Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Susan Payne
39:16
hi could someone identify this document in the Zoom screen and when it was circulated? I cannot find it, but that's probably a reflection on my inbox. Ta
Susan Payne
39:53
oh - not this doc, I was referring to the previous one but it's gone now
Susan Payne
41:12
oh, ok, thanks Julie
julie.hedlund
42:27
Thanks Susan :-)
Cyntia King
46:37
I thought the subM Claims service was having desire effect, but there was a question of the degree given the confusion around the notice anguage?
Cyntia King
47:17
(sorry for the lousy typing)
julie.hedlund
48:17
I raise my hand as staff
julie.hedlund
48:29
(I can’t raise it otherwise)
David McAuley (Verisign)
48:57
As one who was not a member of the TM Claims subteam, I commend that subteam for recommending that the notice be comprehensible to a layperson unfamiliar with TM law.
Michael R. Graham
48:59
Agree with removing "probably" or "likely"
julie.hedlund
49:38
There was a lot of discussion on this as Rebecca notes. The Sub Team was careful in this wording.
julie.hedlund
49:45
in choosing the wording
Griffin Barnett
50:14
Perhaps we keep the portions of the answer talking about possibly, but remove the earlier portion?
Griffin Barnett
50:30
ALso fairly ambivalent, but take both Brian's and Rebecca's points here (as well as Julie's)
julie.hedlund
51:07
hand up (from staff)
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:08
I agree with Phil on relatiuve importance of recommendations vs answers
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:45
hand down - was up for Julie
Cyntia King
52:33
+1 Susan
Griffin Barnett
52:37
Perhaps: The Sub Team could determine that the service is at least "possibly" having its intended effect. It was not able to conclude it was having its intended effect with a higher degree of certainty.
Griffin Barnett
52:56
I think that captures that meaning in the current wording, but maybe more clear to outsiders?
Griffin Barnett
53:11
Just spitballing, although again ambivalent overall on this item
Susan Payne
54:46
yes Griffin - that's what I was struggling to find the words for
Justine Chew
55:19
I like Griffin's text
Susan Payne
55:32
Griffin has put some good language in the chat
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:23
seems odd - i can see editing in google doc on zoom screen but not in separate google doc I have up on web (though not logged in to google)
julie.hedlund
56:45
hand up Phil
Kathy Kleiman
57:21
Agree with Phil
Cyntia King
57:26
+1 to Griffin's kanguage.
julie.hedlund
57:42
I’ve put Griffin’s language in the doc
Martin Silva Valent
58:35
Hi all, I had connection problems. Still working the audio.
Justine Chew
59:15
@Julie, please drop the "However,"
julie.hedlund
59:19
my hand is down now Phil — just wanted to make sure I captured the language
julie.hedlund
01:00:43
Noted Justine
Cyntia King
01:00:47
If the language is confusing to folks who didn't participate in the month of discussions, then it's not useful.
julie.hedlund
01:01:09
Yes, there will be another review
Michael
01:01:28
Yes!
Griffin Barnett
01:01:31
Again I really don't much care strongly about this. If we want to revert to the sub-team language then fine. The point is that the wording might not have been totally clear to individuals not within the sub teams
julie.hedlund
01:01:44
hand up from me (Julie)
Michael
01:01:44
Sorry - that was in response to a direct question I was asked by Julie - please disregard
Griffin Barnett
01:01:55
that was Brian's original point I think. Not intended to change the meaning of what the sub team concluded.
Susan Payne
01:02:01
ok, so if Rebecca does feel that this is important language then we should probably just keep the original version. I don't think any of us were intending to change meaning. Only trying to take on-board the suggestion that this may be unclear to outsiders
Cyntia King
01:02:55
THis is often a problem in long-term groups - the participants understand the product, but new observers don't follow.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:13
Apologies, but I need to step away for a moment for another call
julie.hedlund
01:03:24
hand up from me Phil
mary.wong
01:05:00
Staff can also include some language in the Initial Report about how the two Sub Teams discussed and arrived at their proposed answers as well as preliminary recommendations.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:33
+1 @Mary
julie.hedlund
01:05:56
We are back to the original language in the answer to the question.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:09
agree with thids approach
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:15
this
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:10:48
no audio?
Michael R. Graham
01:10:56
Comment <I do not think the last sentence is accurate insofar as it presumes that deterrence of "good-faith domain name applications" actually occurred.>
mary.wong
01:11:08
@David, audio seems to working in Zoom.
julie.hedlund
01:11:12
There is audio David — maybe you have lost a connection?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:11:24
I think so - will dial back in
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:25
I have no audio here too
julie.hedlund
01:11:53
Paul you may need to try to reconnect
mary.wong
01:11:57
@David and @Paul, were you using Zoom audio or phone?
Michael R. Graham
01:11:58
I would agree to revision: "The Sub Team could not determine whether or the extent of deterrence that occurred."
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:19
just on the computer , will try a reconnect thanks
julie.hedlund
01:12:36
hand up Phil
julie.hedlund
01:13:00
Staff can do that in the initial report Phil
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:20
i am now #154
Julie Bisland
01:13:31
Thank you, David
Michael R. Graham
01:15:32
@Phil -- "Whether" replaces "or any" -- it does not contradict the first sentence.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:10
could Michael explain the difference of the new language?
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:16
Tx!
Paul Tattersfield
01:16:40
reconnecting solved the audio issue, thank you
Justine Chew
01:16:47
I think grammatically the original sentence of "The Sub Team could not determine the extent of deterrence that occured, if any" is more appropriate.
Julie Bisland
01:16:52
Great to hear, thank you, Paul
julie.hedlund
01:17:35
hand up Phil
Michael R. Graham
01:17:45
@Kathy -- my proposal would negate the suggestion that detterence DID occur, which the ending of "if any" at end creates.
Michael R. Graham
01:17:55
Sorry -- no audio at this time.
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:36
Sorry, I'd stay with origina...
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:38
original...
Michael R. Graham
01:19:41
@Kathy -- the original creates a presumption that deterence of good-faith applications DID occur, which contradicts the first sentence.
Michael R. Graham
01:20:18
@Julie -- I do understand there was great amount of work in drafting -- but review here should not be negated by that. Just saying.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:54
hello all, could not join before this time
Michael R. Graham
01:21:04
NOTE: If no one else agrees with me, we can use original.
Julie Bisland
01:21:09
welcome, Maxim
Cyntia King
01:21:21
If non-participants cannot read & understand easily, then teh language - no matter how precisely crafted - is not useful.
Susan Payne
01:21:47
@Michael - I think your wording is probably grammatically better, but I think the intent of the original is the same
julie.hedlund
01:22:08
@Michael and @Cynthia — noted. Staff is not suggested that if something is unclear it should not be corrected.
Cyntia King
01:22:13
We should be willing to make the language understandable to non-sub-team participants.
Michael R. Graham
01:22:31
@Susan -- I suppose my training as an English teacher interferes.
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:51
are not extend and shortening mutually exclusive?
Michael R. Graham
01:24:04
@Julie -- Thanks.
Susan Payne
01:25:07
@Paul - the "not shortening" is meant to refer to the "flexibility". Again, probably our drafting is not perfect
Martin Silva Valent
01:25:09
All good Phil!
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:33
sorry was just a drafting correcting
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:37
correction even
julie.hedlund
01:25:48
@Paul: I think the shortening is addressed in Q2(b)
julie.hedlund
01:26:30
@All: Note that these sub questions have a certain amount of dependency
julie.hedlund
01:29:20
Note that there are proposed questions for community input
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:26
Putting the proposed questions forwarded as well.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:42
Carefully phrased by the subteam...
julie.hedlund
01:30:11
hand up re: Brian’s point
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:43
I think we might re-group question s , but not change.
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:50
“with the option to extend the Claims Period, provided this does not involve shortening the Claims Period.” How can extend involve shortening? (self referencing not dependency surely?)
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:52
+1 Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:51
@Paul, to extend to negative amount of days ? I can not imagine it too
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:43
if we regroup, I suggest we mark it that relevant questions were grouped for simplicity
julie.hedlund
01:33:54
@Maxim: Noted
Steve Levy
01:36:40
I’ve got to switch over to audio-only. Will be -9094
Julie Bisland
01:37:01
Thank you, Steve!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:42
Good point Phil - the question is flagged for community input during public comment
julie.hedlund
01:41:41
Just noting that there are other parts to Q3(a) — ii and iii
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:23
I think it was about the current wording of the notice, I don't not think we questioned the idea itself
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:44
Registrants
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:48
in the second pool...
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:10
not IP attorneys
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:19
third pool was potential registrants
Griffin Barnett
01:45:13
Not sure what Rebecca is saying... is her point different from what we agreed on in the sub team?
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:25
no
Griffin Barnett
01:45:28
Sounds like she agrees with the response for Q3(a)(i)?
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:37
she's summarizing the data that led to our point
Griffin Barnett
01:45:41
ok.....
julie.hedlund
01:45:46
Rebecca is substantiating the answer of the Sub Team
Susan Payne
01:45:58
Griffin I think Rebecca is just answering Brian's question about whether there was actual data from the survey
Griffin Barnett
01:46:19
Ok thank you... sorry I may have missed the intro to those comments, I just returned from a call I had to step away for earlier
Griffin Barnett
01:46:22
THanks for clarifying!
Susan Payne
01:46:22
hah - sorry, snap
Michael Karanicolas
01:47:18
<comment> As someone who works a lot on expressive issues, Rebecca’s rundown is about as strong an empirical case for a chilling effect as you’re likely to find. <comment>
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:31
can we say majority?
Justine Chew
01:47:40
Are we also avoiding referring to "data" for Q3(a)(i)?
Susan Payne
01:47:41
@Paul - no
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:50
thanks susan
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:16
Should it be “sought” or “should seek”?
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:44
or "seeks"
julie.hedlund
01:51:25
@Paul and @Kathy: “Seeks” is probably more accurate. Staff will note.
Paul Tattersfield
01:53:17
How can you have a registration agreement for a potential registrant?
Justine Chew
01:54:15
Good question @Paul !
julie.hedlund
01:55:13
Note that the text in column 3 should be in the recommendation column
julie.hedlund
01:55:25
@Susan: That’s correct — it’s in the wrong column
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:26
Agree with Susan!
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:32
It's a 2nd column recommendation...
julie.hedlund
01:55:35
Staff will fix it for next week
julie.hedlund
01:56:56
What Kathy said :-)
Greg Shatan
01:58:18
I need to sign off to prepare for my next call. Bye, all.
julie.hedlund
01:58:28
Bye Greg and thanks
Paul Tattersfield
01:59:08
If was only to those that have completed you could include a link for a refund J
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:55
Tx for chairing today, Phil!
Cyntia King
02:01:23
Thanx, Phil!
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:35
Thaks Phil and Julie, thanks all
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:42
Thanks
Paul Tattersfield
02:03:52
Tthanks Phil, All. Bye
Mary Wong
02:04:49
There was a suggestion that proposed edits be sent in 24 hours (I think) before the call.
Martin Silva Valent
02:05:55
Thank you Phil!!!!!