Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Zak Muscovitch
28:48
Congrats Brian!!! :)
David McAuley (Verisign)
28:50
awesome - congrats Brian
Julie Bisland
28:55
Congratulations Brian and family!
Susan.Payne
29:01
congratulation Brian!!
Nat Cohen
29:05
congratulations Brian!!
Brian beckham
29:09
thx so much!
Scott Austin
29:14
Contrulations Brian!
Brian beckham
29:18
fun new world ;)
Jay Chapman
29:30
Congratulations!
Paul Tattersfield
29:58
Congratulations Brian
David McAuley (Verisign)
36:27
I agree that MOUs can be enforceable depending on their terms - most that I have seen have been contracts
Lori Schulman
38:30
I believe that this is a solution without a problem.
Zak Muscovitch
40:44
I support Phil's suggested approach to this proposal and language.
Philip Corwin
41:21
@Zak--thank you
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:26
makes sense to me
Julie Hedlund
44:52
hand up
Brian beckham
47:11
with the clause I read about termination, this proposal seems not to have accounted for that
Paul McGrady
48:15
Agree with Susan. We need to decide what the WG wants to do and do it. Not keep kicking cans down the line.
Philip Corwin
48:17
What is the other proposal being referenced?
Julie Hedlund
48:19
The idea is to see if the WG supports a proposal becoming a recommendation
Julie Hedlund
48:28
then the recommendation would go to a consensus call
Julie Hedlund
49:22
The third option is to not make this a recommendation for consensus call
Philip Corwin
49:35
It is a new hand
Jay Chapman
49:46
I prefer Phil’s suggestion be put forth
Paul Tattersfield
50:18
I prefer Phil's too
Brian beckham
51:25
which public comment is Phil’s suggestion reacting to?
Jason Schaeffer
53:28
I agree with Zak and Phil
Ariel Liang
55:47
This is staff’s rough note on Phil’s proposal
Ariel Liang
55:48
All current/future Providers should be brought under a formal fix term contract with ICANN, and ICANN is required to review performance during that term prior to making decision on extension/renewal of the contract
Brian beckham
56:01
agree with Paul — it is not clear which public comment (of non support) this revised proposal reacts to
Philip Corwin
57:49
My suggested modification, in a personal capacity -- All current/future Providers should be brought under a formal fix term agreement with ICANN, with ICANN is required to review performance during that term prior to making a decision on extension/renewal of the contract.
Marie Pattullo
58:24
+1 on the doughnut - completely agree, Susan.
Philip Corwin
58:32
The key difference is substituting agreement for contract
Paul McGrady
58:35
I think one of the big takeaways from this PDP is not to carry forward the idea of "individual proposals." I know we were well-meaning when we went down this path, but it caused a lot of actual time and work.
Brian beckham
58:46
agreed — this weighting problem has plagued ICANN policy work for years
Lori Schulman
59:53
What does move forward mean?
Marie Pattullo
01:00:03
Brian's hand is up?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:24
valid points by Susan and Brian but I agree with Kathy on moving this forward
Susan.Payne
01:00:38
Object to discussing 4 and 5 now. that new wording got circulated just before this call. we haven't even had time to review that email
Marie Pattullo
01:00:54
Still confused. Sorry.
Lori Schulman
01:01:18
INTA is solidly against this proposal.
Lori Schulman
01:01:51
Let' vote it down now.
Marie Pattullo
01:01:52
What are we actually voting on though?
Kathy Kleiman
01:01:59
proposed version
Marie Pattullo
01:02:17
Thanks.
Julie Hedlund
01:03:24
Phil’s proposal would be put forward for a recommendation on a Consensus Call, if that’s the WG decision now
Julie Hedlund
01:03:44
Or the WG can decide that there isn’t support for any recommendation for a Consensus Call
Lori Schulman
01:04:01
I would argue there is not based on the responses.
Susan.Payne
01:04:27
I don't think there is support to make this a recommendation that there wil be a consensus call on
Lori Schulman
01:04:31
"Revisiting" creates duplicative work.
Julie Hedlund
01:04:40
hand up
Paul McGrady
01:05:21
Who is supporting this? I've not heard anyone speak up for it substantively. Why would this be a recommendation for consensus call?
Marie Pattullo
01:05:26
I'm trying to wrap my head around what criteria ICANN could use to "review" performance too. Really not sure of the practical roll-out/impact.
Scott Austin
01:05:41
@Lori +1
Susan.Payne
01:05:44
this proposal is predicated on the mistaken assumption that MOU not enforceable and on there being no ability for ICANN to terminate for failure to comply
Greg Shatan
01:06:07
Do not support.
Marie Pattullo
01:06:15
So as Lori said before - solution without a problem.
Brian beckham
01:06:22
agree with Susan, as I have put that termination clause into the record
Lori Schulman
01:06:28
Agree with Susan. We are complicating an issue where there should be simplicity. If split then no consensus to move forwad.
Scott Austin
01:06:40
The original agreement between ICANN and Dept of Commerce was an MOU.
Marie Pattullo
01:06:49
No consensus that I can see.
Greg Shatan
01:06:50
I agree with Susan, this is based on a mistaken assumption regarding MOUs.
Paul McGrady
01:06:51
Who supports it?
Lori Schulman
01:07:21
Right Zak.
Paul McGrady
01:07:23
Agree with Zak. Why set it up for failure?
Jay Chapman
01:07:23
Agree, Zak
Brian beckham
01:08:22
agree Zak - fair process is important
Philip Corwin
01:08:23
Based upon this discussion, it appears that there is not consensus among WG members on this call that the URS agreement should become fixed term rather open-ended
Paul McGrady
01:08:29
Agree with Zak that the GNSO's usual consensus measurements apply to everyone.
Lori Schulman
01:08:32
Well said Zak,
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:08:32
while I supported Phil's attempt I also think that after this discussion Zak has correctly summarized it
Julie Hedlund
01:08:52
Ariel :-)
Susan.Payne
01:09:27
Objection to discussing this now
Paul McGrady
01:11:54
We need more time as Susan says.
Lori Schulman
01:12:00
No. Susan is correct.
Lori Schulman
01:12:20
And if there are changes, I would want time to take it back to INTA members.
Michael R. Graham
01:12:22
Agree with Susan -- we need time to consider language. Pushing forward is disrespectful of the process and participants.
Susan.Payne
01:13:12
to be clear, I may wholeheartedly support this new version - I have no idea
Marie Pattullo
01:14:23
Apologies but I was in transit. so haven't been able to read it either.
Paul McGrady
01:14:42
Next call please
Paul Tattersfield
01:14:48
hold it for next meeting
Rebecca Tushnet
01:15:14
Can we start next time with "is consensus possible?"
Julie Hedlund
01:15:24
Thanks Kathy and noted
Jason Schaeffer
01:15:39
+1 Rebecca
Greg Shatan
01:19:35
A munchkin??
Massimo Vittori
01:20:48
One question to the proponents of the compromise solution on TMCH individual proposals 4 and 5: could the ancillary database for GIs be compulsory (in the sense that if right holders wish to register a GI, they would be able to do so in a separate database) rather than voluntary? This might help to reach consensus
Rebecca Tushnet
01:21:15
No--the ancillary databases are voluntary; I don't think that can go anywhere
Rebecca Tushnet
01:21:20
It would be a completely new mandate
Scott Austin
01:22:16
Making me hungry Phil. Munchkin is a registered mark BTW.
Marie Pattullo
01:22:57
It is? What class, Scott?
Julie Hedlund
01:23:18
Thanks and noted
Massimo Vittori
01:23:29
Thanks Rebecca - as such we cannot support the compromise solution, I will mention it in the next call
Claudio DiGangi
01:23:30
I’m on the phone, just joined - had a conflict
Claudio DiGangi
01:25:52
Did NCSG provide a source for the statement that the TMCH was written to be an open database?
Michael R. Graham
01:26:40
Statements that "TMCH was intended to be open" represent positions taken prior to negotiations of the current closed form of TMCH database -- not general intent.
Michael R. Graham
01:26:59
I believe . . .
Marie Pattullo
01:27:02
+1, Michael.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:29:35
+1 Michael
Michael R. Graham
01:29:36
@Marie -- excellent points regarding individual vs. organization comments and weighting.
Philip Corwin
01:29:51
We discussed open TMCH database at great length within the WG, and unless opinions have shifted I don't think there is any possibility of consensus on that
Lori Schulman
01:30:56
INTA has 7000 members; 30,000 volunteers
Scott Austin
01:31:07
@ Marie 30 for Doughnut holes. (in use since '72!) many other classes for goods/services from infant formula to clothing to card games.
Lori Schulman
01:31:08
Agree. No possible consensus.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:31:09
Very good point, @Susan
Lori Schulman
01:31:24
Yes, opposition is entirely substantive.
Brian beckham
01:31:32
suggest we move on and not put this forward
Lori Schulman
01:31:45
Marie speaks for AIM. I speak for INTA.
Scott Austin
01:32:04
@Brian +1
Cyntia King (USA)
01:32:11
Good point @Marie
Cyntia King (USA)
01:32:29
Agree @BrianBeckham
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:08
Shows how troubling relying on the donut is
Lori Schulman
01:33:09
Agree. This had major discussions and no consensus. It should not move forward. That's what's wrong with the individual proposals, they just open the doors to more argument after they have been argued by full working groups.
Marie Pattullo
01:33:11
+1 Susan.
Susan.Payne
01:33:18
@Cyntia, this was Marie, being far more persuasive than I would be :)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:46
Thanks Susan - I was just searching for your comment ;-)
Jay Chapman
01:34:47
Tens of millions of registrants, yep
Lori Schulman
01:34:48
Registrants include brands.
Lori Schulman
01:35:00
who hold millions of domains
Marie Pattullo
01:35:16
I didn't say "random", Zak.
Michael R. Graham
01:35:22
@Zak -- I would disagree that these orgs speak for registrants who have no means of expressing their opinions to these orgs -- unlike INTA and other organizations.
Paul McGrady
01:35:26
Isn't the ALAC supposed to represent registrants? Is there an ALAC member on this call?
Marie Pattullo
01:35:44
And every single one of my members has multiple registrations.
Jay Chapman
01:35:49
Agree, Zak
Michael R. Graham
01:35:51
@Paul -- excellent point
Zak Muscovitch
01:36:25
@Paul - absoilutely not re ALAC. They represent "end users", not registrants and they will definitely tell you that.
Jason Schaeffer
01:36:27
I'm on phone audio
Lori Schulman
01:36:32
Agree that there are many individual registrants and they have concerns but the TMCH issues are focused business related aspects of running the RPMs. As Marie pointed out, individuals can retrieve TM data from national registries for free.
Julie Hedlund
01:36:41
He is unmuted
Susan.Payne
01:37:08
i might have said random earlier and I apologise for offence Zak. It's a frustration however that we are focussing on donuts as if they are meaningful, in the way that in the past there was always a perception (possibly not fairly) that comments got put into two piles and the tallest one won
Paul McGrady
01:37:46
I agree with Zac and Kathy that all of the commenter's point of views matter and we can't be in the business of counting heads. Even so, I don't see strong consensus here on the substance.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:34
I agree with Kathy's assessment
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:49
the complexities of the form likely deterred a lot of individual comments especially people who only wanted to comment on a limited set of issues - Very bad - there should be an email mechanism for people to send in unstructured comments for ALL future ICANN comment periods
Marie Pattullo
01:39:07
No of course it isn't Jason - I fully agree - but if I asked all of my members to put in individual, and individual staff, comments that would be rather unfair weighting, surely? (Which I didn't, for clarity!).
Lori Schulman
01:39:53
Yes, and the associations represent many individuals and entities and they are not 1 on 1 equivalent to an individual user in terms of the weight of a comment. Agree that the math doesn't work. I wish it did. But it doesn't.
Claudio DiGangi
01:40:11
Agree, with Paul M and Paul T. The complexities of the public comment tool really needs to be reconsidered (I hope that discussion has happened or will be happening)
Claudio DiGangi
01:40:40
Good point Lori
Lori Schulman
01:41:02
Yes, our members join so that we may represent them.
Scott Austin
01:41:05
@Cyntia +1
Brian beckham
01:41:11
do not favor
Lori Schulman
01:41:27
do not favor
Cyntia King (USA)
01:42:22
@Paul Tattersfield - I agree that the comment mechanism should be made easier s that more entities - individuals or otherwise - can weigh in. I see a new PDP in your future.....
Lori Schulman
01:43:09
Agree. On matters of the secondary market, ICA should have a certain amount of deference. They are the experts.
Paul Tattersfield
01:43:15
it’s the ideas and concepts that matter not the numbers
Lori Schulman
01:44:05
The donut suggests weighting. That's why we have to look at it carefully and see who is supplying the responses.
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:26
agree Lori - its process shaping
Marie Pattullo
01:44:27
Exactly Lori - it's misrepresentative.
Scott Austin
01:45:45
small business registrants may be more at risk of business failure from a single round of domain name abuse than public companies even though they have to spend millions more overall dollars defending a national or international reputation.
Steve Levy
01:45:52
After 4+ years on this WG and after many more years of history of various ICANN WGs I’m rather despondent that we’re still discussing basic procedural issues. Have these matters never been resolved in prior ICANN experience?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:45:54
+1 @Zak - I believe every person in this group take seriously their responsibility to make the best decisions we can for the community et al.
Marie Pattullo
01:46:19
I also agree with Zak that we should be working for the whole community and for something that will actually work/improve matter for all.
Susan.Payne
01:46:42
@jason, whole of the contracted party house also opposed
Cyntia King (USA)
01:46:56
@Jason - I blieve accountability can be obtained without releasing the data to the public.
Greg Shatan
01:47:10
I agree with Zak and Cyntia, that this should about persuasive debate and a shared interest in a larger ecosystem.
Marie Pattullo
01:47:10
With respect Jason, we did flesh it out. At length, And agree with Cynthia.
Susan.Payne
01:47:16
and this is the working group. that's what we're doing
Marie Pattullo
01:48:49
My learning for today - thanks Scott! - is that doughnut holes exist as a *thing*. Every day's a school day.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:49:00
Three interesting general comments today – try to simplify comment tool, try to avoid - or at least create useful disclaimer on - ‘weighting’ graphics, and individual proposals may be too complicating a factor to use again. Maybe we could comment on these points as administrative side notes in our final report or at least consider these points when we move to Phase II.
Ariel Liang
01:50:40
Overarching Qs: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=339265607
Susan.Payne
01:50:43
@Phil - well and the TM-PDDRP
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:51
David +1
Scott Austin
01:50:55
Tks.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:52:28
+1 Phil
Paul McGrady
01:52:47
I do question the utility of asking this question at the end of the process. :-)
Paul Tattersfield
01:53:02
@ David we need a much more efficient process that removes unviable issues before they go to public comment
Susan.Payne
01:53:02
could we just start with this fresh next time rather than with 2 mins to go?
Scott Austin
01:53:09
@ Paul +1
Julie Hedlund
01:54:02
no
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:07
Thanks Kathy, staff, and all
Julie Hedlund
01:54:11
one minute
Julie Bisland
01:54:11
Next call:Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Julie Hedlund
01:54:28
Thank you Kathy and all!
Paul McGrady
01:54:31
Thanks everyone
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:33
thanks kathy all bye
Cyntia King (USA)
01:54:34
Bye!