Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Julie Bisland
24:10
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Paul Tattersfield
26:55
Is it possibel to recommend a small change to the RAA without going out to public comment?
Julie Hedlund
27:08
@Phil: that is correct
Maxim Alzoba
27:31
no
Julie Hedlund
27:43
hand up
Griffin Barnett
28:10
Registrar accreditation agreement
Paul Tattersfield
28:34
What about URS to legacy gTLDs?
Griffin Barnett
28:47
We specifically asked that as a question
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:05
Agreed, it was a PC question
Paul Tattersfield
29:11
thanks so its dead?
Griffin Barnett
29:18
I disagree that it did not receive sufficient support
Maxim Alzoba
29:25
legacy tlds have an agreements different than new gtlds
Greg Shatan
30:52
I think we need an actual consensus call on the question of URS as consensus policy.
Marie Pattullo
31:55
Especially as Org is already inserting URS in legacy contracts.
Griffin Barnett
32:17
Agree with Greg
Julie Hedlund
32:18
@Phil: That is summarizing from last week.
Jeffrey Neuman
32:54
I agree with @Greg and others that a consensus call is needed. Especially as this is one of the specific questions in the Charter if I am not mistaken.
David McAuley (Verisign)
33:11
it is Jeff
Griffin Barnett
34:03
Shr said ORG not .ORG
Griffin Barnett
34:07
As in ICANN Org
Julie Hedlund
34:11
@Greg, and all: The WG currently does not have an agreed-upon recommendation relating to URS as a consensus policy, so there is nothing for which to have a consensus call.
Griffin Barnett
34:15
*she
Paul Tattersfield
34:20
Thtt is very problematic - there was no community consent
Marie Pattullo
34:24
Thanks, Griffin.
Julie Hedlund
34:33
hand up
Marie Pattullo
35:09
ICANN Org doing this will by default result in an even more fragmented system.
Susan.Payne
35:16
I thought there was actually a high level of support across multiple different interests on URS as consensus policy. including the CPH comment, which was supportive provided there was adequate time for implementation
Paul Tattersfield
35:17
It is very importatt to be consistent
Marie Pattullo
35:44
Agree @ Paul T.
Griffin Barnett
36:15
Agree Susan…. While there were some individuals and one SG that appeared to oppose URS as consensus policy, it seemed that everyone else supported it, including IPC, BC, CPH, and other commenters,
Griffin Barnett
36:56
In the EPDP, for instance, that would likely meet the threshold for consensus (not full consensus, but consensus)
Griffin Barnett
37:04
So I don’t see why it wouldn’t here
Jeffrey Neuman
39:59
A Policy group can have a high level recommendation that it seeks the IRT to implement
Rebecca Tushnet
41:51
I'm happy to speak to the limited data
Paul Tattersfield
43:38
China and US are bigger?
Marie Pattullo
44:35
Do we know what happens to small complainants (brand owners) from the Global South?
Griffin Barnett
44:38
so the answer is, we didn’t see late responses filed much at all, but for those that did they were primarily filed by those in the us and china… which could mean that the fees are deterring late responses from others, but that is not conclusive
Rebecca Tushnet
46:13
Griffin, we saw more late responses than I would have expected, but what the appropriate rate should be is also unclear; otherwise I agree that the data are suggestive but not conclusive
Griffin Barnett
46:19
Is it the IRT’s role to do generalized research?
Jeffrey Neuman
46:54
You need to provide some guidance to an IRT at a high level
Griffin Barnett
46:58
I mean I guess I don’t have a problem with it, it’ just that they are not really implementing a policy recommendation....
Paul Tattersfield
47:00
@staff please can you update on the concerns of core & afrnic om ALP that was discussed on the call last week my understanding from Kathy was that we ere going to get people with knowldge of the matter (ICANN/RO) negotiations) thanks
Kathryn Kleiman
47:21
per what Steve Levy said - to avoid disproportionate impact of the fees
Julie Hedlund
48:08
@Paul: We have summarized last week’s discussions. If there is something we missed can you please send the text to the list (as requested in our update email). Thanks so much.
Rebecca Tushnet
48:10
Just to be clear: I don't think there's more data feasibly out there even if we wait another 10 years. We have to make inferences about it.
Kathryn Kleiman
48:51
@Susan: what would it mean to keep this "under review" => that's a very interesting idea.
Paul Tattersfield
49:02
Do you have link to hand Julie?
Julie Hedlund
49:42
This is the document updated from last week and circulated last Friday: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit?usp=sharing
Susan.Payne
49:55
@kathy, nothing specific, I just don't suppose this is the last time anyone will ever review the RPMs
Griffin Barnett
49:55
I could support the idea of a fee waiver process under the URS, but it would only make sense if we also adopt urs as a consensus pollicy
Griffin Barnett
50:03
*fee waiver for late response fees
Griffin Barnett
55:00
As an aside, that present penalty against abusive complainants seems like a pretty good deterrent against the potential for abuse if urs were adopted as consensus policy
Griffin Barnett
55:22
which was raised as a concern by some who opposed the idea of urs becoming a consensus policy
Ariel Liang
57:08
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit?pli=1#gid=1535433616
Ariel Liang
01:01:18
10b. If not, should they be expanded?
Griffin Barnett
01:01:43
The responses for 10a seem to imply answers to 10b
Griffin Barnett
01:02:02
It means Yes penalties should be expanded...
Griffin Barnett
01:02:17
It’s basically the same comments as for 10a
Griffin Barnett
01:05:06
There’s comments supporting penalties for respondents and for legal counsel…not sure what the standard would be for counsel - like, they are bound by the instructions of their clients
Marie Pattullo
01:05:24
There are a majority of comments supporting appropriate penalties for respondents.
Griffin Barnett
01:06:21
The individual proposal 15/22 was not about abuse of the process
Griffin Barnett
01:06:33
It was about enhanced penalties for certain types of activity on a substantive basis
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:31
Agree with Zak. To Griffin's point, the comments don't show a problem with abuse of the *process* specifically by respondents
Marie Pattullo
01:07:54
CPH, BC, IPC... there are large groups in favour of respondents' penalties.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:05
I do have an AOB type question
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:38
I would like to ask about ALP - On the ALP there was some concern I think from Afnic & Core that they had not been able to negotiate an ALP scheme with ICANN prior to launch of a local gTLD. Is there anything we can put in the report to aid this negotiation process?
Griffin Barnett
01:10:52
I think we addressed that?
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:14
I can't dial in t the moment
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:39
as I understood there were a set of similar questions from ICANN to an applicant (for ALP), when they were going in circles (question 1, then question 2 , then question 3 and again from question 1)
Julie Bisland
01:13:54
Paul has dialed in
Kathryn Kleiman
01:15:08
Did we ask Staff or someone on the WG to reach out to CORE?
Julie Hedlund
01:15:30
hand up
Kathryn Kleiman
01:15:41
I thought so too...
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:44
preferably to Amadeu Abril and Nacho Amadoz the same time
Julie Hedlund
01:15:45
There was a small group — they didn’t have a recommendation
Julie Hedlund
01:15:59
But we were going to wait for Susan to get back
Julie Hedlund
01:16:05
hand up from staff
Julie Hedlund
01:16:11
We reported on this last week
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:22
Amadeu reported that in full at one of our F2F
Susan.Payne
01:17:03
thanks Julie!
Griffin Barnett
01:17:16
I’m very confused. I thought we all agreed that there was an implementation problem with how ICANN Org implemented the ALP, but weren’t sure there was a policy fix we could recommend, other than saying there were such problems
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:56
maybe the recommendation that the staff does not limit ability of a GEO applicant to run an ALP without an explanation and does such analysis in a reasonable amount of time.
Julie Hedlund
01:20:21
@Paul T: Staff will follow up with the Small Team now that Susan is back
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:49
great thnaks Phil
Kathryn Kleiman
01:21:23
Tx for chairing, Phil!!
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:51
thanx all
Justine Chew
01:21:53
Thanks Phil, all.
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:57
bye all
Steve Levy
01:22:04
Glad we’ve finally made it here!
Kathryn Kleiman
01:22:07
Moving forward!