Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
23:46
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 09 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC.
Maxim Alzoba
23:49
Hello all
Julie Bisland
24:59
Welcome, Maxim
Annebeth Lange
25:27
Hi all
Jim Prendergast
26:17
Good Luck!
Anne Aikman-Scalese
26:31
Thanks Kristine - congrats and good luck!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
26:53
thanks, it's exciting and sad at the same time!
Martin Sutton
27:04
Good luck Kristine
Anne Aikman-Scalese
27:09
Are you at liberty to say the new position?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
27:52
I'm still with Amazon - I'll be doing content policy.
Annebeth Lange
28:00
Good luck with your new position, Kristine! We will talk on the NomCom anyway, so I won’t say goodbye
Alexander Schubert
28:30
23:00 here
Susan Payne
28:30
spare a thought for Justine Christopher
Anne Aikman-Scalese
28:32
Ok just wondered what department you were switching to - sounds ljke heavy respnosibiity!
Annebeth Lange
28:55
Well, we will share the unpleasantnies
Greg Shatan
29:24
But is it our finest hour?
Maxim Alzoba
29:28
we do not switch, and it is 23.07
Maxim Alzoba
29:35
here
Greg Shatan
31:07
What about Corona Time?
Tom Dale
32:27
But always at my back I hear time’s winged chariot hurrying near
Anne Aikman-Scalese
33:22
Winged chariots of fire?
Maxim Alzoba
33:52
@Greg, it is like submarine, only UTC time
Maxim Alzoba
38:50
@Cristopher, it is by definition, legal bodies have to obey to local law
Maxim Alzoba
39:29
and local = place where they established and have HQ
Maxim Alzoba
40:41
applicable to what?
Gg Levine (NABP)
40:53
Yes, to applicable law, not just the applicant's
Gg Levine (NABP)
41:35
applicable to where the registrant is based and to where it does busienss
Alexander Schubert
42:16
Concept confusion?
Jim Prendergast
42:27
Agree with Greg - if we are going to go down this path, Im not sure this is the area to do it. Should be someplace else or a new objection procedure.
Maxim Alzoba
42:36
I am not sure how to formalize Concept confusion
Paul McGrady
43:48
Standard for String Confusion – String confusion exists wherea string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely todeceive or cause confusion. For the likelihood of confusionto exist, it must be probable, not merely possible thatconfusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonableInternet user. Mere association, in the sense that the stringbrings another string to mind, is insufficient to find alikelihood of confusion.
Annebeth Lange
44:59
It seems like it is a huge confusion on what kind of confusion we are talking about
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
45:01
I'm empathetic to the plight here, but I'm not sure there is any way to put reasonable guardrails on this.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
45:11
QUESTION: where are the current rules for GAC on this type of objection -- a Category 1 objection?
Justine Chew
46:04
@kathy, PICs to apply depending on the string
Maxim Alzoba
46:41
different regulation in every country for doctors of medicine
Jeffrey Neuman
46:47
@Kathy - this is a new concept. If adopted, then rules would need to be developed. But right now we are just testing the waters to see if this is an avenue the group wants to go down
Justine Chew
47:47
@Kathy, sorry! I misread your question. Jeff has the correct answer.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
48:31
happy to wait
Paul McGrady
49:20
@Jeff - I don't feel comfortable this this restriction that is missing many, many guardrails. I think it needs to be much further developed before it is put out for us to approve or disapprove.
Jeffrey Neuman
50:04
@Paul - Perhaps approve/disapprove is too definitive....I just want to see if there is an appetite to work on this further.
Annebeth Lange
51:31
Very well put, Kathy
Greg Shatan
52:20
Sensitive String Objection?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:00
Has anyone looked at the morality and public order objection? Is that a better fit?
Greg Shatan
54:09
We’ll miss you Kristine!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
54:55
(awwww, shucks) Thanks, I'll miss you all too! (Who else would I argue with weekly? - besides my teen)
Justine Chew
59:18
I am just wondering if "appliying for exemptions" or "negotiating for exemptions" rather than "obtaining exemptions"
Justine Chew
59:30
would be better
Annebeth Lange
01:00:14
Justine, I think this is a good suggestion
Justine Chew
01:00:32
Also to clarify what we mean by "ICANN"
Phil Buckingham
01:02:14
++1 Kristine
Justine Chew
01:04:02
You can raise them @Jeff
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:04:06
new hand
Justine Chew
01:04:19
and I'll come in if you miss what I mean
christopher wilkinson
01:05:15
I am not convinced that there is ‘rapidly changing marketplace’. Most marketplaces are taking a HIT.
Paul McGrady
01:05:17
Support ICANN Org clarification
Paul McGrady
01:05:34
Support "negotiating for"
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:05:54
+1 Paul
Annebeth Lange
01:06:05
+1 Paul
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:07:23
It wasn't included in the Applicant Guidebook
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:07:34
@Kathy, ROs have been trying to deal with the 100 names for 6 years. It's good that RPMs is getting there, but it's a slow process. this suggests something more predictable and structured to solve a problem in the moment.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:07:52
I support the structure and efficiency method.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:08:07
Unlimited power to ICANN Org is not clear, structured or efficient.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:08:56
@Kathy, think of RSEP...Regsitries want to change a service - here is a transparent process.
Justine Chew
01:09:13
I do not oppose the intent behind the recommendation but I would advocate for specific mention of ICANN community participation in the process rather than referring just to "ICANN Org".
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:09:16
This could be like that - some part of the contract isn't working for a specific RO - how can we address it?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:09:43
@ Justine, every RA amendment requires public comment period.
Justine Chew
01:10:19
@Krstine, sure I think we should mention that
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:10:46
I think it's already in there somewhere. :)
Paul McGrady
01:10:51
@Kathy - your point about .brands not being in the guidebook proves the point. Although ICANN knew that .brands were coming down the pike, even if they didn't there still needs to be a method to address changes needed due to new business ideas. ICANN can't insist on stasis while the rest of the world innovates. ICANN needs a method to allow innovation.
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:11:12
Per Justine's comments (and it may not be sufficient), but to move the ball forward: "With Extensive Public Notice and Public Comment."
Justine Chew
01:11:27
@Kristine, I mean to mention it here (again)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:12:11
@Kathy, we probably don't need to add "extensive." If the public doesn't care, they don't comment. If they do, they don't need to be invited to "extensively" comment. LOL
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:13
@Justine, it is in RA , search for public comment
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:20
in it
Justine Chew
01:13:19
@Maxim, I understand, I'm trying to bring attention to this here in attempt to allay concerns of anyone who reads this recommendation.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:13:40
Oh, got it.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:15:26
This isn't a change to an application, but to the Registry Agreement.
Justine Chew
01:16:11
+1 Jeff, Kristine. I see this a different to Change Request as well.
Susan Payne
01:16:44
the whole section is about the base RA
Justine Chew
01:17:05
BASE RA
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:17:24
sure
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:28
BASE RA for next round
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:38
not for current registries
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:12
@Kathy, thye might not know yet
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:15
they
Justine Chew
01:18:30
Add "Base" before "Registry Agreement"
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:07
currently there is no such thing, it is just RA
Phil Buckingham
01:19:07
agreed Justine
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:19:54
and with that, I'm off to a conflicting call. It's been a pleasure, folks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:20:20
Thanks for joining @Kristine
Justine Chew
01:20:40
Don't be a stranger, @Kristine!
Susan Payne
01:21:31
keeping my hand up, but I won't duplicate what Martin is saying,just +1 him
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:21:56
It should be difficult...
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:22:47
suggest we replace "requirements of" with "provisions of" or "obligations under"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:15
Noted @Anne
Annebeth Lange
01:23:29
Do we make it unnecessary complicated?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:23:51
Agree on public comment period
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:27
When all registries of 2012 applied there were no restriction for RAA 2013
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:25:40
The issue of vertical integration in relation to registrars is a policy issue, isn't it?
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:51
and some local registrars just quit instead of changing RAA 2009 to RAA 2013
Paul McGrady
01:25:52
@Jeff, correct.
Paul McGrady
01:26:10
@Jeff, hopefully...
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:26
is there a guard against sudden shift to RA 2022 ?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:26:42
Please add "subject to 30 day public comment"
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:27:37
Karen Lentz has her hand up.
Paul McGrady
01:27:47
Yes to 30 day; no to pressuring applicants to have to put these in their applications
Justine Chew
01:29:17
@Paul, no pressure but encourage should be fine, no?
Kathryn Anne Kleiman
01:29:21
I agree with Karen - it seems unbounded.
Susan Payne
01:29:49
agree with Paul -a known change that an applicant wants to make - it makes sense for them to flag it in the application. But experience shows that things aren't always known at the time of application. We have also built in an expectation of the possibility to amend an agreement to address objections and clearly, on the face of it, this isn't known at application
christopher wilkinson
01:29:52
Why didn’t you just go for <.brand> TLD, in which case the whole of this debate would take place at the Second Level?
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:30:01
JEFF - would it be helpful for us to refer to the Predictability Framework here?
Karen Lentz
01:30:34
@Paul yes
Griffin Barnett
01:32:33
.FEEDBACK PICDRP
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:34:59
What is the governing law in the RA?
Griffin Barnett
01:35:32
It probably should be a Rep/Warranty in the base contract, perhaps with the ability for third parties to file compliance complaints but not via thr PICDRP
Jeffrey Neuman
01:35:34
No real governing law
Jeffrey Neuman
01:35:38
just venue
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:00
adding third parties to an RA is the way to mass extortion
Justine Chew
01:36:03
Agree with Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:37:58
The governing law is the law that applies to the parties... California/US law and wherever the registry is located
Justine Chew
01:38:09
Although to be clear, if a PICDRP panel found a fraudulent or deceptive practices then ICANN Org needs to be able to do something about it.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:38:12
@Griffin - right
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:38:27
so maybe add "under applicable law" and let everyone argue about what law applies if there is a problem?
Annebeth Lange
01:38:41
@Griffin, this is the way I interpret it too.
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:02
private attorney general is illegal here :)
Griffin Barnett
01:40:04
So the issue here is that Spec 11 already requires ROs to require in their RRAs that registrars prohibit fraudulent and deceptive practices (hence the PIC hook) but such provision was found not to apply to the RO itself
Griffin Barnett
01:41:11
So if "fraudulent and deceptive practices" is specific enough in the existing Spec 11 language it should be specific enough to apply to the RO itself
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:41:26
quite an "adventure" @Greg
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:33
@Griffin - Good point....I will bring that up after Greg
Griffin Barnett
01:42:00
And sorry I can't dial in to speak, juggling a few concurrent matters
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:02
what ICANN did was almost there - changing RA after accepting payments
Justine Chew
01:42:18
Yup, agree with Griffin yet again
Paul McGrady
01:42:21
@Greg, ha!
Griffin Barnett
01:42:47
Spec 11 Section 3(a) specifically
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:42:52
appreciate that @Griffin glad of all the contributions you can make :-)
Greg Shatan
01:43:19
Griffin - excellent point
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:11
panelists to do jurisdiction shopping is too strong
Griffin Barnett
01:44:13
We can mirror the language already in Spec 11 3(a) which is already bound by applicable law
Griffin Barnett
01:44:27
Just make it clear that the prohibited activities apply to the RO itself, not just downstream
Paul McGrady
01:44:39
+1 Maxim. "applicable law" without saying what it is provides no certainty
Griffin Barnett
01:45:05
Except it does provide a pretty limited universe of what law applies - that of ICANN and that of the RO
Paul McGrady
01:45:09
@Jeff - that is a reasonable middle ground.
Greg Shatan
01:45:16
We did have some recommendations about governing law coming out of the Jurisdiction Subgroup. But of course, it’s not yet the time to implement the work of Work Stream 2. :-(
Annebeth Lange
01:45:27
@Jeff, I agree, a good compromise
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:48
example : REgistry = country A, ICANN = US, complaint from country B , which is not A and not US … and panelist suddenly claims that there are laws of country B in power this time
Griffin Barnett
01:46:29
Well then that's a problem of the panelist applying wrong choice of law and should be appealable on that basis
Maxim Alzoba
01:46:48
are there any kind of protection from the rouge panelists?
Griffin Barnett
01:46:56
No, but maybe the mauve ones
Griffin Barnett
01:46:59
That is a color joke
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:47:38
:-)
Griffin Barnett
01:47:58
In seriousness, I'm not sure off top of head what the appeal mechanism would be, say in a PICDRP...ICANN Complaints Office perhaps?
Griffin Barnett
01:48:02
Would need to look into that
Greg Shatan
01:48:22
Griffin, was that an off-color joke?
Griffin Barnett
01:48:30
on- and off-color
Annebeth Lange
01:48:31
Not surprising from the governmental side, Jeff. They need time.
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:45
it is a weird way to address GNSO PDP, should be done via the GNSO Council
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:09
extension of the current timeline might lead to a termination of a PDP , and is extremely dangerous
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:51:11
QUESTION: What does the GAC mean by its reference to the need for "discussion at ICANN68"?
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:06
we do can not prevent GAC from having a discussion
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:33
Anne I believe they were planning on furthering their work at the next meeting
Paul McGrady
01:52:44
@Anne - i think it means they expected to react to this in their Communique from that meeting
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:45
to arrange timly input
Julie Hedlund
01:54:17
@Christopher — Jeff has posted the letter to the list.
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:58
we have not been there
Alexander Schubert
01:55:09
We launch them in 2 to 3 years
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:32
@Alexander, announcing is not equal to launching
Justine Chew
01:55:32
Maybe the concern arises from "having draft final report ready by ICANN 68" being obscured by the "public comment period being 23 July to 1 Septermber (with possible extension)"? We are not bringing forward the public comment period are we?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:56:30
@Justine - Yes we would
Annebeth Lange
01:56:34
Kuiala Lumpur will not be a F2F meeting, so that is what we have to plan for
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:53
+1 , it is going to be even more virtual than 67
Tom Dale
01:56:55
Timezone for ICANN68 not yet clear.
Julie Bisland
01:56:59
NEXT CALL:Tuesday, 14 April 2020 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:01
no central team this time
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:14
bye all
Julie Hedlund
01:57:14
Tuesday, 14 April at 0300 UTC
Julie Bisland
01:57:17
Thursday, 16 April 2020 at 20:00 UTC for 120 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:19
good night
Justine Chew
01:57:21
@Jeff, can you please explain in the next call about bringiing forward the PC period? Thanks.
Griffin Barnett
01:57:23
Thanks Jeff, all
Annebeth Lange
01:57:24
Bye all
Poncelet Ileleji
01:57:24
Exactly @Annebeth
Greg Shatan
01:57:32
My 11 pm call is next..
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:57:36
Chag pesach sameach!
Alexander Schubert
01:57:40
bye