Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Maxim Alzoba
30:54
Hello all
julie.hedlund
32:21
Yes, we can do that @Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
32:56
congrats
ariel.liang
33:35
Revised proposal for Q12: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/004039.html
Maxim Alzoba
33:46
I do suggest the revised proposal Q12 text
Maxim Alzoba
33:53
support
Maxim Alzoba
37:31
thanks all
Philip Corwin
37:48
Well done Maxim & staff
ariel.liang
38:42
New proposal for Q15: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-October/004040.html
Marie Pattullo
39:04
I believe the agreement to publish was also to publish an overview of the arguments against this - it wasn't to publish it alone.
Cyntia King
39:25
Yes, @Marie, I understood teh same.
Griffin Barnett
42:14
Presumably there is a contractual carve-out to confidentiality for ausiting?
Griffin Barnett
42:16
*auditing?
John McElwaine
42:53
@Griffin but not for third-parties unless under confidentiality
Griffin Barnett
43:10
gotcha, fair point
Marie Pattullo
44:16
Agree Phil. What would it be for?
Cyntia King
44:18
+1 Phil - also unclear on purpose of audit function.
Cyntia King
45:21
So, looking for some undefined future purspose?
Marie Pattullo
45:25
I would have to object to WG access.
Cyntia King
45:45
So auditing for some undefined future purpose?
Marie Pattullo
46:09
We can't retrospectively make a database open, when it was populated under the understanding that it would be confidential.
Philip Corwin
46:30
I think that if we are going to ask the community to opine on whether an audit should be conducted we need to provide more information about the purpose of the audit and what it will be seeking to determine or at least report upon. Thanks
Marie Pattullo
49:28
That can't be done, I agree Claudio, by ICANN. If anyone has a problem with an actual TM being registered, your port of call is the TM office and a cancellation action. ICANN isn't a TM examiner.
Maxim Alzoba
51:24
will be back on the mobile
Philip Corwin
51:41
The let's ask commenters to opine on what the purpose of the audit should be as well as whether it should occur.
Cyntia King
52:06
@Jason - respectfully disagree. If the database was populated w/ teh understanding the info was private, public commment does not overide that understanding.
Cyntia King
53:14
Unless we make it clear in the public comment that underlying confidentiality must be protected & may make this proposal moot.
Marie Pattullo
54:14
+1 Cynthia.
Marie Pattullo
55:01
Cyntia. Sorry. Auto-typing for another Cynt(h)ia I have to mail rather often.
Marie Pattullo
56:45
Thank you, Jason.
John McElwaine
57:20
What are we putting to public comment?
Marie Pattullo
57:37
Michael K's proposal.
Marie Pattullo
58:21
No - not "just" his proposal - with the argumentation around it, Jason.
julie.hedlund
58:23
@All: It was agreed on the last call to put Michael Karanicolas’ proposal in the Initial Report
John McElwaine
58:26
But do we have support to put Michael K's proposal out for public comment?
John McElwaine
58:40
@Julie thanks'
Maxim Alzoba
58:48
back
julie.hedlund
59:06
Seems that there is agreement to -not- put this new proposal out for public comment
Michael Karanicolas
59:51
@Julie - I believe there is that agreement over “Jason’s” proposal. But that should be understood as separate from the discussion of my prior proposal.
Michael Karanicolas
01:00:02
(Apologies if that didn’t need to be said, I only just joined)
julie.hedlund
01:00:06
@Michael: What is Jason’s proposal?
julie.hedlund
01:00:11
Or @Jason?
Michael Karanicolas
01:00:30
The one on screen - the staff suggested one focusing on an audit for the next working group
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:48
Even without this, I request Staff answer my question about whether it's Staff's position that AG violated an obligation by reporting on the top ten searched terms.
Michael Karanicolas
01:01:08
+1 Rebecca - I also would like to know the answer to that
julie.hedlund
01:01:11
@Rebecca: Staff will take that as an action, if it is possible to answer that question.
Cyntia King
01:01:35
If we're going to allow this info to be available to working groups, then the participants should at the very least be required to formally agree to keep such info confidential. Is that even possible?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:33
Also interested in Marie et al's position on this question--if even that much information should be prevented from becoming public.
Marie Pattullo
01:03:29
@Cyntia: And it cannot be made available without the TM owners whose marks are in there being told & being given a chance to remove their TMs first, and we would have to define some form of mitigation response for them thereafter.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:03:47
Marie, so should that have happened before the AG report?
Marie Pattullo
01:05:05
Sorry @Rebecca; missed the above. The WG didn't get access to the database ; I assume that AG were given limited access under contractual confidentiality?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:05:37
If you assume that, do you believe that AG violated its confidentiality obligations by creating a top ten list of searched terms?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:06:48
That is, you've strongly indicated that there should be no disclosure other than through individual registration attempts and that this rule is the foundation of TM owners putting marks into the TMCH. If that is the rule, why didn't AG violate its obligations?
Marie Pattullo
01:06:59
Terms searched by potential registrants = not the same as the TMs put into the CH.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:20
So you would not consider transparency about terms that are searched to be a problem?
Marie Pattullo
01:07:30
I admit I haven't read the contract with AG!
Cyntia King
01:07:34
Are we talking about 'pushed' info or 'pulled' info? Where would the education $ come from?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:10
But you are making claims about the confidentiality guaranteed by the TMCH; you don't need to read the contract with AG to know whether promises to TM owners have been breached though the source of the breach might depend on AG's contract.
Marie Pattullo
01:08:13
I'm really not sure I'm following you, Rebecca. Apologies.
Martin Silva Valent
01:08:55
Thank you staff!
Cyntia King
01:08:55
Pardon, @Martin - think this may have been lost. Are we talking about 'pushed' info or 'pulled' info? Where would the education $ come from?
julie.hedlund
01:09:04
:-)
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:23
If disclosing a list of top ten searched terms would not, in your opinion, violate confidentiality because search is not equivalent to the TMCH contents, then would any list of searched terms violate your understanding of the confidentiality promise?
Paul Tattersfield
01:09:23
Can we do that with Q8 too?
Cyntia King
01:10:12
Thanks, @Martin.
Cyntia King
01:10:17
Pushed or pulled info?
Martin Silva Valent
01:10:56
I am not sure about what push pull means in this context
Martin Silva Valent
01:11:05
I can think in different interpretations
Martin Silva Valent
01:11:52
I mainly mean about the communication of the TMCH regarding their services and roles, weather they do that in a more passive or active manner, to do it in a full manner, equal manner, so all affected can improve their awareness and use of the system
Cyntia King
01:12:56
Pushed info is an outgoing info campaign - expensive. Pulled info would be like the creatiion of infomational webpages that users could be referred to.
Cyntia King
01:16:49
Annual review seems fine in absence of reason for additional action.
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:16
some years ago
Philip Corwin
01:21:52
"temperature of the room" was the phrase used
Cyntia King
01:24:04
Good question, @Jason.
Philip Corwin
01:24:23
If we officially issued the survey today we could give a bit more than a week and then have staff provide a high level summation at the last WG meeting in Montreal
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:16
Jason +1
Philip Corwin
01:25:39
A survey has the virtue of yielding feedback from WG members who are not always on a call
julie.hedlund
01:27:31
@Rebecca: Affiliations can be captured in the survey
Philip Corwin
01:28:18
I have no personal objection to collecting ICANN constituency or SG, or "other" + self-characterization for those that don't fit in. Would prefer not to collect names as that is too much like a poll.
ariel.liang
01:28:44
We can provide a big picture view of the affiliations of the survey takers, but not be able to do an analysis of how each survey question is answered by different constituency
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:08
People should just put their names on them
Jason Schaeffer
01:29:45
+1 Paul
Rebecca Tushnet
01:30:11
Can you edit the questions so that people put in an affiliation for each question?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:30:17
Because a broad picture view won't disclose bloc voting
Marie Pattullo
01:30:28
Thing is, we're not here representing our SGs/Cs - I'm not here representing the BC.
Jay Chapman
01:30:35
what’s the fear driving the idea that this has to be an anonymous survey?
John McElwaine
01:30:39
What is bloc voting?
Susan Payne
01:30:54
+1 John was just about to ask the same thing
Cyntia King
01:31:07
Seems like it would be relatively simple to export data to a pivot table or accesss database
Marie Pattullo
01:31:42
I'd have to go personal - no one is here "on behalf of" the BC (and I assume other SGs/Cs too?)
Rebecca Tushnet
01:32:36
Marie, you were very clear that you were when we discussed database secrecy; I don't think anyone is here without a perspective
Susan Payne
01:32:44
If this is a question of timing, do we need the survey responses for Montreal? I thought when discussed last week it was for us to pick up after Montreal
Marie Pattullo
01:33:32
Oh you can call me me, Rebecca, or my employer - but to say I'm here "for" the BC just isn't true!
Paul Tattersfield
01:34:21
comment field?
Paul Tattersfield
01:34:34
on each question
ariel.liang
01:35:29
I don’t believe Google Form can impose character limit, we will need to check
julie.hedlund
01:38:08
I can address Claudio’s point
ariel.liang
01:38:31
Documents, Providers, and Practitioners Sub Teams
ariel.liang
01:38:43
Sub Team proposals are separate and not covered in this survey
julie.hedlund
01:40:32
If it was a sub team proposal then it would be captured there
julie.hedlund
01:41:03
New hand for comment after others have spoken
ariel.liang
01:42:24
Due to the time constrains, if we are collecting comments for each survey question, staff can do a compilation of the comments but we won’t have time to do summary, categorization, or other kind of analysis of these comments
Paul Tattersfield
01:45:20
Kathy is very quiet here
julie.hedlund
01:45:35
We can’t do affiliation by question, just overall
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:56
@Julie - but we can do names on each question, Ariel said.
Cyntia King
01:45:57
@Ariel - hopefully there would be few enough comments as to not be burdensome.
julie.hedlund
01:46:04
@Kathy: Yes
Martin Silva Valent
01:46:08
That should be enough to have some feeling on the diversity of the supports
Marie Pattullo
01:46:24
Still not in any way representing the BC here, though.
julie.hedlund
01:46:36
Names overall, not by question
Philip Corwin
01:50:20
A high level data report is sufficient for Montreal. detailed discussion based on survey information would occur after ICANN 66.
julie.hedlund
01:51:56
It also was the staff’s perspective that capturing names suggests that this is a poll, not a survey. So that is why staff designed it without names.
Cyntia King
01:52:13
Why MUST names be attributed to answers?
julie.hedlund
01:52:37
@Cythia: If names overall are captured they can’t be attributed to answers
julie.hedlund
01:52:54
Only if they were captured for each question, which the survey is not designed to do
Cyntia King
01:53:35
Just see no reason why we MUST attribute names to every answer.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:53:38
I have to say I share Michael's concerns; with an undefined purpose/level of support required for further discussion, we'll be fighting both about the proposals and about the level of support for the proposals instead of just the former
julie.hedlund
01:53:47
We do need to know if there is agreement for names to be made public (staff is collecting names overall to make sure someone is a WG member) but not releasing them unless the WG agrees.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:54:34
but then again, we will probably fight about both regardless, so my concerns may not make a difference
Cyntia King
01:54:42
So sad that before we've even had teh survey, it is assumed that members will be fighting over the results.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:55:31
Sad, yes. Unwarranted, I doubt it.
Greg Shatan
01:56:11
Can we understand the reasons for these name and affiliation concerns? And how those people intend to use this data?
Marie Pattullo
01:57:16
Legitimate purpose building block, Greg? ;-)
Cyntia King
01:57:25
Truly? Why not just have the survey to gauge the level of approval/disapprovalof each item then use the info only as a guide to support? Isn't it better to have the info than not?
Greg Shatan
01:57:47
I’ve listened to the last half hour and I question the need for the names and affiliations based on what I’ve heard.
Michael
01:58:08
Greg - it’s so we can get a sense of the breadth of cross-community support, as opposed to just a numbers game
Michael
01:58:09
So. If opposition is concentrated in a single constituency - I think that’s relevant
julie.hedlund
01:58:22
It need to go today to be discussed in Montreal
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:24
bye all, have to drop the call
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:25
Could Staff kindly publish the dates/times of our meetings in Montreal.
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:36
in chat?
Susan Payne
01:58:37
show of hands. who wants a temp of the room survey?
Michael
01:58:49
Susan - that’s not how this works!
Michael
01:58:57
Is consensus irrelevant now?
julie.hedlund
01:59:03
Saturday, 02 November 15:15-16:45 session 1; Saturday, 02 November 17:00-18:30 session 2; Sunday, 03 November 17:00-18:30 session 3
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:09
Tx you!
Cyntia King
01:59:12
@Michael - that's exactly opposite of the purpose of the survey. It's only to see if there are outliers that can be eliminated.
Greg Shatan
01:59:14
That makes a lot of assumptions about what one’s affiliation means.
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:28
Please note our meetings are very early in ICANN66- Saturday and Sunday!
Michael
01:59:32
Assumptions which are borne out by experience, unfortunately.
julie.hedlund
01:59:45
Keep in mind that 6 people have already taken the survey
Susan Payne
01:59:56
we're not doing a consensus call here Michael, we're trying to determine whether we go forward or not and after 30 mins of this the co chairs appear to be unclear of their path forward
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:36
Let's add a attribution field -- not for speaking for the SG or C, but by way of references
Cyntia King
02:00:38
Agreed @Phil! This is being complicated. It's NOT a final determination just a very broad overview.
Cyntia King
02:01:01
We're simply seeing if we can eliminate outliers.
Paul Tattersfield
02:01:21
Absolute numbers are not necessarily indicative of broad support/rejection that's why there whould be names on them
Paul Tattersfield
02:01:48
no it shoudl ne names
Greg Shatan
02:02:30
How will co-chairs use this data? Or give it weight?
Greg Shatan
02:02:43
i.e., the name and affiliation data