05:00
@Rebecca -- On the contrary, as you know unless there is an ACPA or similar claim, the use of a domain name does not give rise to trademark claims. Precisely why the UDRP/URS ADR procedures were adopted.
Kathy Kleiman
01:05:37
old hand down
Griffin Barnett
01:06:12
+1 Zak
Rebecca Tushnet
01:06:42
Michael, that is not an accurate description of US law--plenty of 32 and 43(a) claims about domain names exist and existed. Not aware of any jurisdiction that declines to evaluate domain names under ordinary TM law even if there are also additional rules but maybe you can provide examples.
Philip Corwin
01:07:48
This vitiation proposal tracks what the IGO CRP WG proposed -- and what the GNSO Council subsequently rejected.
Griffin Barnett
01:08:00
I don't see how a court finding no cause of action would necessitate vitiating a URS decision
Paul McGrady
01:08:27
@Zak, the non-appeal probem in certain jurisdictions is an interesting one, but shouldn't the registrant factor that ni when they select their registrar? ICANN can't save all registrants from their own decisions.
Michael R. Graham
01:08:40
I do not believe Proposals 18, 19, or 20 should be presented for public comment as having substantial opposition and minimal support.
Jay Chapman
01:08:56
Do not support 18 for public comment, I do support 19 and 20 (likely with amendment)
Zak Muscovitch
01:09:02
Indeed Paul, but cant the claimant select the location of the registrant instead of registrar?
Philip Corwin
01:09:04
That rejection is why the Phase 2 UDRP review will revisit the whole issue of IGO access to CRP
Griffin Barnett
01:09:06
I tend to agree Michael.. I have heard fairly limited support for these three proposals
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:28
old hand from Zak?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:47
Paul: It is not reasonable to expect registrants to know not just the ins and outs of the registrar agreement but how courts will interpret the effect of a URS proceeding, which isn't even contained in the agreement.
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:55
Proposal #19 seems to have some support
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:00
don't support 18, 19, 20
Paul McGrady
01:10:03
@Zak, they can, but again, I don't see how ICANN can save the registrant from their own courts not granting them a cause of action.
Griffin Barnett
01:10:11
Let's not forget that complainants really have no control over jurisdiction with respect to a domain dispute.... the location of the registrant or the registrar that the registrant used will dictate
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:12
How do you show a connection to the jurisdiction in #20?
Susan Payne (for SCA)
01:10:47
that was my point too +1 Phil
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:11:02
#20 should not be published as it will create problem. If you have a French and Chinese party how could the appeal be filed in the US when no US rights involved. It's absurd
Greg Shatan
01:11:04
I don’t think #20 is even possible.
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:06
is there a relationship between the registrant and the registry?
Griffin Barnett
01:11:10
no
Griffin Barnett
01:11:15
(@ Paul T)
Jay Chapman
01:11:34
Good point Phil about 20
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:34
#19?
Zak Muscovitch
01:11:52
Yes good point Phil.
Michael R. Graham
01:13:17
As to #19 -- This would have the opposite, and even more problematic, effect than ICANN directing a Court to exercise jurisdiction. It totally ignores the reason UDRP and URS procedures have been adopted.
Zak Muscovitch
01:13:22
@Paul M. you raise a good point. Will give it some more thought.
John McElwaine
01:13:38
Can we see Proposal #19?
Griffin Barnett
01:15:10
I still don't understand how P19 makes sense... a URS complaint is filed... the URS panel ultimately decides that the complaint is meritorious and issues a decision instructing suspension of the domain name... the losing registrant wishes to appeal this decision... they have the option of having it heard de novo by a new panel, or they can appeal to any court of competent jurisdiction... the court to which they bring a litigation complaint dismisses the case for lack of cause of action... and this means that... the URS decision is to be set aside? How is that logical? Would this not lead to a losing registrant filing any nonsensical complaint in any court anywhere, having it rejected, and then getting the URS decision vitiated?
Zak Muscovitch
01:15:10
Whatever the merits on #19, there is at least significant support to publish. 37% in favor in one form or another.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:11
inventing new rule of comments mean support is not a good idea
Philip Corwin
01:15:22
Again, #19 is based on a proposal that came out of the IGO CRP WG that was rejected by Council and is the reason why Phase 2 will revisit the IGO matter. Let's not embarrass ourselves.
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:15:45
I oppose 18, 19 and 20. These are not workable or appropriate proposals
Michael R. Graham
01:16:19
@Greg -- Agree
Griffin Barnett
01:16:26
Except there is a second bite at the apple - we are taking about a court finding no cause of action, the access to the courts is still there?
Cyntia King
01:17:27
+1 Phil - Counsel has already rejected.
Zak Muscovitch
01:18:17
So are we going with majority rules on this?
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:21
+1 Greg
Michael R. Graham
01:18:44
@Griffin -- Good point. Rather than a "second bite" #19 would erase the first bite based on a determination outside the control of ICANN or the URS/UDRP processes.
Paul McGrady
01:19:23
There is strong opposition to publishing 19
Griffin Barnett
01:19:47
The proposal literally says "set aside" the decision....
Michael R. Graham
01:20:05
But the Proposal says "vitiated (set aside)"
Griffin Barnett
01:20:12
It suggests no alternative route
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:17
Paul - I'm seeing support and opposition
Greg Shatan
01:21:07
Are we seeing a level of support that significantly exceeds the level of opposition?
Cyntia King
01:21:13
Strongly oppose. Cuz legalality.
Paul Tattersfield
01:21:14
That's wrong Paul - The complainant has the choice of jurisidction
Zak Muscovitch
01:21:18
I along with a substantial minority (bearing in mind the make up of the survey participants) support it going out for publication and haven't completely made up my mind whether I support it in substance or not.
Michael R. Graham
01:21:37
@Paul -- Excellent point. And though the casual registrant would not -- the Bad Actors would certainly know where to file -- and would. Thereby vitiating the URS
Griffin Barnett
01:21:42
it says if a court finds no cause of action - i.e. the person appealing the URS decision has filed claims with a court and the court has ruled that there is no cause of action - then the URS decision is set aside... it does not suggest any other route to reaching a substantive decision regarding the disposition of the domain name... and as Paul M said it would seem to basically undermine the entire URS process
Ariel Liang
01:22:14
=== We are now discussing proposal #27 (above discussion covers #18, #19, #20) ===
Philip Corwin
01:22:39
Support publication of #27 (personal view)
Zak Muscovitch
01:23:34
Susan whats the recommendation again?
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:34
There’s a serious problem in jurisdictions like the UK and the working group does need to look at these problems when we get to UDRP
Michael R. Graham
01:23:36
@Susan -- I also thought #27 had become a recommendation of the WG?
Paul McGrady
01:24:16
@Paul T - the registrant selects the two jurisdictions for the regitrsant to appeal - the address the registrant puts into the registrar's system and the address of the registrar that the registrant chooses. But again, that is just for the registrant's appeal from an adverse decision. If they select 2 options where there is no appeal right, that is up to the registrant. The complaint can bring its case de novo wherever it wants (assuming jurisdiction) should it lose a decision. Torpedoing the URS and UDRP because the registrant chooses 2 poor jurisdictions is not a real option.
Ariel Liang
01:24:50
This is the URS Sub Team Proposal wording
Paul McGrady
01:24:56
I support publication of Proposal 27.
Jay Chapman
01:24:58
Support publication of 27
Ariel Liang
01:25:04
The WG discovered non-compliance issues with URS Providers and Registries. For example, one of the URS Providers did not translate the Notice of Complaint into the predominant language used in the Registrant’s country or territory or transmit it via email, fax, and postal mail per URS Procedure para 4.2 and URS Rules 9. One URS Provider did not list the backgrounds of all of their examiners as required by URS Rule 6(a). Some Registries did not carry out their obligations relating to locking, unlocking, and suspension of disputed domains.
Michael R. Graham
01:25:11
@Kathy -- Agree -- have Staff determine if this is already a recommendation.
Griffin Barnett
01:25:29
Agree - support publication to the extent P27 not already covered by another existing WG rec
Ariel Liang
01:25:36
The WG recommends that public comment be sought on the following questions:- What compliance issues have Registries and Registrars discovered in URS processes, if any?- Do you have suggestions for how to enhance compliance of URS Providers, Registries, and Registrars in the URS process?
Ariel Liang
01:26:04
The WG recommends that the ICANN Org establishes a compliance mechanism to ensure that URS Providers, Registries, and Registrars operate in accordance with the URS rules and requirements and fulfill their role and obligations in the URS process.
Cyntia King
01:26:09
Support #27 as a recommendation.
Ariel Liang
01:26:12
Sorry, trying to c/p into three parts
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:29
Looking forward to your review, Zak!
Scott Austin
01:26:44
+1 Griffin
Zak Muscovitch
01:27:24
lol Greg
Zak Muscovitch
01:27:28
Didn't even notice that myself
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:10
Agree with Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:28:57
Cannot support publication of P32
Greg Shatan
01:29:00
🕵️‍♂️
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:05
@Paul M but the complainant has the choice of which 2 jurisdictions to use. For examplea registrant in the UK and using a registrar in the US. What’s to stop the complainant simply choosing the UK?
Ariel Liang
01:29:18
=== Now discussing #32 ===
Marie Pattullo
01:29:32
Do not support.
Steve Levy
01:30:03
I do not support
Scott Austin
01:30:03
Do not support
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:17
do not support
John McElwaine
01:30:40
This recommendation is not with the scope of this Working Group's Charter
Greg Shatan
01:30:53
Do not support.
Jay Chapman
01:31:06
Fair point, Zak
Griffin Barnett
01:31:10
32 really consists of two proposals: (1) eliminate URS; (2) URS should not be consensus policy applicable to legacy gTLDs
Michael R. Graham
01:31:35
Oppose #32 unless the Working Group is making a proposal to eliminate the URS -- which we are not. My understanding is that this was one of the principle Charter Questions we were tasked with answering. The Proposal to me derogates our responsibility.
Cyntia King
01:32:00
I kinda feel like this is ridiculous on its face. This mechanism was a tightly-fouoght consensus policy & should not be obliterate.
Paul McGrady
01:32:18
Oppose. We are not chartered to dismantle RPMs: "In addition to an assessment of the effectiveness of each RPM, the PDP Working Group is expected to consider, at the appropriate stage of its work, the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. If such additional policy recommendations are needed, the Working Group is expected to develop recommendations to address the specific issues identified."
Michael R. Graham
01:32:24
@Cyntia +1
John McElwaine
01:33:04
@Paul - my point exactly. This is outside the scope of this WG charter
Scott Austin
01:34:51
+1 Cyntia
Michael R. Graham
01:35:00
Agree -- Outside scope.
Ariel Liang
01:36:19
#3
Ariel Liang
01:36:26
Please ignore
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:20
yes, that was my intent Briamn
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:23
Brian
Zak Muscovitch
01:37:40
I support putting this out for comment
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:23
support
Poncelet ileleji
01:38:57
support
Griffin Barnett
01:39:47
@Rebecca - there is evidence. There has been no use of the duplicative repeated de novo processes afforded under the URS. So yes, this proposal is based on the evidence of lack of use.
Paul McGrady
01:39:49
But the British Columbia proposal was evidence based?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:40
I agree with Kathy that this is not from syb team, at least as I understand it
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:49
sub team
Griffin Barnett
01:41:56
Accidentally cut off my phone line
Griffin Barnett
01:42:00
Need to redial back in
Griffin Barnett
01:42:10
But Kathy your comments are just flat out wrong
Michael R. Graham
01:42:22
@Kathy -- I do not believe this particular point was discussed by the SubTeam. It is also sponsored by a number of individuals.
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:58
@Griffin, I was on the STI which worked out these processes-- I know the reasoning of them. But perhaps that is not what you are referring to.
Greg Shatan
01:43:15
How was this proposal treated in the subteam?
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:01
Good question
Paul McGrady
01:44:05
Have to wait I think in order to be consistent
Ariel Liang
01:44:50
The outcome sub team discussion of the de novo review, per the table, is: NOTE: There is no WG recommendation at this time. The Documents Sub Team recommends that the full RPM Working Group assesses Individual Proposals #8 and #36 and determine whether any of them can rise to the level of Working Group recommendation.
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:33
@Griffin -- we agree re: context needed.
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:34
@Staff -- when is our next meeting?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:45:39
Exactly, Griffin - what's on screen is much more brief that eith proposal
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:45:52
either - sheesh, bad typing day
Julie Hedlund
01:45:57
Next meeting: 08 January at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:03
Maybe we should review the original proposals on our next call?
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:06
Tx Julie!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:20
inital period is 14 days - we are suggesting 60
Greg Shatan
01:46:26
Once you remove all the evidence from the proposal, it’s no longer evidence based... :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:28
Maybe we should review the original proposals on our next call? (full texts)
Julie Hedlund
01:46:29
@Kathy: We have not covered all of the individual proposals on this call.
Julie Hedlund
01:46:44
So the discussion of individual proposals will need to continue.
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:47
@Julie, in this case, the summary may be not be sufficient...
Ariel Liang
01:47:05
Staff will check — but we have c/p the full text of 36 on the slides
Greg Shatan
01:47:18
FYI, John McElwaine had to drop
Julie Hedlund
01:47:22
@Kathy: And we also can link to the wiki where all the proposals are published.
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:28
@Julie and Brian- agree we need to continue discussion!
Zak Muscovitch
01:47:32
Many thanks Brian and everyone.
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:33
@Julie - tx!!
Julie Hedlund
01:47:34
Thanks everyone — happy holidays and new year!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:36
Thanks all, happy holidays
Paul McGrady
01:47:39
Great call! Happy Holidays to All.
Scott Austin
01:47:40
Language does not track. perhaps replace "replace" with enlarge" or change "to" to be "with" in line 2
Jay Chapman
01:47:48
Thanks, everyone. Happy Holidays!
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:55
Happy Holidays, All! A wonderful and restful break!
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:59
Thanks all bye
Susan Payne (for SCA)
01:48:00
thanks all
Michael R. Graham
01:48:03
Happy Holidays!
Benjamin Akinmoyeje (Namibia)
01:48:03
bye
Griffin Barnett
01:48:05
Thanks all, thanks Brian and staff, and happy holidays, happy new year (another full year of RPM review in the books) and see you in January