Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Ariel Liang
28:09
The Google Doc has been switched back to “suggesting” mode so you can view the redline directly on the Google Doc, if you wish: The Google Doc has been switched back to “suggesting” mode so you can view the redline directly on the Google Doc, if you wish.
Ariel Liang
28:28
Apologies for double pasting the text:
Ariel Liang
28:29
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10quBC1BnuIM_wOyEXH7TttNWEOrDTiPNscgSBd7QFXg/edit?usp=sharing
Kathy Kleiman
30:18
Just coming online. Where is the Google Doc TM#4?
julie.hedlund
30:39
@Kathy: The google doc link is pasted in the chat. We’ll send it again.
Ariel Liang
31:05
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10quBC1BnuIM_wOyEXH7TttNWEOrDTiPNscgSBd7QFXg/edit?usp=sharing
julie.hedlund
31:21
But it was agreed by the Co-Chairs that the Sub Team would work on the Status Check document, but Sub Team members could summarize their comments in the Google doc when suggesting language for the status check doc.
julie.hedlund
32:01
*comments from the Google doc (which is also in the link Ariel just posted again)
julie.hedlund
35:28
:-) thanks!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
35:32
Hi everyone, sorry I'm late...
Ariel Liang
35:33
Please note the status check doc you see is dated 17 May version, hence it does not reflect any comments/input from the Google Doc
Martin Silva
36:52
Kristine! Very happy to see you!
Martin Silva
37:18
We are going through the Q4 in the status check document, members are commenting or summarizing their inputs so we can debate further and maybe find other angles
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
37:28
Thank you for the update.
Martin Silva
37:48
We are juts talking about Q4 a
Martin Silva
37:58
in case you wanna comment on that specific point
Kathy Kleiman
39:06
Missing -- Other Sub Team members believed it relevant that none of the Subteam members in the paragraph above identified specific data (e.g., surveys or studies) that showed harm, and argued that “day to day experience” should not be considered “data.”.Further, they pointed out that the exact match requirement for Trademark Claims already potentially harms some applicants by potentially discouraging their registration of trademarked words that may also have non-trademark uses and be an otherwise legal usage. However, this would seem to be a criticism of the claims system generally, and not the exact match requirement.Some Sub Team members noted that a) there is no proof of a specific pattern of correctable harm in the limited survey data available to the Sub Team and b) the URS is expressly designed to rapidly correct a wide range of activities involving registration of variants of trademarks which are a violation of ICANN’s rules. There are no data known to the Sub Team about whether rates of cybersquat
Ariel Liang
39:24
The updated status check document will be circulated to the Sub Team after the Sub Team completes the deliberation on Q4. The version you are reviewing is 17 May version (old)
Kathy Kleiman
40:08
We did - that's what's in the Google Doc.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:10
Given what Julie just said, everything under Proposed answer that starts with "some sub team members" is not an answer.
Ariel Liang
40:32
Correct - based on our understanding from Rebecca’s comment, those text will be discarded
Ariel Liang
40:53
starting with “some Sub Team members believe…”
julie.hedlund
42:24
@Kristine: That’s correct. That also is the suggestion — to not include the discussion in the status check doc.
julie.hedlund
43:44
@Kristine: The Co-Chairs also agree to add a column as you suggested to include questions to the community where there are not preliminary recommendations.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
44:56
@julie: yeah, so I think the issue here is that we have to imagine that.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
45:06
We have a table that only has partial information
julie.hedlund
45:59
@Kristine: Correct. Staff didn’t feel that it was appropriate for us to try to extract questions for the community from the Google doc given the difficulty of doing so accurately.
Roger Carney
45:59
So is anyone against removing the two paragraphs and just leaving the one line sentence answer?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:15
@Martin, thanks. I am actually not looking for answer, just explaining my thinking in case it helps.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:46
@Roger, I suspect the answer to that is how much and what form the "Discussion" takes.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
47:10
@Rebecca, I don't think we need to ask for data. At all.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
47:25
but we are soliciting comments and input so we need to be clear about the type of input we want.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
47:49
Because eventually we have to answer the question in our final report.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
48:13
what information do we need to get to that final report?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:00
OR let me be clear, if we can create a recommendation we like we should not have an additional ask. Can we come up with a recommendation here?
Cyntia King
49:02
Apologies for my late arrival.
Ariel Liang
49:34
For example, the Summary table can be a place to store the debates, arguments, and other additional details that don’t belong in the status check document
Kathy Kleiman
49:42
@Kristine - OK, let's try to find an answer.
Rebecca Tushnet
49:44
"if the current system is harming you or your client, please describe it here" is not a neutral question.
julie.hedlund
50:18
@All: Adding to what Ariel noted, the Initial Report also can have a section to record deliberations.
julie.hedlund
51:00
This document is just the high-level report to the WG, with summary table/google doc as background.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
51:16
@Rebecca, is that a quote from the doc?
Rebecca Tushnet
51:23
Yes.
Rebecca Tushnet
51:29
The google doc
Greg Shatan
51:40
If we're not paralyzed, where are we going?
Rebecca Tushnet
51:51
though I suggested its deletion
julie.hedlund
52:09
@Rebecca: Indeed, we would expect that the Sub Team would suggest neutral questions in the case where there is no preliminary recommendation. It does seem that some of the questions in the google doc are not neutral in their present form.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
52:29
@Rebecca, OK, I didn't see that under Q4a, but maybe missed that or its in another section?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:00
Assuming I did include a question like that in the Google doc, I'd be willing to retract that.
Rebecca Tushnet
53:15
right under 4(a) Answer
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:32
I really believe any questions should be follow up, not re-inventing the wheel.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:17
@Rebecca, ah, I see, someone else struck it.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:40
I can support removing it and would love to come up with something better.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:58
@Rebecca are you "RivkaT" in the google doc?
Cyntia King
55:08
+ Phil
Rebecca Tushnet
55:08
Yes, I am
Scott Austin
55:41
+ Phil
julie.hedlund
56:36
@Kathy: All of that discussion will be retained and included in the deliberations of the Initial Report.
Ariel Liang
57:19
Again, the discussions/deliberations can be included in the summary table and the deliberation section of the Initial Report. The discussions won’t be “destroyed” or lost
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:23
Are we planning to use this format?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:31
https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/subsequent-procedures-initial-overarching-issues-work-tracks-1-4-03jul18-en.pdf
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:45
I ask because it might be helpful to look at it briefly
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
58:01
If we can visualize what we're creating, we might be able to move on.
Ariel Liang
01:00:05
Putting a page of the SubPro report as an example
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:00:19
scroll up
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:00:26
pg 13
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:56
tx!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:01:13
Ariel please have that handy for when it's my turn.
Ariel Liang
01:01:18
yes
Scott Austin
01:03:57
+1 Cyntia
Cyntia King
01:05:53
Luv the pro/cons chart for quick overview of differences
julie.hedlund
01:06:15
@Cynthia: And that can be included in the Initial Report for context.
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:45
+1 Kristine
Scott Austin
01:06:59
+1 Kristine
Cyntia King
01:07:09
@Kristine - helpful
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:07:44
My point is the table we're useing (and the google doc) just dont make this clear, but it was what I was going for in re-formatting the google doc.
Cyntia King
01:08:29
:)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:08:40
@Cyntia, I'll support your affidavit of first use.
Roger Carney
01:08:56
:)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:09:09
@Greg, that's fine, but let's use the bickerish bit and try to resolve it.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:09:14
and let staff edit it
Cyntia King
01:09:18
@Kristine - Hold you to that
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:09:26
We have to get to answers fo c, d, e.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:10:03
We have to agree that the language as written in "discussion" in the google doc is not our final deliberation.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:10:11
It's our rough thoughts.
Cyntia King
01:10:22
@Kristine - Agreed
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:53
Tx Martin, Tx All!
Martin Silva
01:12:55
wrap it up
Martin Silva
01:12:59
Thank you all!
Cyntia King
01:13:06
Thanx!