Zoom Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
29:50
Welcome to the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms, (RPMs) and all gTLDs PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 4 March 2020 at 18:00 UTC.
Michael R. Graham
30:25
I am getting no audio
Griffin Barnett
30:33
I am in Zoom
Julie Bisland
31:36
Thank you, Griffin!
Michael R. Graham
31:38
Just got audio
Julie Bisland
32:48
reminder to mute phones
Cyntia King
33:18
lol, @Phil. I promise not to sneeze on my microphone.
Greg Shatan
33:53
The 12th is a virtual travel day for some....
Mary Wong
36:17
And a reminder that the structure/style/format of the Initial Report is also based on a GNSO template.
Ariel Liang
37:13
11th we are expected to show the entire initial report it its GNSO report format
Ariel Liang
37:39
Instead of showing you individual google docs, as those components make more sense in the report format
Julie Hedlund
39:34
@Phil: We’ve updated that language
Mary Wong
39:52
The tool is modeled on what was used for the EPDP and will hopefully help streamline and organize your review of the comments received.
Julie Hedlund
40:47
Per Kathy: Cancun is EST but the US will move to EDT — so that makes the meeting times one hour later
Maxim Alzoba
40:54
is it going to be utc -4 ?
Julie Hedlund
40:58
right
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:59
Thanks Kathy - the times they are a changin
Brian King (MarkMonitor)
41:04
that's right
Maxim Alzoba
41:07
utc+4 I mean
Zak Muscovitch
41:15
Maybe send out calender invites with the Cancun time zone?
John McElwaine
41:21
Were the times provided earlier taking into account Daylight Savings?
Mary Wong
41:33
Cancun is UTC-5.
Julie Hedlund
41:39
And that is noted in the email with the schedule
Greg Shatan
41:41
Everything is UTC, Zak. Your calendar should convert it.
Greg Shatan
41:58
We will be on Chicago time, so to speak.
Maxim Alzoba
42:48
time and date meeting planner FTW
John McElwaine
44:33
Sorry. Yes off only for the US
Greg Shatan
44:36
Prior to 2015, Cancun was on Central time!
Ariel Liang
45:20
URS Individual Proposals: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kHBPLtbp6BgqmxZGPHC1Yeciulvvk79niPOuURI8L5U/edit#heading=h.yppfh0381emo
Susan Payne
46:20
apologies for joining late - I had a clash
David McAuley (Verisign)
47:15
OK with me
Griffin Barnett
49:05
I do not feel strongly. Frankly, unless any of the text capturing how decisions were reached is egregiously inaccurate or misleading, I don't want to devote a lot of time and energy to reviewing it line by line, but maybe that's just me
Julie Hedlund
49:11
This is text that will be moved to the introduction — not an action item from last week, but a general action
Julie Hedlund
52:55
These additions came out as action items from last week’s meeting as suggested by WG members
Justine Chew
53:36
The changes to the rest of this document are fine by me. Thanks Ariel.
Ariel Liang
53:49
Thanks Justine
David McAuley (Verisign)
53:54
I like moving redundant general language to single treatment in introduction, think that will help reviewers as they approach this IR
Ariel Liang
54:09
TM-PDDRP: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LlxjoXfMq0OvQlzgSvWyCrITNGYZWBs4lFgqPo23KWA/edit#heading=h.crfvty1ug405
Ariel Liang
54:31
Thanks David. Yes, that’s staff’s intent too
Paul McGrady
57:50
joining late
Susan Payne
58:31
I have a comment about footnote 2 - happy to raise whenever it most makes sense
Kathy Kleiman
59:35
I wonder if we should introduce this now... and review it again later. Giving all time to review in detail.
Julie Hedlund
01:00:06
@Kathy: WG members have been able to review this text since it was distributed on Monday.
Mary Wong
01:00:42
Based on Brian’s comment, that’s why the word we used in the second para is “clarify” the rule.
Susan Payne
01:01:03
why don't we just review it now. It's 2 pages so not a huge undertaking and we've had it a few days. Then we can circle back to it on a further meeting when everyone has reflected further for a few days
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:08
@Julie: I don't think people knew this recommendation was Staff language.
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:17
We are learning now!
Julie Hedlund
01:02:25
Suggest that WG members could continue to review after today’s meeting and provide feedback by this Friday.
Mary Wong
01:02:33
The points (a) & (b) that Phil just read were taken from the WG’s and the small team’s discussions/agreement.
Julie Hedlund
01:03:05
That is if WG members decide they need more time.
Mary Wong
01:03:11
Same with point (1) & (2) that Phil is covering now.
Mary Wong
01:04:57
Oh, good point Susan. We’ll see if we can make it easier.
Julie Hedlund
01:05:36
Action is noted
Susan Payne
01:05:42
thank you!
Griffin Barnett
01:06:54
no third-level domains?
Susan Payne
01:07:17
Although we have had it since Monday so we aren't seeing this completely unprepared
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:57
Tx Mary!
Griffin Barnett
01:09:55
Possible revision of 1(i): (i) the Complaints all relate to the same Registry Operator conduct concerning either the top- or second-level of the same gTLD
Kathy Kleiman
01:09:55
Tx Mary -- definitely room for clarification!
Mary Wong
01:10:21
@Griffin, thanks and noted.
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:15
Great!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:35
sounds good
Justine Chew
01:12:54
On (i) would it have to be the same top-level or second-level DN, or either one can apply and that the commonality is the gTLD?
Mary Wong
01:13:22
@Justine, I believe the intent is that it has to be the same level as well as the same gTLD.
Justine Chew
01:13:44
Yes, that's what I thought too, thanks @Mary.
Griffin Barnett
01:13:47
yeah presumably for a joint PDDRP complaint there would by definition be multiple different SLDs at issue, so I would think the commonality would be the GTLD
Ariel Liang
01:19:15
Add’l Marketplace RPMs: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O89u-b19RoJJppib_nRmgbjkv2LuY-k8y5ElK-OznBw/edit
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:20:52
Seems like a good section to me, including Susan's additional sentence
Griffin Barnett
01:22:20
As opposed to, say, Yosemite
Susan Payne
01:22:51
adding "RPM" fine by me Phil
Griffin Barnett
01:23:23
Should the link be placed instead into a footnote rather than in text? Not sure if in-text is consistent with how we have provided links elsewhere (or maybe it has been a mix)?
Mary Wong
01:23:55
Good point, Griffin, thanks! We’ll check for consistency and follow accordingly.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:03
Thanks Mary
Ariel Liang
01:24:24
That’s it
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:02
We're ahead of schedule :-)
Mary Wong
01:26:35
Staff is finalizing the text.
Mary Wong
01:28:46
Apologies for the slight delay in finalizing this document - staff were originally preparing for a first meeting at ICANN67 next week :)
Julie Hedlund
01:29:14
@Phil: This document hasn’t been circulated. Once it is WG members could alert us to any errors, although noting that it replicates text from the Final Issue Report and the wiki.
Steve Levy
01:31:34
Sorry, need to leave early.
Justine Chew
01:31:52
I have to drop off now; will review this last doc after staff circulates the link.
Julie Hedlund
01:32:33
Thanks Justine!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:57
A lot of great staff work on all of these sections we have reviewed recently, thank you
Ariel Liang
01:35:23
Thank you David!
Julie Hedlund
01:35:24
Thanks so much David!
Mary Wong
01:35:48
Yes, thanks so much David!
Cyntia King
01:36:01
+1 @David Lots of excellent staff support herein.
Ariel Liang
01:36:17
Thank you Cyntia!
Julie Hedlund
01:36:36
Thanks Cyntia
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:54
great
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:06
excellent - the end of phase 1 in sight
Mary Wong
01:37:34
@David, indeed!
Marie Pattullo
01:38:03
Go have a tequila everyone! Oh wait....
Griffin Barnett
01:38:05
Thanks Phil, staff, and all
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:06
bye all and thanks (see you in zoom next week )
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:39
Thanks Phil, staff, and all - I'm taking a virtual drone to the next mtg
Cyntia King
01:38:41
Bye!