Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
39:33
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLD PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 4th December 2019 at 17:00 UTC
Julie Hedlund
41:05
@Zak: Noted your change to SOI.
Griffin Barnett
41:11
A number of folks had to miss that previous pre-Thanksgiving meeting due to attending the INTA Leadership meeting - just as an FYI
Julie Hedlund
41:26
@Susan: thanks and noted.
Greg Shatan
41:32
@Zak: “Fun”
Zak Muscovitch
41:55
lol
Maxim Alzoba
42:18
hello all
Griffin Barnett
43:20
hearing some background noise - mute your line if not speaking
Paul Tattersfield
43:50
There were 2 Primary affiliations marked CSG in the survey but I didn’t see any marked CSG in the SOI list on the Wiki
David McAuley (Verisign)
44:40
Julie, could you please note URL for survey results
Julie Bisland
44:52
Reminder to all: Please mute when not speaking to avoid feedback and background noise.
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:00
i can't hear noise
Kathy Kleiman
45:02
I hear it too
Julie Hedlund
45:25
@David: I don’t have the survey URL handy unfortunately and I’m sharing my screen so finding it will take me away from showing the documents. Sorry!
Greg Shatan
45:36
Fingersnapping — maybe Sharks vs. Jets?
David McAuley (Verisign)
45:36
ok, thanks, no prob
Julie Hedlund
46:38
See the document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jlsM6yl3A9ssPdHymjZwoSQXsncsl8h_9oOE1vFYm9o/edit?usp=sharing
Susan Payne
53:20
I think we are just going over changes which staff had to make after the call discussion
Griffin Barnett
53:43
Personally I'm comfortable with the updated language for this rec
Griffin Barnett
57:24
When reading these, where portions have been deleted, might it be better to just read the portions that remain? We can hopefully all see the strikethrough where language has been proposed for deletion
Marie Pattullo
57:28
Julie - could you make your screen a wee bit bigger? Maybe collapse the panel on the left? Old eyes are squinting at this end ;-). Thanks - and no worries if not possible.
Julie Bisland
59:39
Not ideal in all situations, but @Marie and others, you can click ‘View Options’ downarrow at the top of your screen and select, for instance 100%. This will make your view larger. Then you can click and drag your hand to move your screen around.
Marie Pattullo
01:00:09
Thanks Julies x 2.
Julie Bisland
01:00:16
:)
Julie Hedlund
01:03:31
Hand raised (from staff)
Griffin Barnett
01:03:43
This isn't recommending that anything change - the recommendation which is further down is just saying that these points of contact should be kept up to date as between Ry and ICANN to ensure proper channels of commiunication.... not sure how that's problematic from Maxim's point of view
Julie Hedlund
01:03:58
(What Griffin said :-) )
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:05
agree, contacting RySG with the questions is a good way to do it
Susan Payne
01:04:38
agree Phil, seems more appropriate for public comment input
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:05
Is non use and no response from a respondent a valid reason for a successful URS determination for the complainant?
Griffin Barnett
01:11:10
That is a fact-specific case-by-case assessment that probably shouldn't warrant a generalized response
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:11:25
no response could lead to default but examiner must still be satisfied the case is made out as I understand it
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:28
what about no website?
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:51
agree case by case determination
Griffin Barnett
01:12:00
no website but domain used for phishing via email....?
Griffin Barnett
01:12:11
Again each case must be decided on its individual facts and merits
Griffin Barnett
01:12:22
Not appropriate to be considering generalized hypos now
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:06
who is speaking?
Griffin Barnett
01:13:24
are we seriously discussing a single particular URS case right now?
Susan Payne
01:13:49
What does this have to do with the specific recommendations from subteams?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:19
+1 Phil
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:34
+1 as well - this language seems good
Griffin Barnett
01:15:33
@Paul - again, as discussed above, the circumstances of each case are different and require individualized analysis... not appropriate to discuss these huypotheticals right now
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:35
fcc
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:59
as example
Griffin Barnett
01:16:19
The draft rec under discussion is about ensuring that examiners provide supporting rationale of a sufficient adequacy to ensure their decision is properly supported and articulated in the decision. that's it.
Griffin Barnett
01:16:38
not to identify how cases must be decided
Greg Shatan
01:17:06
I didn’t think it was our job to create a jurisprudence for URS. That needs to come from the decisions, and rationale is needed to do so.
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:17:19
The burden of proof is clear and convincing, which is higher than the UDRP
Griffin Barnett
01:17:56
No proposal has been made to change the "clear and convincing" standard of proof under the URS that I am aware of so it seems your raising this objection now is untimely... I suppose you should feel free to raise it in your public comments on the Initial Report
Griffin Barnett
01:18:39
+100 Susan
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:13
+1 Susan
Greg Shatan
01:19:16
Good point, Susan. We’ve been hauled into the weeds and down a rabbit hole. We need to get back on track.
Griffin Barnett
01:20:11
+1 David - default does not automatically result in a decision against the respondent and there are several opportunities for the respondent to appeal; decisions are made on the merits in any case
Julie Bisland
01:20:23
Please mute, hearing feedback
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:00
I think I can shed light here...
Griffin Barnett
01:25:02
I think this is saying that transfer could be made through settlement between the parties
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:10
there is no way to do that
Griffin Barnett
01:25:19
separate from the suspension relief permitted under the URS
Griffin Barnett
01:27:00
But the registrant doesn't change so how does extending a suspension, if with for instance an OFAC registrar, necessitate a registrar transfer?
Mary Wong
01:27:07
This does not refer to “transfer” of the domain as in the UDRP.
Mary Wong
01:27:42
It is about the option to extend the registration for another year, not necessarily with the sponsoring registrar.
Griffin Barnett
01:28:02
But why would that require an inter-registrar transfer at all?
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:09
can we call it inter-registrar transfer (as per the policy title), if I remember correctly...
Griffin Barnett
01:28:23
Because the complainant would be paying for the extension?
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:30
ght
Mary Wong
01:28:31
@Griffi, yes
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:32
right
Griffin Barnett
01:28:33
Hence the possible OFAC or similar implications?
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:41
yes
Griffin Barnett
01:28:44
Ok
Griffin Barnett
01:28:50
Thanks, I think I am understanding that now
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:13
new hand
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:04
(perhaps we can clarify that *there is no transfer of registrants in a URS decision)
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:30
good idea
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:45
good
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:27
new hand
Julie Hedlund
01:32:47
noted
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:39
later, I cleared hand
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:38
One typo - Notice of Compliant up near top - chould be Complaint
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:53
should, my own typo
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:59
We needed to know the def of HSTS
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:17
it has nothing to do with DNS
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:50
yup
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:55
@Julie/Ariel -- what would need to be done to help resolve the issues you have encountered?
Julie Hedlund
01:46:24
noted
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:27
tx!
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:42
HSTS based on third party database
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:51
and used by browsers
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:27
great!
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:20
as requested last meeting - tx!
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:19
good
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:25
privacy shields are proxy/privacy providers?
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:49
privacy shields are GDPR
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:52
imposed
Griffin Barnett
01:56:54
agree that should be clarified because Privacy Shield has a particular meaning in privacy law
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:44
:-)
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:28
We're done!
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:56
Tx you Phil and Julie!
Julie Bisland
02:00:59
Next call: Wednesday, 11 December 2019 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba
02:01:09
thanks all, bye
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:01:23
Good call,
Griffin Barnett
02:01:33
Agree...looking forward to the discussion next meeting re individual proposals; thanks Phil and all for the discussion today
Julie Hedlund
02:02:29
@Rebecca: Noted.
Zak Muscovitch
02:02:34
Thanks Phil.
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:02:45
Thanks Phil and Julie and all
Cyntia King
02:02:46
Thanks,Phil! Bye all!
Greg Shatan
02:02:47
Bye, all.
Griffin Barnett
02:03:02
Bye all
Susan Payne
02:03:08
thanks all