
26:19
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

32:37
I apologize, but my hearing (not the tech) is really bad today. I may need to ask for something to be repeated in chat.

32:49
@Rebecca: Noted.

33:16
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

34:32
sorry to be late, overrunning call

35:42
Kirikos wrote that on every proposal......

38:16
double mute

38:18
Ariel, could you post the link again? Tx!

38:40
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

38:40
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743

38:56
Tx and tx!

40:34
Agree with Phil

41:48
Hand up

41:51
I think the themes Phil noted are good from this rec and Q6, so agree with his answer to Zak

41:57
+1 @Phil

42:43
no

43:19
Agree that consolidation could make sense

43:55
Couldn’t “what is the clear and convincing standard of proof” be included in an FAQ…

44:06
Wouldn’t preclude directing those to examiners, among other parties

44:21
Perhaps they follow each other

44:32
Joint in sequence :)

44:36
this is complainants and respondent focused

44:55
I don’t feel that strongly… in sequence but separate seems fine I guess

45:04
support Phil's summary...

47:30
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

47:46
Cost would be borne primarily by ICANN Org in such case

49:16
I think this is pretty straightforward & agree w/ @Griffin that we should let the IRT decide teh specifics.

50:21
IRT is run by ICANN staff, and will likely include providers and community members -- so that would seem to cover all the important bases

51:13
I like this idea - what we share with the WG the idea of ICANN Org holding the pen - with Provider and public input.

51:17
Agree

53:13
Also a good point Cynthia - I suspect providers could share any existing materials in this regard as a useful starting point

53:24
Which the IRT could use to complete the uniform FAQa

53:30
but IRT should reach out to all parties

53:40
They may or may not be represented on the IRT

53:48
I think part of IRT would be public comment opportunities too

53:53
+1

54:24
Sounds good

54:30
fine

54:30
Agreed

57:53
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

58:13
Did you mention parties giving such notice Zak - I recall comments along those lines

58:48
Ahh, indeed I may have overlooked that, David. Will mention it thank you.

59:41
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

59:46
Huh?

01:00:05
Isn't this about checking with other Providers?

01:00:11
i see Hermes, lego, and bc suggest that parties do this

01:00:14
Not about registries and registrars.

01:02:18
@Phil - but how much info can a registry/registrar ctually provide about a concurrent proceeding?

01:02:42
first come first served?

01:03:10
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.

01:04:07
@Zak - I believe there is a requirement to make that representation in the URS (and UDRP) complaint

01:04:38
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?

01:06:04
if it's the same party URS & UDRP they should know surely?

01:06:56
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

01:07:30
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

01:07:44
+1Griffin

01:08:02
do we have any evidence of a problem?

01:08:10
different parties first come first served

01:09:18
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.

01:09:36
could hear at first then it went bad

01:09:43
Kathy's audio was distorted

01:10:23
Looks like we lost Kathy

01:11:07
@Cynthia wouldn't the court lock be shown in the WHOIS so the party should see it was locked before filing?

01:11:39
Quasi co-chair?

01:11:42
Is that a thing?

01:12:37
Sometimes I am a queasy co-chair ;-)

01:13:11
Hand up

01:13:17
@Paul - No.

01:14:11
Thanks Cynthia - why not?

01:14:15
Great!

01:14:39
because you were tying in the chat :-)

01:14:45
typing

01:15:06
agree

01:15:11
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.

01:15:53
so it wasn't a URS issue?

01:17:27
We strive for adequacy!

01:17:32
Got it

01:17:38
Got it — thanks Zak and all

01:17:58
I’ll rely on the transcript for notes :-)

01:18:20
Lol Zak

01:18:38
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.

01:20:05
@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.

01:21:46
And none of them responded

01:21:52
+1 Renee

01:21:55
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

01:21:55
Agree with Renee

01:22:18
I agree with Renee - we asked for RO feedback and there is none

01:22:28
We need to put Q8 to bed

01:22:34
nope

01:22:35
Nothing to refer

01:22:38
no

01:22:41
Nada

01:22:59
Nah

01:22:59
Nyet ;-)

01:27:25
At these amounts I think we would be micro-managing if we do anything other than pass this information along as is

01:27:27
we’re in the red :-)

01:27:47
Yes we get that commenters believe these fees are too high for certain groups

01:29:57
Binary y/n doesn't really yield much to do. This is more like an FYI for the WG, right?

01:30:43
+1 Phil!

01:31:33
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)

01:32:01
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

01:32:20
The idea of a potential waiver may be worth passing along

01:32:37
agree Griffin. late filing requires significant additional work for the providers and so the fee is to cover that

01:32:49
+1 Phil/David

01:33:14
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)

01:33:36
sounds good

01:33:41
yes

01:33:42
Good Zak

01:33:44
agree

01:33:48
yes

01:33:48
Fine here

01:33:53
moving fast!

01:35:16
Can we scroll down to the comments?

01:36:46
I think we just pass these responses along, as we have no recommendation to increase penalties that it relates to.

01:37:10
That could make sense, Phil, especially given the "is there new info here?" standard.

01:37:31
Boo!! I was looking forward to my Swan Song as co-chair...

01:37:32
I agree that if we run the clock today it will be fine to kick this along to full WG

01:39:39
Sorry Kathy but there are many comments about possible penalties for abusive respondents

01:39:47
I don’t think we as the sub-team can dismiss those

01:39:48
I don't see these comments leafing to any consensus recommendation

01:39:59
leading

01:40:19
Again - are we getting into the merits of these comments? I thought that was not what we are doing?

01:40:52
Is there a published list of penalties?

01:40:54
I agree Phil - probably not any consensus level ideas here, but I thought our task was to identify items for the WG

01:41:07
Won't abusive counsel be penalized by losing business once word gets out that they are wasting clients' $?

01:41:35
Phil I agree that it is somewhat self-policing

01:42:11
Susan +1

01:42:33
Agree with Susan

01:43:16
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

01:43:17
I think it's a poor process issue Phil, but we are where we are

01:44:00
law firms

01:44:10
I thought that was a fair summary

01:44:48
Lest we run into end-of-time, we will need to applaud our two co-chairs!

01:44:59
I think we just report that we received strong and divergent views in response to the question.

01:46:07
agree with Phil - there are some one-off comments in here that might get discussion at full WG

01:46:12
Methinks we are overcomplicating this

01:46:12
Agree with Phil

01:46:29
I’m fine with Phil’s approach too if that’s the route we want to go

01:47:34
Agree with Zak. Nice and factual. Calls the question and answers to the WG's attention.

01:47:45
fine

01:47:59
sure

01:48:02
Yay! It's a wrap for SGB!!

01:48:07
Congratulations!

01:48:07
Congrats Zak! Great call.

01:48:08
Yay team

01:48:17
I am waiting for those t-shirts Paul

01:48:23
The good ship sub B is approaching the pier

01:48:34
@Griffin - on the way!

01:48:38
Thnaks Zac, good call

01:48:43
Cool, I am a size M :)

01:48:46
haha

01:48:47
yes, thanks Zak and Paul

01:48:52
Yes, hats off to Paul & Zak

01:48:52
Great thanks to Zak and Paul for co-chairing

01:49:03
Many thanks Zak and Paul for co-chairing this group

01:49:09
And to staff as always

01:49:19
Thanks Kathy!

01:49:33
Tx you!!

01:49:39
Thanks, all

01:49:40
Thanks all bye

01:49:41
Many thanks everyone. Thank you staff

01:49:42
Bye all