Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Rebecca Tushnet
10:10
FYI I'm trying to get on the phone and the phone link says the meeting isn't started.
Andrea Glandon
10:19
Wiki Agenda Page: https://community.icann.org/x/b5aGBg
Rebecca Tushnet
10:29
It says "try again later."
Rebecca Tushnet
10:37
I can hear you on the computer but I can't talk this way.
Andrea Glandon
10:40
@Rebecca, That is strange. I can dial out to you if you would like.
Rebecca Tushnet
10:55
Sure, that would be great. 703 593 6759. Thanks.
Andrea Glandon
11:33
Thank you, dialing now
Rebecca Tushnet
11:53
Got it, thanks.
Andrea Glandon
11:57
You’re welcome!
Kathy Kleiman
12:52
Rebecca, it now shows that you are connected by phone and by computer microphone. You might want to mute your PC.
Kathy Kleiman
17:29
follow up question
julie.hedlund
23:30
Sorry my phone audio dropped
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
24:05
Sorry I'm late everyone
Andrea Glandon
28:24
I’m sorry, what number did you try to call? Or did you try to have the meeting dial out to you?
Andrea Glandon
28:35
My apologies, that was for Claudio
Kathy Kleiman
29:13
To CoChairs, then, thanks!
Ariel Liang
32:14
This is Mary’s email circulating Compliance’s responses to the questions related to Proposal #6: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-May/000341.html
Ariel Liang
32:42
Currently displayed on the screen
Kathy Kleiman
34:01
Can someone page this answer down?
julie.hedlund
34:21
@Kathy: It might be easier if you just look at the link from Ariel?
Kathy Kleiman
34:57
Tx for the page down!
Rebecca Tushnet
40:59
No.
Rebecca Tushnet
41:17
"absolutely" is wrong; "probably" or "likely" would fit in the sentence is drafted.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:20
Then I misunderstoood.
Rebecca Tushnet
41:30
as drafted, apologies.
Rebecca Tushnet
42:23
That would work for me.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
43:56
To be clear, I'm not that bothered by the whole hting either, but just trying to understand.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
45:03
One thing I was contemplating on my drive in was making it very clear where we had rough consensus.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
45:12
Here, you're right that we don't have consensus.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
45:26
Some of us think it's working, some do not.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:02
So the first bit does make it clear that we don't have consensus.
julie.hedlund
46:22
@Kathy: Yes they are synced
Kathy Kleiman
47:15
good - tx, so we can refer to either one?
Ariel Liang
48:01
We recommend using the status check doc as it is easier to read through the proposed answers & preliminary recommendations, for your convenience
julie.hedlund
52:41
@All: Time check — this meeting will end at 5 minutes to the top of the hour to allow for a transition to the next call.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
52:52
I'll remind everyone that our brand friends are largely at INTA, but they (the ones this mechanism was designed to protect) are all in the "we think it's mostly working" camp.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:23
(Meaning they haven't observed "misses" by Rrs to date).
Roger Carney
53:46
Suggestion: Q1A: "The Sub Team determined that the service is at least "possibly" having its intended effect, but with limited data the Sub Team cannot answer the question definitively."
claudio
54:23
@Kristine, my comment was about the level of intended effect. I'm not suggesting Claims isn't valuable
Kathy Kleiman
54:23
Tx Roger -- the phrasing makes sense to me.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:57
@Claudio...I don't think we can get that from compliance, thought. Even if it was in scope.
Greg Shatan
56:13
I would suggest the following wording for the Q1 answer: "Some members of the Sub Team believe that the service is "probably" having its intended effect, while others believe it is at best "possibly" having its intended effect."
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
58:52
I would be fine with that amendment.
Roger Carney
59:00
+1 Kathy
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
59:06
^@Kathy
Roger Carney
59:09
Kepp, with "but"
Kathy Kleiman
59:34
to Q3(a) Delete?
Kathy Kleiman
59:54
they didn't get it
Zak Muscovitch
01:00:45
To follow up with Kathy;s suggestion; Proposed language for 3A: While the Trademark Claims Notice does on its face inform registrants of matching trademarks, there are significant shortcomings with the nature of the notice as set out below."
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:01:07
@Rebecca, but we have strong concerns that those surveyed weren't actually potential DN registrants., They didn't konw what they were seeing at all because they reallly didn't get the context.
julie.hedlund
01:01:25
@All: Time check. We have 1 minute.
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:10
I'm OK with Zak's wording.
Roger Carney
01:02:18
I like Zak's start
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:25
It does not do what it is supposed to do.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:43
If you don't believe those were registrants we have multiple problems, but then we have no relevant data.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:50
And thus can't say that it is working.
Zak Muscovitch
01:02:53
Note that the aqctual language of Q3A leaves openj to the reader's perspective, what the "intended purpose is". Is it to fairly inform registrants, or just to notify them...?