Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

I apologize, but my hearing (not the tech) is really bad today. I may need to ask for something to be repeated in chat.

@Rebecca: Noted.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

sorry to be late, overrunning call

Kirikos wrote that on every proposal......

double mute

Ariel, could you post the link again? Tx!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

Tx and tx!

Agree with Phil

Hand up

I think the themes Phil noted are good from this rec and Q6, so agree with his answer to Zak

+1 @Phil

no

Agree that consolidation could make sense

Couldn’t “what is the clear and convincing standard of proof” be included in an FAQ…

Wouldn’t preclude directing those to examiners, among other parties

Perhaps they follow each other

Joint in sequence :)

this is complainants and respondent focused

I don’t feel that strongly… in sequence but separate seems fine I guess

support Phil's summary...

Seems to me for Q6 that this could be done as part of the IRT, with staff (Org) preparing materials with input from providers (participating in the IRT directly or via consultation) and oversight/input from other IRT members from the community

Cost would be borne primarily by ICANN Org in such case

I think this is pretty straightforward & agree w/ @Griffin that we should let the IRT decide teh specifics.

IRT is run by ICANN staff, and will likely include providers and community members -- so that would seem to cover all the important bases

I like this idea - what we share with the WG the idea of ICANN Org holding the pen - with Provider and public input.

Agree

Also a good point Cynthia - I suspect providers could share any existing materials in this regard as a useful starting point

Which the IRT could use to complete the uniform FAQa

but IRT should reach out to all parties

They may or may not be represented on the IRT

I think part of IRT would be public comment opportunities too

+1

Sounds good

fine

Agreed

The problem with relying on a registry or registrar to check this is that URS applies generally to registries while UDRP applies generally to registrars in terms of who performs the lock

Did you mention parties giving such notice Zak - I recall comments along those lines

Ahh, indeed I may have overlooked that, David. Will mention it thank you.

The idea of a unique EPP status code to serve this purpose is an interesting one that I don’t think has been discussed before.. not sure what the process would be for implementing that

Huh?

Isn't this about checking with other Providers?

i see Hermes, lego, and bc suggest that parties do this

Not about registries and registrars.

@Phil - but how much info can a registry/registrar ctually provide about a concurrent proceeding?

first come first served?

Is he lock the result of a successful court action? Is it the result of an ongoing URS/UDRP still being decided? These ditictions could make a difference.

@Zak - I believe there is a requirement to make that representation in the URS (and UDRP) complaint

Can I ask how often they tell you about a pending UDRP etc. v. how often you only find out when you find out the domain is already locked?

if it's the same party URS & UDRP they should know surely?

Yes - I think the issue is more that some unrelated party may have some other pending action…. I think this situation is fairly uncommon but I think it has happened on at least a couple of occasions

E.g. one party files a URS and another party had filed a UDRP involving the same domain in a situation where these unrelated parties happen to have similar trademarks to which the domain related

+1Griffin

do we have any evidence of a problem?

different parties first come first served

In my experience: a successful court case against a TM infringer w/ many domains has locked the portfolio. Then another party UDRPs the domain infrining their mark. This was the situation w/ the Jeff Baron potfolio.

could hear at first then it went bad

Kathy's audio was distorted

Looks like we lost Kathy

@Cynthia wouldn't the court lock be shown in the WHOIS so the party should see it was locked before filing?

Quasi co-chair?

Is that a thing?

Sometimes I am a queasy co-chair ;-)

Hand up

@Paul - No.

Thanks Cynthia - why not?

Great!

because you were tying in the chat :-)

typing

agree

It did not show in the Whois the domains were transferred to a 3rd party holding company managing the sale of some of the disputed domains.

so it wasn't a URS issue?

We strive for adequacy!

Got it

Got it — thanks Zak and all

I’ll rely on the transcript for notes :-)

Lol Zak

Context:HSTS preloading is a function built into the browser whereby a global list of hosts enforce the use of HTTPS ONLY on their site. This removes the opportunity an attacker has to intercept and tamper with redirects over HTTP.Suspending the HSTS-preloaded domain name has been problematic. FORUM reported that the suspension of HSTS-preloaded domain name requires it to obtain SSL certificates. Despite the fact that there are free SSL certificates available, FORUM will incur additional expenses to monitor and renew the certificates manually. The process will be further complicated if the Registry does not communicate regarding the status of the suspension. FORUM has been working with ICANN org to resolve this issue.To better understand the issue, the Working Group seeks public comment from Registry Operators, which carry out the URS obligation of suspending disputed domain names, including the HSTS-preloaded domain names.

@P Tattersfield - the lock was pursuant to a court case, which prevented any URS or UDRP filings for the duration of the court proceeding. TM holders didn't know why they couldn't pursue a URS/UDRP.

And none of them responded

+1 Renee

To the extent this is an issue, it is a technical issue rather than a policy issue. I don't see any role for this WG, given the lack of registry response and the info that it is being adressed

Agree with Renee

I agree with Renee - we asked for RO feedback and there is none

We need to put Q8 to bed

nope

Nothing to refer

no

Nada

Nah

Nyet ;-)

At these amounts I think we would be micro-managing if we do anything other than pass this information along as is

we’re in the red :-)

Yes we get that commenters believe these fees are too high for certain groups

Binary y/n doesn't really yield much to do. This is more like an FYI for the WG, right?

+1 Phil!

Ultimately I think we need to look at what the fees are meant to cover…. If they represent that actual reasonable costs of providers in addressing late filings etc. then not sure we can insist on a lower fee; thes seems especially the case for re-examination fees which already represent a second bite at the apple where there is no fee for a respondent in the original proceeding (except where the 15 domain threshold is met, which is rare as we have seen)

Phil is saying what I would have - we can float the idea of waiver at the full WG raher than assume some can't pay

The idea of a potential waiver may be worth passing along

agree Griffin. late filing requires significant additional work for the providers and so the fee is to cover that

+1 Phil/David

also based on the numbers we’ve seen there are very few cases in which a late response is filed (bc it is more likely for no response to be filed ever)

sounds good

yes

Good Zak

agree

yes

Fine here

moving fast!

Can we scroll down to the comments?

I think we just pass these responses along, as we have no recommendation to increase penalties that it relates to.

That could make sense, Phil, especially given the "is there new info here?" standard.

Boo!! I was looking forward to my Swan Song as co-chair...

I agree that if we run the clock today it will be fine to kick this along to full WG

Sorry Kathy but there are many comments about possible penalties for abusive respondents

I don’t think we as the sub-team can dismiss those

I don't see these comments leafing to any consensus recommendation

leading

Again - are we getting into the merits of these comments? I thought that was not what we are doing?

Is there a published list of penalties?

I agree Phil - probably not any consensus level ideas here, but I thought our task was to identify items for the WG

Won't abusive counsel be penalized by losing business once word gets out that they are wasting clients' $?

Phil I agree that it is somewhat self-policing

Susan +1

Agree with Susan

Why even editorialize it like that Zak? Just say - we have comments in X and Y categories and the WG should consider whether to do anything more with that

I think it's a poor process issue Phil, but we are where we are

law firms

I thought that was a fair summary

Lest we run into end-of-time, we will need to applaud our two co-chairs!

I think we just report that we received strong and divergent views in response to the question.

agree with Phil - there are some one-off comments in here that might get discussion at full WG

Methinks we are overcomplicating this

Agree with Phil

I’m fine with Phil’s approach too if that’s the route we want to go

Agree with Zak. Nice and factual. Calls the question and answers to the WG's attention.

fine

sure

Yay! It's a wrap for SGB!!

Congratulations!

Congrats Zak! Great call.

Yay team

I am waiting for those t-shirts Paul

The good ship sub B is approaching the pier

@Griffin - on the way!

Thnaks Zac, good call

Cool, I am a size M :)

haha

yes, thanks Zak and Paul

Yes, hats off to Paul & Zak

Great thanks to Zak and Paul for co-chairing

Many thanks Zak and Paul for co-chairing this group

And to staff as always

Thanks Kathy!

Tx you!!

Thanks, all

Thanks all bye

Many thanks everyone. Thank you staff

Bye all