Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
22:27
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Julie Hedlund
22:28
@Kathy: More are joining :-)
Lori Schulman
24:01
Hi All
David McAuley (Verisign)
28:36
That seems a fair assessment, agree with Brian
Paul McGrady
28:48
Agree with Brian. "suspension" is actually in the name of the policy.
Renee Fossen (Forum)
28:49
Doesn't meet the criteria.
Paul Tattersfield
29:56
might get a diversity of interests too!
Paul McGrady
30:26
There is already a mechanism to get control of the domain name - the UDRP which is not precluded by a URS victory
Philip Corwin
33:21
This needs to be consolidated with the prior proposal on examiner lists and their opinions. But it appears in good shape to get consensus once reconciled.
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:22
Fair poijt, Brian
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:29
point
David McAuley (Verisign)
36:37
Thanks Renee
Ariel Liang
37:51
I believe it is proposal #26 that Phil suggested for combining
Paul Tattersfield
38:47
separately but in sequence
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:14
Joining or bundling in sequence should be workable
David McAuley (Verisign)
42:02
I think Richard Hill makes a fair point in opposition
Ariel Liang
43:04
Richard Hill agreed with what FORUM submitted, so we just consolidated them into one cell for the ease of reviewing
Paul McGrady
45:27
Looking at the extent of opposition and the size of the organizations from which the opposition is coming, I think this one is dead in the water.
Scott Austin
46:24
@Phiil +1
Mary Wong
46:40
Where there is already a current rule or requirement in place (whether for this issue or another), the WG may wish to consider whether the proposal(s) in question demonstrate that there is an actual, specific problem or inadequacy in the current rule or requirement that must be addressed (whether by the proposal(s) or another route).
Marie Pattullo
48:02
Following from Paul, it's also worth noting that under "do not support", no. 3 (cell 33) is 5 different respondents. (Applies to other proposals too, not just this one).
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
48:08
FWIW, our required (UDRP) statement: www.wipo.int/amc/en/docs/statement-panel-eudrp.doc
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
49:40
URS Rules 6(b): An Examiner shall be impartial and independent and shall have, before accepting appointment, disclosed to the Provider any circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubt as to the Examiner’s impartiality or independence.
Paul Tattersfield
50:03
Kathy +1 including being made public
Jay Chapman
51:27
Agree with Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
51:31
Taking GBOC sentences as read -- every Provider should have a COI.
Paul McGrady
51:40
What about adding to Rule 6 something simple like: "Providers should have an effective conflict of interest policy that binds Panelists."
Mary Wong
51:48
Thanks Brian - we are just trying to avoid recommending “solutions in search of problems”, esp at this stage of a PDP; it seemed helpful to zoom in on whether there is a clear, demonstrated problem.
Kathy Kleiman
51:56
...and makes it public
Zak Muscovitch
52:31
That sounds good, Paul M
Paul Tattersfield
53:07
Agree with Paul + but policy should be published
Paul McGrady
53:14
"Providers should have an effective and published conflict of interest policy that binds Panelists."
Kathy Kleiman
53:42
Great!
Jay Chapman
53:53
+1 on Paul M’s suggested language
Paul Tattersfield
54:00
Sounds good Paul
Philip Corwin
54:34
I think Paul M's suggestion that we amend 6b with that sentence would likely get consensus.
Cyntia King (USA)
54:48
"effective"?
Mary Wong
54:51
@Paul M - is it possible to ensure the policy is “effective”?
Lori Schulman
55:10
@Mary - I was thinking the same about the word "effective"
Lori Schulman
55:20
I might say "enforced" instead of "effective"
Kathy Kleiman
55:27
@Forum is not the only provider...
Paul McGrady
55:29
@Mary - perhaps a problem for the next review.
Mary Wong
56:05
@Paul M - speaking for ICANN org, I think the question that will arise in implementation is whether “effective” means ICANN org is supposed to enforce it.
Cyntia King (USA)
56:21
I can't support the word "effective". "enforceable" maybe
Kathy Kleiman
56:49
OK
Zak Muscovitch
56:57
Yep
Jay Chapman
57:13
“enforceable” works
Paul McGrady
57:30
"Providers should have an [effective] [enforceable] and published conflict of interest policy that binds Panelists."
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:45
I would prefer effective over enforced - wary of requiring providers to become enforcement officials - could drive up cost of this procedure intended to be less costly. Providers could enforce where they feel it is warranted rather than be expected to do it all
Philip Corwin
57:50
Should be enforcement by the DRP, not ICANN. Only issue for ICANN would be whether the DRP actually does enforce when a conflict is pointed out to them.
Paul Tattersfield
58:29
publishing it should make it effective
Kathy Kleiman
58:32
Agreec!
Kathy Kleiman
58:37
Agreed!
Terri Agnew
59:24
Cythia, please check your mute
Cyntia King (USA)
59:28
HI - not sure of the issue
Terri Agnew
59:39
let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful
Cyntia King (USA)
59:47
Yes Terri, please
Terri Agnew
01:00:02
dialing
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:27
while we are question for Kathy - is agreec the input from the fraternity community?
Paul McGrady
01:02:16
+1 Cyntia - certainly should try to capture what both the effective and enforceable camps were getting at for additional conversation.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:03:04
Accurate
Philip Corwin
01:03:06
I think we are all agreed that every provider should have a COI Policy. We can work out language before the consensus call
Ariel Liang
01:03:26
Yes
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:31
@Phil -> "I think we are all agreed that every provider should have a published COI Policy"
Philip Corwin
01:07:02
@PaulT--yes, published on its website
Ariel Liang
01:07:24
Estimated cost provided by FORUM: Based on initial working assumptions, Forum’s cost estimates are as follows: $121,000 for software development, testing, and deployment of XML formatting functionality for future determinations, plus $274,000 for manual tagging and processing of existing decisions into XML format.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:07:51
The cost concerns expressed in do not support seem serious
Ariel Liang
01:09:43
Staff believe the fashion houses’ comments are consistent with the rationale provided by the proponent of this proposal
Renee Fossen (Forum)
01:10:31
Yes, part of it is going backwards.
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:32
new hand
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:32
Could the older decisions be done by third parties? (Once the going forward decisions are issued in an XML format.)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:44
if we send forward we should flag that it would make sense to also consider cost/level of difficulty/level of benefit
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:04
new hand
Marie Pattullo
01:13:27
Does seem that only the providers will know the costs - logical.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:13:43
Wonder if this could be presented as a partnership initiative w/ TM owners?
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:44
$274,000 drops with recommended revised recommendation..
Paul Tattersfield
01:14:21
Oh it would
Paul McGrady
01:15:49
Is there an ICANN rule against the providers raising their URS fees?
Mary Wong
01:16:30
To clarify, ODI (now ODP) does not apply to non-ICANN org data.
Renee Fossen (Forum)
01:17:08
I think Brian is correct.
Renee Fossen (Forum)
01:17:15
regarding cost
Philip Corwin
01:17:24
Also, let's note that if we require XML for URS providers we are creating a precedent for phase 2 UDRP review.
Paul Tattersfield
01:18:35
Very good points Paul
Cyntia King (USA)
01:20:33
SOrry. I'll type my comment.
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:49
Would like to see if it would be possible for interested third parties could undertake the retrospective part
Kathy Kleiman
01:20:58
can we look at the donut again?
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:36
seems too much support not to go forward.
Marie Pattullo
01:22:02
Aren't we in the full WG?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:22:22
Raising hand again. Unmuted.
Paul McGrady
01:22:34
No objection for this surviving with the understanding there is discussion about the costs/benefits.
Marie Pattullo
01:22:35
Ah. I got confused ;-). Thanks!
Mary Wong
01:22:42
Will requiring a standard format (perhaps to be agreed amongst the current providers) be less cost-intensive than specifying XML?
Philip Corwin
01:22:43
We need more info on applicability of Open Data Initiative before we take up in Consensus Call.
Mary Wong
01:22:57
@Phil - ODI/ODP only applies to ICANN org-managed data.
Philip Corwin
01:24:30
Thx Mary.
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:43
It's very easy to save/convert MS word .do/docx documents in XML format perhaps not the porposer intended but they didn't clarify
Paul Tattersfield
01:35:00
Sorry without typos It's very easy to save/convert MS word .doc/docx documents in XML format perhaps not what the proposer intended but they didn't clarify
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:44
it did
Ariel Liang
01:36:59
This proposal also overlaps with one of the overarching charter questions
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:38
and CPH noted this as a non-trivial endeavor - information for implementation if this were to go forward
Lori Schulman
01:37:48
On the formatting issue, maybe we ask the entire WG about the solution proposed by Paul Tattersfield. If it there is something super easy that we have over looked, we should know that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:51
connectivity issues
Mary Wong
01:38:56
One additional follow up to the earlier discussion about costs/benefits (generally): it’s integral to the push toward data-driven policy development that consensus recommendations are informed by information (where available) about the real costs of implementing potential recommendations.
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:00
nice summary
Mary Wong
01:39:19
Yes this is part of the Charter.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:39:42
This did emanate from a charter question
Marie Pattullo
01:40:01
If it's a no, what happens to the contracts in which the URS had already been included (post negotiation with Org)?
Philip Corwin
01:40:10
I can speak to Zak's Q
Ariel Liang
01:40:15
This overlaps with General Overarching Question 2: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=809273920
Mary Wong
01:40:25
@Marie - they remain as contractual obligations between that Contracted Party and ICANN org.
Ariel Liang
01:40:29
2a. Should any of the New gTLD Program RPMs (such as the URS), like the UDRP, be Consensus Policies applicable to all gTLDs?2b. If so, what are the transitional issues that would have to be dealt with as a consequence?
Mary Wong
01:41:00
But not automatically extended to ALL Contracted Parties as a matter of Consensus Policy (as it will remain a bilateral contractual agreement).
Marie Pattullo
01:42:09
Thanks Mary - but that means it's still non-harmonised and going forward will presumably be even more fragmented, right?
Marie Pattullo
01:43:02
Understood Phil, but it's worth noting that no one in this WG is "representing" their SG/C.
Mary Wong
01:43:46
@Marie - pretty much. There are only two ways to impose obligations on Contracted Parties: (1) through GNSO Consensus Policy; or (2) through bilateral contracting. The former is automatic and applies to all Contracted Parties by way of a general provision about Consensus Policies in their contracts; the latter will apply only to those parties who have agreed to such an obligation in their contracts with ICANN.
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:56
It seems to me GDD front ran this Working Group on rolling this out to pre 2012 gTLDs
Mary Wong
01:44:57
Additionally, there is also the distinction between the “legacy” gTLDs and the “new” - URS is standard in the latter right now but not the former. So the WG should also look forward to future gTLDS - should the URS be binding on all new gTLDs as a matter of contract (via a standard RA) or by way of Consensus Policy, or does the format not make a diff?
Philip Corwin
01:45:55
Making URS Consensus Policy would require it to be at all gTLDs, including legacy.
Paul McGrady
01:46:06
Thanks Brian. Then, that makes it a Holy Grail.
Philip Corwin
01:46:48
I would suggest we extend the call a few minutes to make a decision on this one today.
Marie Pattullo
01:47:16
But we could limit it to new registrations after the consensus policy takes effect.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:48:01
I think this one requires debate by the full working group.
Paul Tattersfield
01:48:23
ICANN said it was a negotiated concession Cyrus said it was something the legacy registries wanted!
Philip Corwin
01:48:54
This is the full WG. But IMHO we are obligated to address the overarching Charter Q when we get to Consensus Call.
Michael R. Graham
01:48:58
Agree URS should apply to new post-consensus policy registrations.
Mary Wong
01:49:36
IIRC, legacy registry agreements obligate those ROs to comply with future Consensus Policies that are developed according to the Bylaws (i.e. a GNSO PDP).
Rebecca Tushnet
01:49:42
I'm not sure why we should redo the arguments later
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:49
could you outline again?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:49:51
Will something have changed?
Jay Chapman
01:50:16
So we’re pushing this discussion to next week, Brian?
Paul McGrady
01:50:16
We are out of time. Important topic. Let's keep it going.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:50:19
Since this is the full WG, we can keep talking next full WG meeting
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:37
So insufficient support for this proposal now?
Paul Tattersfield
01:51:01
ICANN slid it through without community consent whether it was a good thing or a bad thing is a different issue
Ariel Liang
01:51:06
Or table this discussion of the proposal when discussing it with the overarching charter question?
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:51:28
That is what I meant @Ariel
Paul McGrady
01:51:36
Agree with Rebecca. Let's take it up on the next call and see if we can resolve it.
Paul Tattersfield
01:52:07
Paul +1
Rebecca Tushnet
01:52:38
My next call is starting. I believe you have my opinion.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:17
I have a hard stop, sorry will stretch it a few minutes - best wishes to all
Lori Schulman
01:53:25
Agree with Cyntia. It's easy to lose sight of what the URS is really supposed to be.
Marie Pattullo
01:53:25
Agree Cyntia - looking at who actually responded & again the grouping of several respondents into one box.
Jay Chapman
01:53:39
Next call is fine.
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:41
thanks all, have to drop
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:21
agree put it to bed
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:56
agree with Zak and Phil -
Roger Carney
01:55:26
+1
Terri Agnew
01:55:52
Next meeting: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call is scheduled on Wednesday, 08 July 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Kathy Kleiman
01:55:53
Great job, tx you, Brian!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:56:00
gotta run, thanks Brian, staff and all
Paul Tattersfield
01:56:04
bye all thanks
Julie Hedlund
01:56:06
Thanks so much Brian and all!
Lori Schulman
01:56:17
thanks to the subteams for the hard work
Scott Austin
01:56:17
bye all thanks.