Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Marie Pattullo
35:16
I believe that we discussed this over many months (years?), there was no agreement thus it was put forward as an individual proposal and there was also insufficient consensus on it then. And as Phil said last week, now is not the time to put forward brand new proposals,
Michael Karanicolas
36:02
This was my proposal, not George Kirikos'
Griffin Barnett
36:51
Cynthia is correct about the interpretation of the INTA comment.
Paul McGrady
38:08
I've lost the narrative on this one. Haven't we covered this 2-3 times now already?
Griffin Barnett
38:11
Furthermore, th suggestion in that comment about limited/accredited access in the event the TMDB was opened was not a new idea, so I don’t really understand why it has been latched on to as a basis for further discussion on something where there is clearly a lack of consensus
Marie Pattullo
38:51
+1 Cyntia. Thanks for the clarity of your intervention.
Griffin Barnett
39:37
What new ideas?
Cyntia King (USA)
39:43
We DID discuss the proposal. It was the majority view that there would be no consensus.
Griffin Barnett
39:58
I haven’t seen anyone explain how the burden for further substantive discussion has been met based on new ideas in public comments.
Marie Pattullo
40:00
Agree wit Griffin; there were no new ideas.
Griffin Barnett
40:27
That premise seems to be based on a misunderstand or falsely equating the INTA comments as being a new idea
Griffin Barnett
40:45
There is an oversight function, as Cynthia explained
Griffin Barnett
40:56
ICANN has the power to audit TMCH/TMDB under its existing contracts
Cyntia King (USA)
41:27
@Jasn - your comment is factually incorrect & objectionable.
Greg Shatan
41:34
The question is whether this proposal is properly before the WG.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
41:42
Can I ask people to please comment on point No. 2 in Lori's email, i.e., that the premise for the revised proposal was revoked/misunderstood -- we have already discussed the substance of the openness of the TMCH at length over the years.
Paul McGrady
41:57
"Reasonable oversight and review" by who?
Cyntia King (USA)
42:14
Oversight already exists. Period. It's in the TMCH contracts. It's just not an open function.
Marie Pattullo
42:15
We don't have substantive evidence of any such problem with the TMCH. Only supposition and suspicion.
Greg Shatan
42:22
or whether it got there based on a misunderstanding of the INTA proposal,
Marie Pattullo
42:47
There is no evidence of harm.
Marie Pattullo
43:16
We have discussed this issue for years.
Cyntia King (USA)
43:18
Exactly. We did not reach conensus on the original proposal.
Griffin Barnett
43:34
Because it’s a brand new proposal being put forward at a time when I thought we weren’t supposed to be entertaining new proposals
Griffin Barnett
43:47
Why wasn’t this proposal put forward at the time when we were collecting individual proposals?
Mary Wong
46:19
@Griffin, that’s why staff ventured to suggest that there is a distinction between the issue (opening the TMCH) and a new proposal.
Philip Corwin
46:25
Lori's note has been on the screen quite a while. Can we see Michael's proposal since it is being alluded to repeatedly?
Griffin Barnett
47:27
I don’t think anything new came to light in the public comment about the concerns with open TMCH access
Griffin Barnett
47:34
Those concerns were known for years
Griffin Barnett
47:56
So the fact remains that folks who made proposal 7 chose to go that route instead of putting forward a proposal that addressed those known concerns from the outset
Marie Pattullo
48:09
We have no new information, or any new data. This is a new proposal that was not put forward at the correct time.
Greg Shatan
48:30
Discussion of the substance of the proposal is out of order until we address the procedural question.
Kathy Kleiman
49:40
Where?
Griffin Barnett
50:12
ICANN has audit power of the TMCH and TMDB under its contracts with Deloitte and IBM
Rebecca Tushnet
50:45
A reminder that the information is given out to people who get Notices--it's not secret.
Greg Shatan
50:48
The procedural question is whether this is in front of use because of bootstrapping off a misreading of the INTA proposal.
Kathy Kleiman
51:00
We don't know that. To the best of our knowledge, Analysis Group was the first to review this database.
Paul McGrady
51:06
Third bite. WG talked about it endlessly. No consensus. First bite. Geo K. put forward proposal to overturn non consensus. Discussed endlessly. No consensus. Bite two. Now we have bite three based, partly, on a misunderstood INTA position and aren't even giving Lori the courtesy of moving this to the next call as requested. Folks, if the goal is run the time out on this PDP, this is the formula.
Griffin Barnett
51:10
Exactly Rebecca - so why is a more generalized audit function needed?
Marie Pattullo
51:32
Agree with Cyntia and Paul.
Rebecca Tushnet
51:52
Among other things, so that we know how many of the top 100 notice triggers are like the top 10--generic words with no particular brand attached, like cloud and hotel
Griffin Barnett
52:37
People would have found that out if they sought to register such domains and got a notice
Griffin Barnett
53:15
Here are links btw to contractual documents between ICANN and Deloitte/IBM in which the ICANN audit function is referenced:
Griffin Barnett
53:19
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/validation-framework-02jul13-en.pdfhttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-framework-02jul13-en.pdfhttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/database-platform-sow-02jul13-en.pdfhttps://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/sunrise-claims-sow-02jul13-en.pdf
Cyntia King (USA)
53:43
@Rebecca - as you have peviously pointed out regarding the GDPR & Whois, info used to notice individuals for enforcement is not the same as open seachability of a database.
Griffin Barnett
54:36
It wasn’t even an “INTA proposal"
Griffin Barnett
54:48
It was a comment clearly couched as a caveat
Griffin Barnett
54:53
Or with a caveat
Michael Karanicolas
55:05
It’s not a “misreading”. It says what it says. If they want to shift their position - that’s a separate questions
Greg Shatan
55:51
That’s not what INTA says it says.
Griffin Barnett
56:05
INTA’s comment clearly says: Do Not Support Proposal
Rebecca Tushnet
56:10
It's true that would-be wrongdoers have this information available to them, but that just undercuts the "strategy" objection. People interested in what the TMCH as a whole (not a TM owner) is doing can't do that
Cyntia King (USA)
58:16
@Rebecca - they can't do this by design. It was part of the consensus originally reached when the RPM was developed.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
58:39
Greg -- just checking, old hand?
Griffin Barnett
01:00:22
Because the procedural threshold needs to be met before we can reach substance...
Cyntia King (USA)
01:00:33
The "substance" does not have consensus. It never has.
Marie Pattullo
01:01:13
Of what "abuse" of the TMCH do we have evidence?
Griffin Barnett
01:01:14
You have evidence of abuse despite the closed database, plus existing mechanisms for addressing such abuse.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:01:39
That's incorrect, @Kathy. An audit function exists in the current contracts w/ IBM & Deloitte.
Griffin Barnett
01:01:40
So why is a change needed?
Greg Shatan
01:01:52
Why are we still having an out of order discussion. Can the chairs decide where we are? As chairs?
Marie Pattullo
01:02:16
Completely disagree, respectfully, Kathy.
Griffin Barnett
01:02:18
Because 15/22 was not a new proposal…. It was just a consolidation and reconfiguration of two other proposals
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:48
Great!
Mary Wong
01:03:26
Just to clarify - the Working Group did not find widespread evidence of “abuse” of the TMCH. There was some agreement that there may have been a certain extent of abuse by some trademark holders and domain investors.
Marie Pattullo
01:03:46
Thank you, Mary.
Michael R. Graham
01:03:58
Agree that in light of Lori's explanation, there is no basis for reopening our entire process to allow this new individual proposal to proceed to discussion as part of our review of the Public Comments. Personally, I believe the TMCH could be opened for some analysis of data under some protections. However, this topic has been addressed extensively and no change in the status quo (i.e. closed TMCH) has been agreed to. Time to move on.
Griffin Barnett
01:04:14
A limited public open audit power of the TMDB could be the subject of its own EPDP
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:48
To check for abuse - and operation outside of policy.
Michael R. Graham
01:04:51
@Cyntia -- Agree.
Kathy Kleiman
01:04:52
+1 Cyntia
Jason Schaeffer
01:04:54
There is public discussion outside of the WG of abuse so we as a group have a decision to make. Do we wish to just ignore abuse?
Philip Corwin
01:05:25
We knew prior to the publication of the IR that we did not have consensus for making the TMCH database open to the public. This individual proposal would have been in order prior to IR publication.With the INTA clarification there is no longer a procedural basis for consideration of this proposal at this point in our deliberations.
Griffin Barnett
01:06:03
I don’t think we are ignoring it. We have decided as WG that the abuse is not so widespread that it requires a disproportionate policy response such as opening the TMCH. There exist mechanisms to challenge perceived improper TMCH records, which those who believe there is abuse have not apparently made any use of.
Marie Pattullo
01:06:19
+1 Griffin.
Michael R. Graham
01:06:35
+1 Griffin
Jason Schaeffer
01:07:11
We don't know the full extent of the abuse. How much abuse is "acceptable" We are ignoring a problem.
Paul McGrady
01:07:14
We are now 44 minutes into this.
Griffin Barnett
01:07:21
BTW I am planning to withdraw URS proposal 15/22 from further consideration
Jason Schaeffer
01:07:24
Moving on.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:07:57
@Jason - even if true that rampant abuse exists, there is a current mechanism to address it.
Jason Schaeffer
01:07:59
Griffin withdrew the proposal
Jason Schaeffer
01:09:16
Thanks, Cyntia. I would like to see more on the current mechanism. If so, then that could be useful if put to use.
Paul McGrady
01:10:17
Well, this one is easy then. Griffin, thanks for your work on this.
Griffin Barnett
01:10:54
@Jason and I do appreciate your offers to discuss 15/22 so I hope you don’t feel short-shifted given our decision to withdraw in lieu of further work on it
Ariel Liang
01:11:00
This is the analysis doc for Sub Group A: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz_jMHBFL70/edit#
Ariel Liang
01:11:08
Hand up
Paul McGrady
01:11:40
I think we should give David the courtesy that we didn't give Lori.
Griffin Barnett
01:11:47
Thanks Paul… ultimately just didn’t see a reasonable path forward, and frankly don’t have the energy after 4 years of this to keep running into more dead ends
Jason Schaeffer
01:13:15
No problem, Griffin. Looking forward to other discussions with you.
Griffin Barnett
01:13:37
Right so fort TMCH Rec 1 we are just clarifying what the status quo is for part 3 in particular, which caused some apparent confusion among commenters
Mary Wong
01:14:04
The suggested change was to clarify the work done by the WG and does not modify the actual recommendation.
Griffin Barnett
01:14:11
I agree we should probably revise this rec to clearly state specifically what the status quo being maintained is for each item
Marie Pattullo
01:14:28
Makes sense; clarity is always useful!
Ariel Liang
01:15:05
yep noted
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:29
Agreed
Griffin Barnett
01:19:33
Paul raises a good point…. Should we drop out from final report anything that doesn’t make a change, I.e. anything that just reaffirms the status quo?
Griffin Barnett
01:19:44
Would certainly make it lighter and easier to get through
Griffin Barnett
01:20:08
Although perhaps maintaining them to keep the record of the discussion is needed
Paul McGrady
01:21:13
Thanks Mary!
Paul McGrady
01:22:35
THanks Kathy. I'm happy either way, I just don't recall seeing status quos affirmed in Recommendations before.
Griffin Barnett
01:22:53
I don’t think we need to lose all the discussion, agree it is important to preserve that for the record, but perhaps kept separately from affirmative recommendations - just a question of making the final report a more useful document from an implementation standpoint
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:49
In this case, with so many possibilities for change evaluated, it's good to make clear where we landed :-)
Mary Wong
01:23:57
@Griffin, @Paul, all - yes, the purpose of the Final Report is different from that of the Initial Report, the latter being meant to drive meaningful public comments.
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:47
good~!
Philip Corwin
01:28:57
To clarify--any language review will be done as part of our overall review of the Final Report, not as a separate item?
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:00
Is Staff OK with this?
John McElwaine
01:29:07
Sorry to join so late. I had an IPC call.
Ariel Liang
01:29:11
Yes, we can help with the drafting
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:22
Good question - Phil.
Mary Wong
01:30:00
Yes - any proposed new language for recommendations will certainly need to be reviewed by the WG.
Philip Corwin
01:30:05
To be clear, I want it done as part of the WG's overall review of FR
Mary Wong
01:30:27
The work plan foresees time for the WG to review the final language for all recommendations as well as the overall final report.
Susan.Payne
01:30:28
sorry I couldn't join sooner - conflicting call
Cyntia King (USA)
01:30:57
@Mary -good news, thanks.
Griffin Barnett
01:32:07
No objections
Griffin Barnett
01:32:09
To continuing
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:21
No objection
Mary Wong
01:33:27
The difference between reviewing the final recommendation text and the overall final report is that, for the former, we need to make sure we got it exactly right (i.e. captured the WG’s consensus level and the actual recommendation intended). For the report, the purpose is to make sure it reflects the work that was done rather than wordsmithing. As a reminder, the final report is not mean to include every topic discussed but rather act as a summary of the overall work (with links as appropriate).
Philip Corwin
01:33:51
I think it's worthwhile to review each of these items where there is no change for a few minutes each, so that there are no surprises when we review FR text.
Mary Wong
01:36:04
@Phil, yes, doing this now should ensure the WG will not need to spend weeks going through the final report page by page :) As mentioned, the focus during the final weeks needs to be on setting consensus and agreeing on the final text of the actual recommendations.
Paul McGrady
01:36:19
Can a brand owner deduce from WHOIS that a name is likely reserved (it would show as unregistered by not available, right?)?
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:11
do any registries/registrars want to address?
Griffin Barnett
01:38:35
@Paul - not sure … in some cases there just wouldn’t be a WHOIS record at all I think
Griffin Barnett
01:39:41
I guess Maxim’s suggestion is that where a Sunrise registration is rejected without explanation, the prospective Sunrise registrant should just contact the registry to find out why, rather than have this sort of whois check
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:53
registries already have the right to speak
John McElwaine
01:39:57
@Paul - the problem was in certain cases when you would go to register the domain name in Sunrise you would get merely a message "Name Not Available."
John McElwaine
01:40:29
or more accurately "Not Available"
Cyntia King (USA)
01:41:03
@Maxim - true, .CO does that.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:24
Maxim - we understand why ROs reserve certain names, that’s not the question
Griffin Barnett
01:42:52
I don’t think anyone is asking ROs to reveal their plans for a reserved name or why it is being reserved … just a facile way of confirming that a name is not available in Sunrise bc it has been reserved by the RO....
Marie Pattullo
01:44:32
So to be clear: if a registrant gets an "unavailable" message, they just need to ask the Registrar why and they'll say that its reserved, Maxim?
Philip Corwin
01:45:15
FYI, I have to leave the call at 10:25 to run another call at 10:30...so that will explain my somewhat premature departure
Philip Corwin
01:47:58
Bye/see you Thursday
Paul McGrady
01:48:01
I hope the irony isn't lost that some are pushing for trademark owners to publish their sensitive trademark lists via the TMCH but can't get any traction for registrars to publish their reserved names list...
Poncelet Ileleji
01:48:36
Sorry I have to go for another meeting,
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:49:37
Many thanks to Ariel and Mary for presenting the Sub A report so far.
Ariel Liang
01:49:47
Pleasure to help, David
Mary Wong
01:50:00
@Cyntia - “…. the WG does not recommend mandatory publication by Registry Operators of their Reserved Names lists”
Marie Pattullo
01:50:17
Paul: and yes most CPHs do of course want to run a clean business so we shouldn't assume any unproven "abuse. The same courtesy would be welcomed for all brands - including the very many SME brands.
Griffin Barnett
01:50:25
@Jason - I think you’re not wrong, generally speaking, I think the idea was to have something more consistent and uniform to avoid having to rely on those Linds of ad hoc communications to get the information
Griffin Barnett
01:50:33
*kinds of
Susan.Payne
01:50:39
I don't understand why this is a discussion about publishing reserved names lists. the proposal was just that if someone does an RDAP lookup for a name which isn't available there's a notification that its reserved
Steve Levy
01:51:21
Sorry, have to jump off
Griffin Barnett
01:51:46
Perhaps we capture it, as Susan very succinctly put it, as a voluntary option for registries / registrars to consider
Marie Pattullo
01:52:04
+1, Griffin and Susan.
Ariel Liang
01:52:11
We can capture the gist of the discussion in the contextual language of the recommendation, if it works for the WG
Marie Pattullo
01:52:27
Thanks, Ariel!
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:30
Tx Brian!
Julie Bisland
01:52:39
Next call: Thursday, 06 August 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:52:41
Thanks Brian, staff and all
Jason Schaeffer
01:52:50
Thanks Brian
Cyntia King (USA)
01:52:59
+1 @Griffin
Paul Tattersfield
01:53:11
thanks Brian, bye all
Cyntia King (USA)
01:53:12
Bye!
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:13
bye all