Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
David McAuley (Verisign)
24:46
none here
David McAuley (Verisign)
28:43
Conceptually this makes good sense to me - and a good idea to float the idea and take specifics up later
Paul Tattersfield
28:45
It’s something I would support
Lori Schulman
29:15
I agree. This makes sense. 36 is too much and will confuse the community.
rodenbaughlaw
29:29
I agree, 30 proposals is far too many to ask the community about
Lori Schulman
29:39
It looks like we are not doing our job.
Michael R. Graham
29:40
Generally agree --
Susan Payne
29:45
Makes sense to me - most have pretty limited support
Mary Wong
29:52
If the WG agrees on this, then staff can take an action item to adjust the Phase One timeline accordingly.
Ariel Liang
30:00
So far there are 36 individual proposals total (not including the Sub Team proposals)
David McAuley (Verisign)
30:03
I also like the idea that decision on this will not be on any one call but will involve list as well and get broad input
rodenbaughlaw
30:18
+1 David
Mary Wong
33:36
As Ariel has indicated, 36 are just the individual proposals; this number does NOT include the proposals that were developed by the 3 URS subteams.
Paul Tattersfield
34:00
Both subgroups raised the bar on proposals for the report
Terri Agnew
35:06
for attendance, what is your full name for the person who signed in ”Michael”?
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:19
I can’t recall but in most PC there is a catch-all opportunity for commenters to suggest other things. Do we plan to create a link to Individual Proposals that were not reported on in FR so commenters can go and view them if they are so inclined and consider their observations in light of them?
Kathy Kleiman
36:01
That's a good idea, David. I hope Staff can capture it.
Mary Wong
37:12
@David, the WG has quite a bit of flexibility. It will largely depend on what the group thinks is most effective. Don’t forget that all public comments need to be reviewed. The staff experience has been that, the more focused and targeted the “ask” you make of the community, the more likely you are to get helpful, specific comments.
David McAuley (Verisign)
37:34
good point, @Mary, thank you
Marie Pattullo
37:36
As the proposals would have informed the work of the sub-groups, so have already been taken into consideration, this idea makes sense.
Mike Rodenbaugh
38:12
Hi Terri, not sure if that’s me, Mike Rodenbaugh?
Terri Agnew
39:05
I see your full name Mike Rodenbaugh, unless you signed in twice.
Mike Rodenbaugh
39:15
No just once afaik
Mike Rodenbaugh
39:58
So it’s Michael K
Lori Schulman
40:21
I think that the URS proposals are a different beast.
Jay Chapman
40:32
valid point
Lori Schulman
40:41
We kicked the can down the curb because we couldn't decide.
Paul Tattersfield
41:04
Why not? Because a lot of work was put into improving the standard of the other proposals
Greg Shatan
41:05
False equivalencies are not a valid basis for objection.
Michael Karanicolas
41:37
A broad approach is a decision. An inclusive approach is a decision - not a failure to decide.
Michael Karanicolas
42:25
So it is a second bite.
Michael Karanicolas
42:54
Glad we agree. I look forward to revisiting all the sunrise proposals in September, and trust all the same folks will support that.
Greg Shatan
42:54
We succeeded in the process with Sunrise and TM Claims. We failed with regard to URS. Not the same.
Michael Karanicolas
43:08
Greg - you’re saying that because you disagree with the result.
Michael Karanicolas
43:17
“Failure” is subjective.
Greg Shatan
44:55
Michael, you’re incorrect. THe result was a non-result. And comparing our process and result in Sunrise/TM Claims with that in URS is a gross false equivalency.
Ariel Liang
45:22
Chronological listing doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/ChronologicallistingofTMCH-relatedsourcedocumentation.docx-0001.pdf
Philip Corwin
46:51
Thanks for all the feedback on the topic of revisiting the URS individual proposals to determine levels of support. The co-chairs will work with staff to put out a message on this subject to the entire WG to solicit further feedback -- and whether we engage in such an effort after we complete our TMCH work, as well as what process and standard to employ, will be determined based on the feedback received.
Ariel Liang
47:47
Open TMCH questions doc: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190806/0a19b805/OpenTMCHCharterQuestions-17May2017-0001.pdf
Michael R. Graham
49:20
Michael -- I think the Claims and Sunrise working groups learned from the URS non-result and ret;urning to the URS individual proposals is appropriate so we can review those proposals based on that learning.
Philip Corwin
53:12
Hand is up
Susan Payne
53:45
Mine too
Ariel Liang
53:52
Please note Phil and Susan’s hands are up
David McAuley (Verisign)
54:01
I need to step away for just a moment or two
Mary Wong
56:13
The policies were approved by the GNSO Council in 2007 and adopted by the ICANN Board in 2008 (see top of Page 1)
Kathy Kleiman
56:38
Mary, I'm going to ask you to walk us through this Summary of proposals document...
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:49
and now I step back
Kathy Kleiman
57:00
welcome back!
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:07
TY
Mary Wong
58:56
Staff hand up
Susan Payne
01:00:47
OK,that makes sense Mary, thanks
Susan Payne
01:01:05
Then sounds to me that it's fine to look at the open qs
Terri Agnew
01:02:07
for attendance, who logged in as “JBB”?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:08
if the proposer, e.g. Claudio or Michael etc, wants to do a dive then maybe they can lead
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:44
well Brian makes sense too
Michael R. Graham
01:04:41
I agree -- my understanding was that we are using today to recalibrate and begin substantive discussion next week.
Michael R. Graham
01:05:10
Study -- to begin discussion next week
Brian Beckham
01:05:24
Equally happy to follwo Susan's suggestion
Brian Beckham
01:05:47
If people agree, we are here...
Greg Shatan
01:06:11
A “level setting” exercise will help grease the wheels for next week.
Mary Wong
01:13:00
Susan’s hand is up
Michael R. Graham
01:13:59
As to My Proposal in response to Question 10, I would appreciate if anyone is aware of any studies/data that would either support or oppose the proposal's basis please provide links/information for considerationw whether to pursue or sunset this proposal.
Mary Wong
01:14:04
That’s correct, Susan - and my apologies, I should have mentioned that poll and its results as well.
Michael Karanicolas
01:14:50
Gosh… now it’s a problem to revisit things already discussed?
Susan Payne
01:15:38
Really Michael, I would have thought you'd support that. My point is that if nothing has changed since 2017 then we don't need 12 weeks
Mary Wong
01:15:39
Thanks Kathy, we’ve noted that.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:16:10
Thanks all, good bye
Paul Tattersfield
01:16:26
Thnaks all, bye