Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view

Playback Range -

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...?

Download

Upcoming Meetings