Congrats Kathy! An exciting time for him, even if a bit hard for his mom!

Just FYI Maxim sent that statement already to the email list, so perhaps AOB discussion is not necessary?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gpVahqI6nDk9U37vK4CPhad7S1mWLoRbqbznkm0jMds/edit?usp=sharing

hand up

hand up

I can address

Re Maxim's statement: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004457.html

I would urge a very brief discussion on PDDRP today, given our agenda. We can schedule a full discussion once the small group has agreed on a final text and background information.

Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP)

TM = trademark

If there is someone in this group who doesn’t know what the PDDRP is by now, that’s concerning

@Phil +1

TM PDDRP = Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process

Agree with Paul that the discussion yesterday was very constructive – my thanks to Paul, Zak, Greg, Brian, and staff on that call (hope I have not overlooked anyone).

Thanks Paul. We will have a comprehensive discussion once this is fully baked.

I think in the past we have used the term “discriminatory pricing’ to identify the instances where pricing is set in a manner to circumvent the RPMs rather than simply higher or lower

In this way it is not a picket fence issue

Prices regulation is not in ICANN remit

and outside of the picket fence

I think it used to be

I plan to post a question or two about this new language on the WG list for consideration by the small group. Others should feel free to do the same, rather than spend time on this call. Thanks

Agree Paul

Thank you, Paul

@Paul +1

Not sure if it was already mentioned but this approach is also one prong of implementing Sunrise rec 2

@Maxim, that's good feedback -- on yesterday's call, the concept was "significant" or exponential or orders of magnitude, etc. so (not to speak for Paul) this seems to match the intent of the proposal

"Significant" is subjective though; won't that cause a lot more uncertainty/wrangling?

“Disproportionately inflated prices”

old hand

Thanks Maxim, Phil, and Kathy as well as those in chat.

"regularly scheduled program"! :-) Flashback

You're very welcome, Paul. I'd hope we see a final proposal soon as we are scheduled to move on to Final Report review in just a few meetings.

Here is the link to the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit?usp=sharing

can Staff move one paragraph down.

I just took a quick look at Rec 10 and believe when we get to it in a future meeting we should try to integrate it and 6 into one combined and comprehensive recommendation

And I'm happy to have Zak do it!

+1

Can Staff please go up to the top?

interpreting 'sufficient detail' to at least mean commenting on each element of what constitutes a registration in violation of URS seems a good idea to me

@Kathy: Noted by staff

Registry Requirement 10: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in theURS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URSComplainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for anadditional year (if allowed by the maximum registration policies of the TLD),provided, however, that the URS Suspended domain name MUST remainregistered to the registrant who was the registrant at the time of URSSuspension. Registry Operator MAY collect the Registrar renewal fee if the URSComplainant elects to renew the URS Suspended domain name with thesponsoring Registrar.

Thanks @Zak!

TLDs are limited to 10 years

Believe the point of this language is to allow the 1 year extension without resulting in a DN transfer.

agree, Paul

agree Paul

Agree with Paul M's characterization of this item

In any event, under the current IRTP, only Registered Name Holders (RNH) can initiate/request a domain name transfer.

@Mary, yep.

@Kathy: Noted by Staff.

yes

@Paul, the IRTP is also due to be reviewed at some point :)

@Mary - can't wait!

Good leadership today and last week. Ending before the 90 minutes is always good.

@Maxim, the current URS Rec #4 doesn’t seem to require amending the texts of the RA or RAA.

Thanks for sharing this, but when it comes to a minority statement, the WG doesn't review/approve them, correct? They just are what they are.

It would nevertheless be out of scope for a PDP to recommend contractual changes.

old

Wouldn't be better to do it after the final report?

It’s not out of scope for a PDP to recommend contractual changes

Rec4 may go beyond the existing agreements in terms of the compliance mechanism for outside parties

It seems to me that Griffin and Mary are using the verb 'recommend' in different ways.

I should have said 'may be using'

@Griffin, I meant a PDP recommending actual text, as opposed to policy recommendations that would result in new contractual obligations.

Gotcha - thanks for clarifying

"Minority Views" refer to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.

Can a member of the public not file a general complaint with ICANN COmpliance?

Yes they can; they can also contact ICANN Global Support.

it is a typical scenario (3rd party sends a complaints), then a contracted party gets the case from the Compliance Dept. of ICANN

I thnik George K did

Lori +1

I think Lori raises a very good point

It appears that is included in the context

hand up

As I just said, it's up to the WG to determine whether we missed something so important that we should revisit a closed Recommendation. But it should be the rare exception not the rule. And it should be listed on a meeting agenda if we ever do that.

It seems to me that Ry and Rr are clearly subject to a compliance mechanism, namely general complaint process to ICANN Compliance, for alleged failure to adhere to the URS requirements, so the rec really seems to be targeting URS providers primarily to ensure a similar ability exists in relation to them

Can staff instruct us on the rules for minority statements?

with the reference to the GNSO procedures

Staff can do that at a later point

OK

CPH does not support URS #4

I think Julie had hand up

Agree that Staff should do that later. It is going to be a detailed discussion with lots of questions.

@Maxim, we are not yet at consensus stage.

Ok thanks

thanks Kathy, bye all