Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Hedlund
20:19
@David: Thanks for letting us know.
Julie Bisland
20:41
Welcome to the (WG) call on (date/time). Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Zak Muscovitch
25:27
Can someone remind me where this Individual Proposal 3 left off the last time we discussed it? Was it already rejected?
Kathy Kleiman
25:50
could Staff page down on this page, please
Ariel Liang
26:06
It was for Griffin to propose a revised formulation of the URS proposal #3
Zak Muscovitch
26:18
OK thanks, Ariel.
Kathy Kleiman
26:39
@Zak: options for extension of registrations
David McAuley (Verisign)
28:16
agree, thanks Griffin
Ariel Liang
36:05
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=692205301
Georges Nahitchevansky
54:23
What about respondents who have numerous UDRP and URS decisions against them. Rebecaa is avoiding the issue that there are some bad actors who are repeatedly cybersquatting and it is easy to see when someone has being doing this repeatedly. Consequently, a penalty would make sense
Marie Pattullo
54:53
I don't see this as being a transfer proceeding at all. Right now there is nothing at all in terms of sanctions for repeat offenders. (There are for malicious complainants though). It's a question of fairness.
Paul McGrady
56:20
then where do we do it if we can’t do it here?
Paul McGrady
56:52
suggest a solution please
Marie Pattullo
57:52
I thank Griffin - very much - for his work on this, and support Griffin too.
Paul McGrady
58:25
vague references to European law doesn’t make unfettered systemic cybering go away
Griffin Barnett
58:25
Not only that Steve, but also only where the reimbursement cannot be collected from the respondent
Rebecca Tushnet
58:40
You can file a UDRP to get a transfer of multiple domain names too.
Paul McGrady
58:47
cybersquatting.
Paul McGrady
01:00:00
no one seems to mind burdening these registrars with the registrant fees they collect
Griffin Barnett
01:00:40
If anything, Option 3 might motivate ICANN or ROs to take anti-abuse efforts more seriously in a general sense
Griffin Barnett
01:01:13
But as noted, it is certainly the “weakest” option in terms of actual deterrence to the specific individual losing respondent
Paul McGrady
01:01:17
it made it out of the discussion because there is a need to fix this problem
Marie Pattullo
01:02:04
I don't see why it's controversial to say that a potential bad actor should know there is some form of sanction.
Griffin Barnett
01:02:18
If you’re a good faith registrant then you shouldn’t lose a URS
Paul McGrady
01:02:26
then make a suggestion not just dismantle Griffin’s Proposal
Marie Pattullo
01:02:36
+1, Griffin.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:50
Cybersquatting itself is a big rampant problem, but there is apparently no interest in this WG in making meaningful changes in the URS to add additional deterrence, so we’ve come to something that applies only to the most egregious of scenarios
Mary Wong
01:04:22
It sounds like there is agreement that there is a problem to solve, but disagreement on the specific sanction/penalty/solution.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:05:10
I regret that I have to leave early but thanks to Griffin for this attempt but I have to say that IMO the remedy of transfer is a step too far. And a bit more clarity would be nice, e.g., how is default treated? Is that a ‘loss’
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:05:21
big problem is repeat cyberquatting,, but it is a subset of the overall level of cases. This is a very reasonable proposal.
Griffin Barnett
01:05:25
Any loss is a loss
Griffin Barnett
01:05:47
transfer only intended as a final backstop where reimbursement cannot be collected
Paul McGrady
01:06:49
if one side is suggesting a path forward and the other side won’t actually engage in the substance to get to a solution, then I don’t think both sides agree there is a problem, only making lip service to it. if even 1 person on the other side of this made even one suggestion to improve it, it would feel like we all agree there is a problem to solve. but, it looks like we are in a no budge, no movement situation on one side
Marie Pattullo
01:07:00
Does consumer protection law protect bad actors? Surely not?
Mary Wong
01:07:03
@Griffin, did you consider perhaps a more extended suspension period, or even a permanent suspension of the domain?
Griffin Barnett
01:07:11
I don’t understand the question about consumer protection law
Griffin Barnett
01:07:37
@Mary - not really bc that doesn’t seem to be any additional deterrence
Paul McGrady
01:07:55
vague references to consumer protection laws without citations or even one case does protect bad actors because it is a red herring in the way of getting to a solution
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:36
Zak - old hand?
Paul McGrady
01:08:44
@Griffin, there is no issue, at least not one anyone has identified with any particularity at all
Marie Pattullo
01:08:54
I thought these 3 ideas were just that - ideas for the IRT/implementation phase? Sorry if I misunderstood that but surely if we agree that there is a problem, then implementation details are for later?
Mary Wong
01:10:16
@Marie, it will be very helpful if the WG can agree on the basic nature of the remedy, while the actual text and drafting will be done by the IRT.
Paul McGrady
01:10:24
hand up
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:10:32
I think the problem is repeat offenders that we all agree is a problem. So we should move that concept forward so that the issues can be considered on the implementation stage
Paul McGrady
01:11:25
important procedural question following Phil’s intervention
Paul McGrady
01:11:29
hand up
Marie Pattullo
01:11:42
Got that @Mary, but is that not the top part, so the repeat offender (etc.) should reimburse the successful complainant?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:19
We do not all agree that the problem of cybersquatting can be addressed via tweaking the URS
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:52
Cybersquatting as a problem does not justify every possible intervention, and the case hasn't been made for this one as cost-justified
Marie Pattullo
01:15:28
I don't see this as a new proposal either - it is the attempt to harmonise the 2 former proposals, taking on board the comments made.
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:15:49
Rebecaa so you have any idea of the costs sybersquatting. If you had deal with the issue on an enforcement basis you would see the costs. They have been written up in numerous articles over the yeatrs and the costs of having to file UDRP and URS case. We discussed over and over again iover the years and we all know that the cost is high. So pretending it is not a problem is siurprising. The whole point of this proposal is to create some balance in situations involving repeat offenders
Griffin Barnett
01:16:46
Don’t worry I;’m just here with my cat
Griffin Barnett
01:16:50
But still
Julie Hedlund
01:17:58
@Griffin: Cats are family too LOL
Griffin Barnett
01:18:10
The CPH comments felt it was potentially too broad, which is why we sought to narrow it only to the filing fees
Marie Pattullo
01:19:18
I really do not see this as a new proposal.
Paul McGrady
01:20:35
Phil- what about new ideas coming out of public comment? are those also pre-doomed?
Griffin Barnett
01:20:43
Again, the transfer backstop is one possibility…. We can accept other options without accepting that one
Griffin Barnett
01:21:02
these are all implementation details, which frankly we are preempting and should really be left to IRT anyway
Paul McGrady
01:22:23
Phil didn’t answer my question
Mary Wong
01:22:34
Just noting again that staff suggested a procedural path forward which may (or may not) result in a possible option for WG consensus; i.e. same as was accorded to other good faith WG members’ attempt to work together to consolidate/update proposals, give volunteers a week to try to come up with a compromise.
Marie Pattullo
01:22:47
They are not new elements. As Griffin says, they are implementation ideas.
Griffin Barnett
01:23:00
The new implementation options were included because public comments generally questioned the feasibility of implementing a loser pays remedy… obviously going back to work on this would entail trying to identify new implementation ideas
Rebecca Tushnet
01:23:03
I've participated in filing UDRPs on behalf of a client. I know it exists and is a problem. What I am objecting to is the idea that tweaking the URS will do anything. Transfer mechanisms already exist; the other proposals don't actually make cybersquatters pay but shift the costs elsewhere, which needs another justification than deterrence.
Griffin Barnett
01:23:19
Option 2 would make the cybersquatter pay
Griffin Barnett
01:24:14
It charges the payment method on file with the registrar from the respondent
Susan.Payne
01:24:28
@Kathy, why is #11 relevant in this context? It's a proposal you said has been rejected, no?
Paul McGrady
01:24:57
Brian, will you answer theanswer the question of whatof what we do with new ideas that came out of public comment? will those be dismissed as well?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:25:26
As I said, Griffin, I don't think that is likely to work--even if the payment mechanism remains valid, which is questionable, there are barriers to adding hundreds of dollars in charges when a third party brings a claim even if it's in the contract.
Griffin Barnett
01:25:29
I’m happy to discuss a more constructive path forward with those who have agreed that additional deterrence against cybersquatting is a good idea, but have not come forward with their own ideas about how to achieve that
Mary Wong
01:26:12
@Brian, that is correct (concerning the CCT-RT).
Griffin Barnett
01:26:25
@Rebecca I disagree - if it is included up front in the registration agreement, I don’t think there’s an issue…. There are plenty of other similar things baked into registration agreements today, including agreement to adhere to dispute resolution procedures, pay renewal fees, redemption fees, etc
Philip Corwin
01:27:06
After 30 minutes of struggle and a full reboot I am finally back in
Marie Pattullo
01:27:48
Being upfront in the contract increases transparency.
Philip Corwin
01:27:54
Procedural concerns aside, can this proposal -- for which I thank Griffin - get broad or even consensus support?
Griffin Barnett
01:27:59
I am receptive to the idea of putting a pin in this an considering how we might integrate these ideas into interplay with the UDRP in Phase 2
Mary Wong
01:28:27
Note that the GNSO Council has to recharter this PDP for Phase 2 (if that is relevant to this discussion).
Jason Schaeffer
01:28:55
I'm happy to confer with Griffin and Paul to see if there's a path forward to address cybersquatting.
Griffin Barnett
01:29:08
For instance, if a prevailing URS complainant meeting these criteria can present that decision to a UDRP provider/panel and receive some kind of fast-track to UDRP transfer, that could maybe be worthy further consideratin
Philip Corwin
01:29:15
I would expect Loser Pays to get robust discussion in Phase 2
Zak Muscovitch
01:29:28
I support consideration of interplay with UDRP in Phase 2.
Griffin Barnett
01:29:35
@Jason - noted
Griffin Barnett
01:30:25
I’d be happy to chat offline
Paul McGrady
01:30:42
there is little doubt that this issue will end up in phase 2
Paul McGrady
01:30:58
at least as it applies to UDRPs
Paul McGrady
01:31:39
the UDRP is incomplete- it does not deter cybersquatting
Philip Corwin
01:32:12
No
Griffin Barnett
01:32:18
Based on feedback today, we can perhaps strip away some of the implementation options
Julie Hedlund
01:32:26
There doesn’t seem to be agreement that this is a new idea
Griffin Barnett
01:32:26
Which may resolve some of the stronger concerns
Philip Corwin
01:32:30
No public comment on Final Report required
Jason Schaeffer
01:32:38
It makes sense to have a more detailed discussion and see how we can find effective solutions. We will likely need to wait until Phase 2, but that shouldn't bar us from trying to work together now.
Philip Corwin
01:32:44
Asking for comment would delay phase 2
Paul McGrady
01:32:46
then let’s do that so that we can discuss new ideas
Julie Hedlund
01:33:12
Seems like there is support for a small group, Jason, Griffin, Paul?
Philip Corwin
01:44:12
It appears there is broad agreement within the WG that GIs do not get TMCH and related RPMs. So the issue is whether this language is technically correct in expressing that policy.
Mary Wong
01:45:57
@Phil and all - one thing that staff was going to suggest for Thursday is for the WG to consider agreeing on clear policy proposals that speak to that distinction rather than redrafting the AGB text, it may be more helpful toward agreement and leave AGB tweaking to the IRT (as it is an implementation document).
Paul McGrady
01:46:15
@Julie, I’m on holiday with my son before he leaves for Uni so I can’t join a small group. talking comfort in knowing this issue will appear again in phase 2 for the UDRP
Julie Hedlund
01:46:51
@Paul: Noted, thanks! Enjoy your vacation!
Julie Bisland
01:47:17
Next call: Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Zak Muscovitch
01:47:47
Many thanks, Kathy and Staff and Cochairs
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:51
thanks all bye