Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Rebecca Tushnet
34:19
6759 is Rebecca Tushnet
Lori Schulman
34:29
Hi Rebecca.
Rebecca Tushnet
34:31
Zoom said I could associate it by typing a code but apparently that didn't work.
Terri Agnew
35:33
Thank you for this Rebecca, the line has been updated.
Greg Shatan
38:01
I am on now, but will need to step away at some point.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
38:06
Also the doc Ariel is looking for is not linked on the wiki that was linked in the meeting invite. where would I find that?
Ariel Liang
39:54
The Sub Team timeline document is on the resource page of the wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg (bottom)
Cyntia King
40:11
Is that light I see at the end of the tunnel?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:22
It's a train.
Kathy Kleiman
40:28
lol
Cyntia King
40:34
lol
Roger Carney
40:35
:)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:41
Thanks Ariel, I somehow missed that when I looked yesterday.
Kathy Kleiman
41:06
question on document still in queue
Ariel Liang
41:15
There are a lot of documents there
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:48
:o
Susan Payne
43:33
sorry but where on earth is this document?
Ariel Liang
44:32
https://community.icann.org/x/9YIWBg
Kathy Kleiman
45:42
tx
Kathy Kleiman
46:00
Tx Ariel -- hoping we can all stay on the same page :-)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:38
I think we can agree that the combination of calls, email threads and docs is really really hard to follow. This is not staff's fault but is a reflection of he complexity of the work. PLEASE comment on the Evolution of hte MSM moderated by Brian Cute. We've GOT to fix the tools ICANN Staff have to do their job and make it easier for use to participate.
Kathy Kleiman
46:49
do you want to read?
Rebecca Tushnet
50:07
My suggestion would be to just say "see the subanswers."
Kathy Kleiman
50:09
so "generally does not meet its intended purpose..."
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
50:34
No, it generally meets, but with flaws (here are the fixes)
Lori Schulman
51:27
There should be one main doc to follow.
Michael Graham
52:02
I disagree with Kathy -- the wording of the answer clearly and correctly answers the question.
julie.hedlund
52:04
@Lori: The intent is to follow one main doc, which is this Status Doc that we are on now. The Summary Document is just for reference.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
52:55
One of my suggestions on th eother group was to have a Question, Answer, Recommendation/Question format (where we have a call to action to the community). We need to have an explict "here is what we need from you" in th elast sentence.
Zak Muscovitch
53:49
IIRC we had some suggested worded at the very end of last week's call....something like; "While the trademark claims notice meets itsz intended purpose of notifying prospective registrants that the applied for domain name matches at least one trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse, there are significant issues whcih can be addrressed as per Q3ai"
Zak Muscovitch
53:57
wording*
Susan Payne
54:30
I don't really agree with the use of "based on the data". This elevates what we have. At best it is "based on the minimal data we have, we believe"
Kathy Kleiman
54:30
Other subteam still discussing...
Cyntia King
54:53
Absolutely agree w/ clear, concise Synopsis, Considerations & a specific Call To Action.
Michael Graham
54:55
@Kristine -- so insert the answers we agree on (3(a) and "However, the sub team solicits the public's answers and comments on the following related issues:"
Michael Graham
55:09
@Cyntia/Kristine -- Agree
Kathy Kleiman
55:58
feet of paper!
Susan Payne
56:22
agree with Kristine - if we want usable responses we need to do this
Michael Graham
56:29
@Kristine -- Would it be useful to have a word count limitation to answers?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
56:35
No
julie.hedlund
56:40
Hand up from staff
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
56:50
I mean, I don't want to have a word count on MY responses. LOL
Cyntia King
56:58
I'd prefer to have a word target rather than limit
Rebecca Tushnet
57:04
+1 Kristine
Michael Graham
57:22
@Kristine -- Ha! If the words are convincing and the comments pithy, who needs more?
Michael Graham
57:38
@Kristine -- And, yes, I'm thinking of the Prosecution of the OJ trial.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:48
HAve you tried to make a full SG comment pithy? :)
Greg Shatan
57:54
Kristine’s suggestions and Roger’s idea about how to deal with it both sound fair to me.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
58:31
Also, I apologize but I have to bail for another obligation.
Cyntia King
01:00:05
Not feeling teh text here.
Cyntia King
01:02:03
"Respondents identified significant issues w/ the Claims Notie including: that it is intimidating, ..."
claudio
01:03:07
suggested tweak "The Claims Notice may be intimidating..."
claudio
01:03:39
....."
Greg Shatan
01:05:23
It’s a very flat statement as made.
Cyntia King
01:05:34
THat's not fair, Rebecca.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:06:47
Which part? That it's the best data we have?
Greg Shatan
01:06:58
Nobody is suggesting throwing out “the data”. Just putting it in perspective. If the best data we have is thin gruel, we can’t pretend it’s a gourmet meal.
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:21
I don
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:26
As long as we apply that standard to everyone's position, I don't have a problem with that.
Michael Graham
01:07:28
Agree -- but what data supports the claim that it is "intimidating"?
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:28
Parenthetical is very important
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:35
This is a very accurate statement
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:08
Analysis Group survey asking people to identify which statement represents what the notice is saying.
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:15
is
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:27
Analysis group survey asking what people (a) did do when they received a notice and (b) would do if they received a notice
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:00
no - it's not a may be
Michael Graham
01:09:08
@Rebecca -- but neither of these supports the use of the term "intimidating"
Cyntia King
01:09:20
@Kathy: "scope & limitations of the TM holders rights" is properly addressed in Section (a)(ii) where that is the topic
Michael Graham
01:09:34
@Kathy -- Okay -- "is to some applicants" would be accurate since some understand.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:44
Michael, I disagree. The verbatims and the survey Q answers support that.
Cyntia King
01:10:26
Bless you.
Ariel Liang
01:12:01
The second part of answer to Q3(a)(ii) is perhaps in the preliminary recommendation on the right
Michael Graham
01:12:33
@Rebecca -- By "verbatims" do you mean the comments/anecdotes we have?
Susan Payne
01:12:55
@Rebecca, I think some applicants is correct. If you look at the survey responses many potential registrants said they did understand the notice. certainly not all, and I think we agree that it can be improved
Michael Graham
01:13:04
@Kathy -- I would agree -- let's ask for comments on how to improve.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:13:17
Verbatims = the fill in the blank sections of the AG survey where people were asked to or allowed to explain their answers to the preset questions
Cyntia King
01:13:49
Can hear someone typipng.....
Michael Graham
01:13:51
Okay, then Trademark Owner comments (including mine) gain equal weight in answering Q4 etc?
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:54
so adding a short sentence to 3(a)(ii) -- adding a line about yes, improvements needed... see recommendations
julie.hedlund
01:13:58
@All: Please mute your lines. We are getting background noise.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:26
It depends on what you have data about--are your answers relevant to ordinary registrants' experience? Then, yes.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:15:07
INTA members understand Notices quite well, as the INTA component of the AG survey showed--the issue is the registrants who aren't already INTA members.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:15:52
For example, a number of INTA members reported that the Notices they received were for their own marks in the TMCH (they also separately would have received NOCs).
Michael Graham
01:15:54
@Rebecca -- I was actually asking in regard not to Q3 -- but other Qs and comments.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:16:22
NORNs, excuse me
Michael Graham
01:17:04
As to the sufficiency of the Notice, I agree we should ask for a review/revision to consider whether a clearer Notice can be drafted and agreed upon -- two requirements for there to be a New Notice.
Susan Payne
01:17:19
ah - yes, thanks that makes sense Kathy
mary.wong
01:17:45
This is the current requirement: “ TheClaims Notice MUST be provided by the registrar to thepotential domain name registrant in English and SHOULDbe provided by the registrar to the potential domain nameregistrant in the language of the registration agreement”
Claudio DiGangi
01:17:52
@rebecca, what about registrants who are in the business of buying and selling domain names who are or can be INTA members since they can be incorporated under a brand. are you saying they shouldn't be included in the analysis?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:18:11
No, I'm saying that in the AG survey to INTA members, they understood the Notice.
Michael Graham
01:18:15
@Rebecca -- Yes, I think we've received NORNS (or whatever they are called) ;-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:27
yes!
mary.wong
01:18:32
Please see above for the current requirement - MUST be in English and SHOULD be in the language of the registration agreement.
mary.wong
01:18:58
Hence the draft prelim rec says require both.
Michael Graham
01:19:25
@Mary -- I think that language should be sufficient -- Thanks.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:51
+1 Susan OK
Rebecca Tushnet
01:20:31
I think that credit goes to Kristine
Michael Graham
01:20:41
@Kathy/Susan -- OK -- As long as there is a Standard Notice developed for either all or all UN languages.
Michael Graham
01:22:19
@Kathy -- Agree remove last sentence in Proposed Answer.
julie.hedlund
01:23:04
@All: Time check — this call ends at 5 minutes to the top of the hour to allow time for a transition to the next call.
Michael Graham
01:24:16
@Kathy etc. Okay, remove first sentence. But remove "generally" from second sentence.
Michael Graham
01:24:36
Also remove last sentence -- address this is Preliminary Recommendation.
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:12
ok - let's keep it
Michael Graham
01:25:29
@Susan -- Thanks for that point. Either leave first sentence or begin: "No, the Claims Notice should be sent to potential registrants . . . "
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:11
good question - what do you recommemd?
Susan Payne
01:26:33
that works Cyntia
Claudio DiGangi
01:26:37
This might be clearer "No, the issuance of the Claims Notice should not be limited to only registrants who complete registrations, but should also be sent to all prospective registrants."
Susan Payne
01:27:09
+1 to michael on generally
Rebecca Tushnet
01:27:25
I too would've preferred more flexibility but "generally" probably should go at this point.
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:31
+1 Cyntia - my recollection too
Rebecca Tushnet
01:27:37
To that point, maybe "where it is sent, the Notice should be sent before ..."
Griffin Barnett
01:28:04
Agree with Susan on this point re "generally"
Cyntia King
01:28:07
That's just my recollection of the group's reasonomg.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:28:21
But I'm not sure the absence of any reference to that possibility is confusing in this answer
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:40
I think Rebecca's fix works -- To that point, maybe "where it is sent, the Notice should be sent before ..."
Rebecca Tushnet
01:29:14
when it is required, also good!
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:26
Tx Roger and All!
Michael Graham
01:29:34
Thanks Roger etc.
Cyntia King
01:29:43
Thanks!