hello all

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en

Develop a few discussion points out of the Comments received

Link to Topic 20: Application Change Requests: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit?usp=sharing

'Trademarked term AND a descriptor word that is not in itself necessarily part of a Trade mark

That is the proposed intention Yes @Jim

an edge case of course

Kinda. The term would be taken from a statement of goods or services for a registration that they do have.

Yes @Paul

from their list Registration class

So for example, .DELTA could be given to the airline and the faucet company could change its string to .DELTAFAUCETS but not .DELTACELLPHONE

listed

Correct

If they all agree, I suppose

or in Australia: .DELTATAPS

well that was the agreed intent (as is clear from the rationale), the point is that this should be expressed in the recommendation (or at a minimum in the implementation guidance) any not just in the rationale, where it might be overlooked years down the line

ok - that makes sense

Yes @Susan

hand up

Remember we don't need to specifically respond (but we do need to consider) Cpmments received

@Anne there will be some feedback mechanism during the Operational Design Phase but not established in concept paper what form that takes

No. That's beyond our remit.

And also recall that Op Design Phase happens before the policy recommendations are approved

The comment mechanism on application changes would happen during operations

thanks

Are there any other exceptions or privileges for .brands beside this

so this can be figured out during IRT?

+1 Jeff

+1

Sounds sensible

makes sense jeff

That seems reasonable. The point is to avoid unnecessary auctions that put ICANN in the very weird position of "selling" a trademark term registry to the brand owner(s).

Google doc here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=327262608

Did the SSAC bring up the same issue?

Agree, “intended use” is a problem

+ ! susan - it comes up in a few places

that's hould have been +1

@Kurt I think you are right on SSAC

I remember the SSAC was fairly persuasive on the intended use issue

Others may have amazing ideas, and we may have had bad ideas

the general Intended Use Yes so we appear to be going to explore that as a meta issue further not just this sub part

@Cherly, but if we were to dispense with the intended use concept as a meta issue then I would be supportive of the carve out for Brands that the RySG is proposing

based on the comments received overall, there’s no convincing argument to amend the recommendations in the draft Final Report

So the discussion is critical then @Susan

Carve out for brands seems like a reasonable compromise

The fact that intended use has popped up as an issue in comments throughout the draft recommendations means its probably something we need to address

+1 Elaine

harm: intentions are hard to prove

Do we have any statistics about the harm about allowing singulars and plurals or is it more a "feeling"?

& intentions can be changed

I think mouse and mice is okay as a plural because they are two different words with different meanings. However, do you mean the four legged mouse or the one you use on your laptop?

https://mouseschocolates.com/

Donna, that’s a question of “intended use.” :-)

@Katrin, I think we have previously discussed whether to allow both singular/plurals way back before the initial report and overwhelmingly the support was not to allow both

Exactly Greg

@Paul - they are closed until Dec!

.person and .people is another interesting one....

@Susan: Even if there has been a discussion, it does not substitue a solid statistic, right?

Are we saying now that we need to have actual statistical evidence of harm to prohibit or restrict something?

I don't think that they should be able to co-exist. But I am hearing people calling for actual evidence of harm

I'm not aware of any harm allowing Singulars and plurals.

If there is harm singulars and plurals should not have been delegated back in 2012.

they have quite simple process, but for couple of letters

it is a registry policy

so depending of the text of the policy it could be enforced by registry or registry and registrar e. t. c.

thanks Maxim

you made it make sense Jeff

:-)

Who decides what is an acronym?

Idk

Back to intended use

@kurt lol

About TLD With 60 years in the industry, TLD is a leading industrial group dedicated to the design, assembly, distribution and after-sales support of Aviation Ground Support Equipment globally.

A registry can have an intended use but may not be able to do much about type of content displayed on their domains.

Registries certainly can have such rules. .Biz has one.

thx @Paul

Biz is not restricted and registrars by and large will not carry restricted TLDs

I’m nervous about how subjective this is...

they don't have to be restricted per se, they simply have to require the registrants to abide by the intent, at risk of cancellation of the domain if they don't

Does every applicant have to state an intended purpose in case of contention based on plural/singular?

@Kurt - Yes. They had to do so in 2012 as well (Question 18)

It wasn't scored, but they had to answer it

No requirement to adhere to q18 statements. And Not enforceable

I don't think so Anne. It would be in the acceptable use policy of the registry, but I don't see that it needs to be required in a Voluntary PIC.'

+1 Elaine

@Elaine, that's right the 'purpose' was a requirement included because of GAC advice. So from here on in we are saying that the 'purpose' or 'intent', but you won't know that at the time you submit your application.

What happens if one applicant wants to stick to intended use and the other applicant wants to get in contention? which route is taken?

Intended use is only a cat-walk turn from a beauty contest

Jamie’s point is, it could be a mess and we cannot anticipate every scenario

what if there are only two appliants

exactly

The answer to Question 23 of the application may also be relevant. Intended services.

For this to work, every applicant needs to identify its 'intended' purpose at the outset and be willing to be held to it if it ends up in a contention set.

Yup

Yes, but then we have the problem with enforcing it

This seems to be another level of complexity that will deter new applicants, difficulty in evaluations, and litigious enforcement.

@Annebeth, we have a problem enforcing and create complications with resolving contention sets.

Applicants won't know at the time whether they are in contention so procedures may need to be supplemental at the time of the contention set determination.

+ to Kurt re increasing complexity = disputes and litigation

When do we decide this jeff

+1 to Kurt

Ok thanks

List with feedback befoe the next call if possible

@jeff, you forgot Rubens :)

Please make the text bigget

@Elaine, better?

Yes, thanks much

I volunteered by email, but am volunteering here to be on the small group to see if we can address these comments.

I'd like to volunteer too

It would be great to have some volunteers that have not weighed in on auctions already

Sorry about the earlier full group send.

The work needs to be strictly time limited for fast turn around

Seems like everyone going to ICANN Auction of Last Resort addresses all the concerns but for those who want losers to get paid. But Ill expand in small group if allowed.

Volunteering for the small group - Sending to Emily, Julie and/or Steve works…

Jeff would you restate the purpose… is it to address these comments, or make new recommendations?

Or both

I do appreciate ORG flagging stuff they find unworkable

Thanks

Thanks everyone lots covered today (were staying pretty well on track atm :-) Keep up the good work...

03 UTC

Good luck USA

grab the popcorn

9pm Sears Tower Time on Wednesday night. Can't wait!

Thanks all and bye for now. I wish US good luck with the election!

Bye for now

Jeff you are right!

no comments