Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
26:19
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Rebecca Tushnet
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.
Julie Hedlund
32:49
@Rebecca: Noted.
Ariel Liang
33:16
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743
Susan.Payne
34:32
sorry to be late, overrunning call
Cyntia King (USA)
35:42
Kirikos wrote that on every proposal......
Paul Tattersfield
38:16
double mute
Kathy Kleiman
38:18
Ariel, could you post the link again? Tx!
Ariel Liang
38:40
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743
Julie Hedlund
38:40
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=31813743
Kathy Kleiman
38:56
Tx and tx!
Griffin Barnett
40:34
Agree with Phil
Ariel Liang
41:48
Hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:51
I think the themes Phil noted are good from this rec and Q6, so agree with his answer to Zak
Cyntia King (USA)
41:57
+1 @Phil
Kathy Kleiman
42:43
no
Philip Corwin
43:19
Agree that consolidation could make sense
Griffin Barnett
43:55
Couldn’t “what is the clear and convincing standard of proof” be included in an FAQ…
Griffin Barnett
44:06
Wouldn’t preclude directing those to examiners, among other parties
Paul Tattersfield
44:21
Perhaps they follow each other
Ariel Liang
44:32
Joint in sequence :)
Kathy Kleiman
44:36
this is complainants and respondent focused
Griffin Barnett
44:55
I don’t feel that strongly… in sequence but separate seems fine I guess
Kathy Kleiman
45:04
support Phil's summary...
Griffin Barnett
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
Griffin Barnett
47:46
Cost would be borne primarily by ICANN Org in such case
Cyntia King (USA)
49:16
I think this is pretty straightforward & agree w/ @Griffin that we should let the IRT decide teh specifics.
Philip Corwin
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
Kathy Kleiman
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.
Renee Fossen (Forum)
51:17
Agree
Griffin Barnett
53:13
Also a good point Cynthia - I suspect providers could share any existing materials in this regard as a useful starting point
Griffin Barnett
53:24
Which the IRT could use to complete the uniform FAQa
Kathy Kleiman
53:30
but IRT should reach out to all parties
Kathy Kleiman
53:40
They may or may not be represented on the IRT
Griffin Barnett
53:48
I think part of IRT would be public comment opportunities too
Kathy Kleiman
53:53
+1
Griffin Barnett
54:24
Sounds good
Paul Tattersfield
54:30
fine
Jason Schaeffer
54:30
Agreed
Griffin Barnett
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
David McAuley (Verisign)
58:13
Did you mention parties giving such notice Zak - I recall comments along those lines
Zak Muscovitch
58:48
Ahh, indeed I may have overlooked that, David. Will mention it thank you.
Griffin Barnett
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
Kathy Kleiman
59:46
Huh?
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:05
Isn't this about checking with other Providers?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:11
i see Hermes, lego, and bc suggest that parties do this
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:14
Not about registries and registrars.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:02:18
@Phil - but how much info can a registry/registrar ctually provide about a concurrent proceeding?
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:42
first come first served?
Cyntia King (USA)
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.
Griffin Barnett
01:04:07
@Zak - I believe there is a requirement to make that representation in the URS (and UDRP) complaint
Rebecca Tushnet
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?
Paul Tattersfield
01:06:04
if it's the same party URS & UDRP they should know surely?
Griffin Barnett
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
Griffin Barnett
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
Cyntia King (USA)
01:07:44
+1Griffin
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:02
do we have any evidence of a problem?
Paul Tattersfield
01:08:10
different parties first come first served
Cyntia King (USA)
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.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:36
could hear at first then it went bad
Philip Corwin
01:09:43
Kathy's audio was distorted
Julie Hedlund
01:10:23
Looks like we lost Kathy
Paul Tattersfield
01:11:07
@Cynthia wouldn't the court lock be shown in the WHOIS so the party should see it was locked before filing?
Griffin Barnett
01:11:39
Quasi co-chair?
Griffin Barnett
01:11:42
Is that a thing?
Philip Corwin
01:12:37
Sometimes I am a queasy co-chair ;-)
Griffin Barnett
01:13:11
Hand up
Cyntia King (USA)
01:13:17
@Paul - No.
Paul Tattersfield
01:14:11
Thanks Cynthia - why not?
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:15
Great!
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:39
because you were tying in the chat :-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:45
typing
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:06
agree
Cyntia King (USA)
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.
Paul Tattersfield
01:15:53
so it wasn't a URS issue?
Paul McGrady
01:17:27
We strive for adequacy!
Ariel Liang
01:17:32
Got it
Julie Hedlund
01:17:38
Got it — thanks Zak and all
Julie Hedlund
01:17:58
I’ll rely on the transcript for notes :-)
Griffin Barnett
01:18:20
Lol Zak
Ariel Liang
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.
Cyntia King (USA)
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.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:46
And none of them responded
Griffin Barnett
01:21:52
+1 Renee
Philip Corwin
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:55
Agree with Renee
Susan.Payne
01:22:18
I agree with Renee - we asked for RO feedback and there is none
Griffin Barnett
01:22:28
We need to put Q8 to bed
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:34
nope
Griffin Barnett
01:22:35
Nothing to refer
Susan.Payne
01:22:38
no
Philip Corwin
01:22:41
Nada
Cyntia King (USA)
01:22:59
Nah
Philip Corwin
01:22:59
Nyet ;-)
David McAuley (Verisign)
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
Julie Hedlund
01:27:27
we’re in the red :-)
Griffin Barnett
01:27:47
Yes we get that commenters believe these fees are too high for certain groups
Paul McGrady
01:29:57
Binary y/n doesn't really yield much to do. This is more like an FYI for the WG, right?
Susan.Payne
01:30:43
+1 Phil!
Griffin Barnett
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)
David McAuley (Verisign)
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
Griffin Barnett
01:32:20
The idea of a potential waiver may be worth passing along
Susan.Payne
01:32:37
agree Griffin. late filing requires significant additional work for the providers and so the fee is to cover that
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:49
+1 Phil/David
Griffin Barnett
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)
Paul Tattersfield
01:33:36
sounds good
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:41
yes
Jason Schaeffer
01:33:42
Good Zak
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:33:44
agree
Jay Chapman
01:33:48
yes
Griffin Barnett
01:33:48
Fine here
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:53
moving fast!
Griffin Barnett
01:35:16
Can we scroll down to the comments?
Philip Corwin
01:36:46
I think we just pass these responses along, as we have no recommendation to increase penalties that it relates to.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:37:10
That could make sense, Phil, especially given the "is there new info here?" standard.
Paul McGrady
01:37:31
Boo!! I was looking forward to my Swan Song as co-chair...
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:32
I agree that if we run the clock today it will be fine to kick this along to full WG
Griffin Barnett
01:39:39
Sorry Kathy but there are many comments about possible penalties for abusive respondents
Griffin Barnett
01:39:47
I don’t think we as the sub-team can dismiss those
Philip Corwin
01:39:48
I don't see these comments leafing to any consensus recommendation
Philip Corwin
01:39:59
leading
Griffin Barnett
01:40:19
Again - are we getting into the merits of these comments? I thought that was not what we are doing?
Paul Tattersfield
01:40:52
Is there a published list of penalties?
Griffin Barnett
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
Philip Corwin
01:41:07
Won't abusive counsel be penalized by losing business once word gets out that they are wasting clients' $?
Griffin Barnett
01:41:35
Phil I agree that it is somewhat self-policing
Paul Tattersfield
01:42:11
Susan +1
Philip Corwin
01:42:33
Agree with Susan
Griffin Barnett
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
Paul Tattersfield
01:43:17
I think it's a poor process issue Phil, but we are where we are
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:00
law firms
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:10
I thought that was a fair summary
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:48
Lest we run into end-of-time, we will need to applaud our two co-chairs!
Philip Corwin
01:44:59
I think we just report that we received strong and divergent views in response to the question.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:07
agree with Phil - there are some one-off comments in here that might get discussion at full WG
Philip Corwin
01:46:12
Methinks we are overcomplicating this
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:12
Agree with Phil
Griffin Barnett
01:46:29
I’m fine with Phil’s approach too if that’s the route we want to go
Paul McGrady
01:47:34
Agree with Zak. Nice and factual. Calls the question and answers to the WG's attention.
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:45
fine
Susan.Payne
01:47:59
sure
Philip Corwin
01:48:02
Yay! It's a wrap for SGB!!
Jason Schaeffer
01:48:07
Congratulations!
Paul McGrady
01:48:07
Congrats Zak! Great call.
Susan.Payne
01:48:08
Yay team
Griffin Barnett
01:48:17
I am waiting for those t-shirts Paul
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:23
The good ship sub B is approaching the pier
Paul McGrady
01:48:34
@Griffin - on the way!
Paul Tattersfield
01:48:38
Thnaks Zac, good call
Griffin Barnett
01:48:43
Cool, I am a size M :)
Griffin Barnett
01:48:46
haha
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:48:47
yes, thanks Zak and Paul
Jay Chapman
01:48:52
Yes, hats off to Paul & Zak
Philip Corwin
01:48:52
Great thanks to Zak and Paul for co-chairing
Griffin Barnett
01:49:03
Many thanks Zak and Paul for co-chairing this group
Griffin Barnett
01:49:09
And to staff as always
Paul McGrady
01:49:19
Thanks Kathy!
Kathy Kleiman
01:49:33
Tx you!!
Jay Chapman
01:49:39
Thanks, all
Paul Tattersfield
01:49:40
Thanks all bye
Zak Muscovitch
01:49:41
Many thanks everyone. Thank you staff
Griffin Barnett
01:49:42
Bye all