Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
22:40
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Lori Schulman, INTA
26:44
Super helpful Mary. Thank you.
Kathy Kleiman
32:56
I think it's defined below.
Paul McGrady
33:10
Is there a link to this? I can't see 3.2.4's factors
Lori Schulman, INTA
34:37
Maybe say "and other indicators of source or quality"?
Paul McGrady
35:18
Is there a link to this? I can't see 3.2.4's factors
Lori Schulman, INTA
36:03
I like Mary's suggestion. It's similar to what I offered.
Lori Schulman, INTA
36:15
verbally and in the chat
Mary Wong
38:09
Yes, we can do that. Thank you Phil, Lori, Paul and everyone who’s contributed to this text.
Lori Schulman, INTA
38:34
My apologies for the disruption.
Mary Wong
39:40
EU quality schemes: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/food-safety-and-quality/certification/quality-labels/quality-schemes-explained_en
Paul McGrady
40:08
Hard to comment on this without being able to see anything below the introductory clause of 3.2.4. Wish there were a link to the document.
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:19
I think Phil made a good point about the third item under 'Proposed policy principles' - seems more explanation than principle and may best be handled elsewhere for the implementation team
Susan.Payne
40:40
here you go Paul M https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-August/004406.html
Paul McGrady
41:08
Will there be notices sent to potential registrants based on items in 3.2.4? I understand they won't be ICANN Claims Notices, but will there be notices?
Mary Wong
41:47
@Paul, I think 3.2.4 is about voluntary additional services, not mandatory RPMs.
Paul McGrady
45:02
How about for 3.2.4 "...and not eligible for Claims or Sunrise or any other pre-registration notices for potential registrants are:"
Paul McGrady
45:46
I don't want to get a nastygram if I go to register champaign.illinois
Kathy Kleiman
48:11
Agreed
Greg Shatan
48:14
Mozzarella is a TSG. I don’t think that should get the same protection as a GI.
Julie Hedlund
49:30
hand up
Julie Hedlund
49:36
over to Ariel
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:17
Phil as Sub A chair I would be happy toalternate reading these with you if you wish
Maxim Alzoba
53:05
ok
Susan.Payne
53:32
I don't think the current data supports eliminating the start date sunrise. Most were end date at the time we reviewed this, but that doesn't really llook so clear-cut now: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-August/004406.html
Lori Schulman, INTA
55:28
INTA is not opposed to keeping both. We just suggested a simplification. Have 2 standards may be confusing.
Maxim Alzoba
56:25
in start date sunrise, 30days in advance for notification, and then 30days of start date sunrise
Maxim Alzoba
56:43
in absence of new info we should not restart already discussed items
Mary Wong
58:16
@Maxim, yes, the WG’s discussions were clear about the duration of each type of Sunrise Period. If the recommendation text is not clear, we can update it as a textual (non-substantive) change.
Paul McGrady
58:38
+1 Susan
Paul McGrady
59:09
Need to keep Spec 13 exemption
Griffin Barnett
01:00:30
Sorry to join late, had a conflicted call at 1 that just ended
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:35
sorry old hand
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:01:11
right. one has notice. the other does not...if I remember correctly.
Susan.Payne
01:01:20
Ariel, re your notes - no makes perfect sense to do a new exemption for the code of condict exempt ones. Spec 13 already have an exemption and so comments were flagging that this recommendation wasn't intended to change that
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:01:24
INTA does not feel strongly about it's recommendation.
Ariel Liang
01:01:55
Thanks Susan - we will check the recording/transcript after the call to ensure accuracy
Mary Wong
01:04:28
Re Sunrise rec #6 (and others that similarly recommend keeping the status quo): staff will likely look at placing this type of recommendation in its own category for the Final Report (or otherwise indicate which are “status quo” recs).
Julie Hedlund
01:04:48
Please note that staff do not transcribe the meetings. But we do rely on the transcript when summarizing deliberations.
Greg Shatan
01:05:42
+1 Susan
Paul McGrady
01:06:16
Thanks David!
Susan.Payne
01:06:48
for avoidance of doubt, exempting the code of Conduct exempt TLDs IS a change (except for the subset of spec 13 TLDs who are already exempt)
Julie Hedlund
01:07:01
@Phil and all: Staff is capturing the deliberations from this meeting as is usual in the analysis/summary document.
Mary Wong
01:07:17
From ICANN org’s perspective as regards implementation, we think you just need a clear sentence somewhere that specifically clarifies this rec doesn’t apply to Spec 13 (and Spec 9 if that is added).
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:51
Thanks Mary
Griffin Barnett
01:09:48
Spec 9 is the Registry Operator Code of Conduct
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:54
Spec 9 is a code of conduct as I recall, read it a while ago
Mary Wong
01:09:57
Spec 9 text: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html#specification9
Mary Wong
01:10:21
And yes, it’s RO code of conduct.
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:45
new hand
Griffin Barnett
01:10:49
Certain TLDs have been granted exemptions from Spec 9 where they are planning to operate the TLD as a closed TLD but not as a .Brand
Mary Wong
01:10:58
The exemption language is in Section 6: “Registry Operator may request an exemption to this Code of Conduct, and such exemption may be granted by ICANN in ICANN’s reasonable discretion, if Registry Operator demonstrates to ICANN’s reasonable satisfaction that (i) all domain name registrations in the TLD are registered to, and maintained by, Registry Operator for the exclusive use of Registry Operator or its Affiliates, (ii) Registry Operator does not sell, distribute or transfer control or use of any registrations in the TLD to any third party that is not an Affiliate of Registry Operator, and (iii) application of this Code of Conduct to the TLD is not necessary to protect the public interest.”
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:59
What's the overlap of Spec 9 and Spec 13?
Paul McGrady
01:12:20
Spec. 9 examples are .catholic and .broadway
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:27
This seems beyond the scope of what we've discussed in the past.
Mary Wong
01:12:36
@Phil, that’s correct - so the idea is consistency as between Spec 13 dot-brands and those ROs that are exempt under Spec 9.
Paul McGrady
01:13:16
.med
Paul McGrady
01:13:18
.living
Paul McGrady
01:13:47
.helsinki
Susan.Payne
01:13:52
@Kathy surely that's the point. It was a new suggestion coming out of the public comment which we are supposed to be considering
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:58
new hand
Greg Shatan
01:15:10
This is not new.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:15:46
Agree. Not new.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:15:50
Part of the RA
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:18
We have not clear definition of this small, odd group.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:26
no clear definition
Mary Wong
01:16:34
The staff understanding is that this will NOT change the substance of Rec 6, merely clarify that those registries that, by contract (Spec 13 and/or Spec 9) are not expected to run Sunrise periods.
Griffin Barnett
01:16:57
I don’t have a particularly strong feeling on this, but the rationale for exempting Spec 13 TLDs from Sunrise, which is that they are closed registries where names can only be allocated to the registry or affiliates, extends to Spec 9 exempt TLDs, which also limits registrations to the RO only
Paul McGrady
01:17:39
+1 Susan - public comment needs to be a meaningful exercise.
Griffin Barnett
01:17:58
Bc the general public won’t be registering names in these TLDs, the theory is that they are not likely to be targets for cybersquatting, which Sunrise was meant to avoid through defensive registrations
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:03
we could make it even clearer, Mary, by telling IT that we simply mean that those registries that do not register to third parties need not do sunrise - if they do accept third parties, even one, then sunrise - could give direction to IT
Mary Wong
01:18:44
@David, for sure.
Paul McGrady
01:20:21
", unless otherwise exempted."
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:00
Let's include more background material when this comes back to the WG
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:14
everyone should understand it fully when it comes back
Griffin Barnett
01:22:04
Fine with that path forward, and no objection to shoring this discussion up with additional background for those who aren’t familiar with or don’t understand Spec 9 and the Spec 9 exemption
Griffin Barnett
01:22:57
But agree that the rationale that led to Sunrise exemption for Spec 13 TLDs would logically extend to Spec 9 exempt TLDs as well
Ariel Liang
01:24:51
(i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty;(iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty.
Ariel Liang
01:33:45
Contextual language of the recommendation: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Sunrise+Recommendation+%237
Ariel Liang
01:34:00
We will
Mary Wong
01:35:20
@Susan - we can simply add a sentence to the contextual language that is retained, to say this rec clearly addresses two different dispute processes. It’s not a major concern, just a point of clarification.
Ariel Liang
01:40:13
Row 22-23
Ariel Liang
01:40:23
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=872694278
Griffin Barnett
01:40:25
I think the INTA/GBOC comments referred to the requirement to avoid abusive Sunrise practices, which I believe is captured in another recommendation
Mary Wong
01:40:58
@Griffin, yes I think that’s right.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:09
(Abusive practices by ROs that is)
Griffin Barnett
01:41:27
I think the IPC comments are in a similar vein as well
Griffin Barnett
01:41:44
Agree nothing new here, think we move on
Griffin Barnett
01:44:28
I think we discussed that a bit when reviewing the PDDRP, and also believe it is a concept that could be captured as part of implementation of the other rec about abusive sunrise registry practices
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:04
the pricing is protected by picket fence
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:21
it was discussed well in depth in our discussions
Griffin Barnett
01:45:33
Agree - discussed that at length Maxim, no need to rehash that now
Paul McGrady
01:46:06
There was a new idea related to the TM-PDDRP in the public comments that we will be discussing in the coming days.
Griffin Barnett
01:46:21
These are basically the same comments as before
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:30
an avenue to challenge pricing is not a new idea
Griffin Barnett
01:46:33
Abuses by registries
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:34
it was discussed
Griffin Barnett
01:46:42
using pricing, reservation of names, etc as a means of circumventing SUnrise
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:47:20
The reservation of Brands as premium names is most concerning.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:47:28
That circumvents the RPM
Ariel Liang
01:48:03
The agreement of the WG, as staff understood, is that these examples will be incorporated in the implementation guidance language for Sunrise Rec 2
Griffin Barnett
01:48:05
They’re public comments Maxim
Griffin Barnett
01:48:21
You have re-stated our approach, yes
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:48:44
No second bite. Reserve list is not just about pricing. It's about unavailability. And there is a right to comment.
Ariel Liang
01:49:58
Sunrise Rec 2
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:13
public comments of the same group, which brought it here before
Ariel Liang
01:50:16
Implementation language for that will incorporate some of the examples provided in public comments of Sunrise Q2
Terri Agnew
01:50:21
Next meeting: The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call is scheduled on Tuesday, 11 August 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:34
please add my not about picket fence
Paul McGrady
01:50:38
Thanks everyone!
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:46
thanks all
Griffin Barnett
01:50:50
Maxim staff did capture your picket fence comment
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:50:57
Thank you to staff for tracking this complex issue.
Griffin Barnett
01:50:58
Bye all
Cyntia King (USA)
01:51:40
Bye!
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:51:44
And thank to leadership for herding cats