Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
34:35
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 18:00 UTC.
Ariel Liang
36:55
Link to the URS Sub Team recommendation doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit
Maxim Alzoba
47:04
please add then reference to the urs rules and termination due to settlement
Maxim Alzoba
47:57
if the URS is won, there is no settlement, if settlement happening, there is no URS
Mary Wong
51:32
@Maxim, yes - and that is why it is NOT the same issue.
Mary Wong
52:16
Both (settlement prior to determination AND extension of registration WITHOUT a settlement) were given as different examples of situations where the ST found difficulties in communicating with Registries or registrars.
Maxim Alzoba
52:48
settlement prior to the determination is outside of URS
Maxim Alzoba
53:11
transfer issues are for transfer policy
Maxim Alzoba
54:20
+1
Maxim Alzoba
54:30
for this clarification
Maxim Alzoba
56:30
this item is outside of DNS world, it is limited to browsers and third party database
Maxim Alzoba
57:04
this item is for CA and browser venue
Maxim Alzoba
59:04
browser creators do not follow our policies
Paul McGrady
01:01:47
What do we mean by "language"? Do we mean language to describe the privacy shielded respondent, or all the language in a decision, etc.
Scott Austin
01:01:55
+1
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:02
forgot to mention about the item with Registrar change after the URS won, the word transfer has very special meaning in the policies, and might have a change of the registrant (the latter is forbidden under URS), and thus I would recommend to mention that such change will not change the registrant.
Marie Pattullo
01:03:09
Wasn't me, but yes - someone did raise it, as it's a term of art.
Julie Hedlund
01:04:09
Thanks Marie ;-)
Mary Wong
01:04:28
The problem identified was the situation where the “real” registrant is not known when the proceeding commences in language A (b/c of a P/P service) but subsequently it’s discovered that the “real” registrant’s primary language is language B.
Paul McGrady
01:05:03
Ignore my question. I understand now. Why wouldn't the language be the language of the registration agreement?
Paul McGrady
01:05:31
Thanks!
Mary Wong
01:05:42
And the registrant (or RNH) would be the proxy service in the case Renee describes.
Julie Hedlund
01:06:40
noted
Brian beckham
01:07:36
not sure how the location of a privacy service is relevant
Scott Austin
01:07:41
+1 Mary
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:14
there actually can be a chain of resellers, which make the real language totally unknown
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:17
Nicely done
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:27
two minute warning
Zak Muscovitch
01:11:12
Bingo!
Paul Tattersfield
01:13:55
When I dial in I get asked for a pin i only have a participant ID and Meeting ID neither seem to work any help please
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:04
Sorry, can't help Paul - I get in with the latter two ids - never asked for a pin
Julie Bisland
01:15:29
Messaging Paul privately now
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:34
Paul - after putting in your meeting ID, put in # for PIN
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:43
(generally works)
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:00
thanks Kathy, will try that next week :) Julie has called me :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:51
to ensure legal part is not hidden inside of tech document
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:04
agree with Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:07
good
Julie Hedlund
01:19:43
hand up from staff
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:21:43
audio is acting up - please mute if not speaking
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:19
sound coming through
Mary Wong
01:23:05
In other words, there ought not to be a change in the status designations unless the WG’s current discussions reveal this to be the case, in the chairs’ view.
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:56
Rebecca +1
Julie Hedlund
01:25:06
So, since no WG member advocated as any proposal being included as a recommendation by 01 December, none would be and we’re just determining whether to publish or not.
JBB
01:25:23
right, thx Paul
JBB
01:25:39
(sorry for the bad audio)
Paul McGrady
01:26:36
Completely understand Kathy! These calls are hard for we compulsive completers! :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:02
:-)
Paul McGrady
01:27:40
Do not support.
Griffin Barnett
01:27:49
Do not support this proposal for publication
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:20
I still do not support this item
Michael R. Graham
01:28:32
Do not support
Scott Austin
01:28:43
Do not support
Renee Fossen
01:28:57
I also do not support.
Cyntia King
01:29:25
Do not support
Marie Pattullo
01:29:35
Agree - don't support.
Paul McGrady
01:33:15
*******drawing a line under the Chat so we know we are talking about Proposal 1 now************
Michael R. Graham
01:33:42
Support Proposal #1
Paul McGrady
01:34:06
Does Option 2 seem less invasive?
Scott Austin
01:34:19
If option 2 selected "will" should change to "shall"
Griffin Barnett
01:35:21
Procedurally, that might be best saved for public comment on this item, but it seems that there is no objection to putting this out for public comment
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:26
since we're just getting public feedback if option 1 is commented on as the one to go with I think we can change to shall as a WG
Paul McGrady
01:35:52
I support Proposal #1 with a slight preference for Option 2
Griffin Barnett
01:36:11
Are we voting for the options, I assumed both would be included in the overall proposal for public comment....
Griffin Barnett
01:36:13
?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:36:32
I thought the options would gho out fpor comment as written if we support this
Paul McGrady
01:36:46
@Griffin - that makes sense. We can all chime in about Option 1 vs Option 2 in public comments
Griffin Barnett
01:37:13
Yes, that was my understanding
Julie Hedlund
01:37:30
Seems that the intent is to put proposals out for public comment as is, not edited.
Griffin Barnett
01:37:33
Agree Kathy - up or down on the proposal as it is shown
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:43
Thanks for getting through my bad typing, Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:52
:-)
Paul McGrady
01:38:07
@Kathy - that makes sense to me, or else we will never get through these. Always can tweak language after we see report on public comments
Griffin Barnett
01:38:14
I think this is the only one that has this kind of multiple options presented, but don't quote me on that
Renee Fossen
01:38:40
Agreed.
Griffin Barnett
01:39:15
Agree
Ariel Liang
01:39:37
*******Now discussing Proposal 8************
Paul McGrady
01:39:49
@Ariel - you beat me to it! :)
Ariel Liang
01:39:59
Thanks for the inspiration!
Griffin Barnett
01:40:20
I oppose this proposal for public comment
Michael R. Graham
01:40:21
Do not support Proposal #8
Paul McGrady
01:40:29
I do not support this proposal.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:13
good observation by Brian about UDRP part of this proposal
Marie Pattullo
01:41:39
Don't support either - especially as the URS is supposed to be fast.
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:43
Agree with Brian. I think any proposals which involve UDRP & URS shoudl be modified in ALL proposals
Renee Fossen
01:41:52
Do not support.
Scott Austin
01:42:01
do not support
Greg Shatan
01:42:04
No support here
Cyntia King
01:42:07
Not support
Jason Schaeffer
01:42:14
No support
Brian Beckham
01:42:25
Also "creation date" and "registration date" could differ, and have a material impact
Ariel Liang
01:42:38
*******Now discussing Proposal 34************
Paul McGrady
01:45:12
I support. This makes more sense to me that having the proceedings in the language of the privacy/proxy service provider's location.
Griffin Barnett
01:46:12
While I have some reservations substantively about this proposal, I do not oppose its publication for public comment
Michael R. Graham
01:47:00
I do not oppose publication
Cyntia King
01:47:11
Also have reservations, but would like to see what the public says
Jay Chapman
01:47:20
Support
Ariel Liang
01:47:34
*******Now discussing Proposal 35************
Petter Rindforth
01:47:36
I support to have it published - whether you support or not, there is interesting to get inputs from public
Marie Pattullo
01:48:01
Petter - is that for 34 or 35?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:15
clear error I think should also apply here to the extent of UDRP language
Petter Rindforth
01:48:17
Note that my comment was for 34!!!
Ariel Liang
01:48:28
Thanks Petter :)
Ariel Liang
01:48:42
Now officially starting discussion for #35
Griffin Barnett
01:48:50
I oppose this proposal for publication
Michael R. Graham
01:49:03
Oppose proposal #35
Marie Pattullo
01:49:14
Oppose 35 too.
Greg Shatan
01:49:23
Opposed to 35.
Renee Fossen
01:49:34
Opposed to 35.
Paul McGrady
01:50:20
Opposed to publishing 35, if for no other reason than the UDRP is Phase 2 work, not Phase 1 work.
Scott Austin
01:50:26
+1 Brian Do not support.
Petter Rindforth
01:50:32
Oppose 35 (just to be clear)
Cyntia King
01:50:46
Several fatal errors w/ this proposal. Do not support.
Jason Schaeffer
01:51:01
Opposed
Brian Beckham
01:51:10
good point Zak
Scott Austin
01:51:32
+1 Zak
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:38
+1 Zak
Steve Levy
01:51:43
I also do not support
Lori Schulman
01:51:51
INTA is against publication as well.
Gerald M. Levine
01:52:09
there's no ambiguity about bad faith
Greg Shatan
01:52:20
If there was a way to register strong opposition on 35 I would do that.
Ariel Liang
01:53:10
*******Now discussing Proposal 11************
Cyntia King
01:54:18
Agree we may wish to seek public input as to just what figure (between 3-15) would be reasonable threshold.
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:28
Strongly oppose, some of our clients have registered far more than 3 identical domains for a project
Roger Carney
01:55:11
+1 Cyntia
Zak Muscovitch
01:55:41
Is this for 3 subject domain names, or 3 past losses?
Michael R. Graham
01:56:03
Although I believe 3 is sufficient to demonstrate a pattern, I would agree to asking for Public Comment on the appropriate number to demonstrate a pattern. Noting the comment on commercial plans, I could agree to increasing this to 5 -- but I think input on # appropriate -- but maintain the proposed language and reduction to 3.
John McElwaine
01:56:29
3 in one matter, correct? We might need to address what the "Response Fee" is.. Folks on this call are confused
Griffin Barnett
01:56:45
Three domains in one complaint
Griffin Barnett
01:56:51
Not anything to do with prior cases
John McElwaine
01:57:09
Right.
Julie Hedlund
01:57:14
3-minute warning
Paul McGrady
01:57:32
I think we need to be careful not to tweak these now. Let's put it out and see what the public comment report says.
Zak Muscovitch
01:57:38
OK so how is that related to a clear pattern of bad faith when the case isn't decided yet?
John McElwaine
01:57:38
I am not sure the discussion was properly informed of what a Response Fee was.
Scott Austin
01:57:52
+1 Cyntia
Jay Chapman
01:57:54
As it stands, I do not support Proposal 11
Paul Tattersfield
01:57:54
A lot of concern
Paul McGrady
01:58:34
+1 Julie
Michael R. Graham
01:58:38
Concern is to the number of domain names, not to the Proposal in general.
Griffin Barnett
01:58:51
Again, this proposal had 22% opposing for public comment, and our exercise is to determine sufficient support for public comment, not necessarily whether you support the substance/merits
Julie Bisland
01:58:58
Next call: Wednesday, 18 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Paul McGrady
01:59:02
This was a great call. Thank you Kathy!
Griffin Barnett
01:59:15
Thanks all, very helpful call today
Renee Fossen
01:59:17
For context, Forum has never collected a response fee.
Zak Muscovitch
01:59:27
For what its worth, I can see a discussion of the appropriate number, but I don't see it as a matter related to a registrant's track record, as that is dealt with elsewhere.
Paul Tattersfield
01:59:29
URS is a very low cost administrative procedure, and as such needs to be as reasonably priced as possible and claims disposed of as efficiently as possible.
Brian Beckham
01:59:32
thanks Kathy
Greg Shatan
01:59:34
But not on Wednesday the 25th....
Paul Tattersfield
01:59:39
thanks all bye
Zak Muscovitch
01:59:39
thanks kathy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:59:40
Thanks Kathy, Julie and all