Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Maxim Alzoba
29:35
hello all
Andrea Glandon
30:11
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
32:36
Develop a few discussion points out of the Comments received
Julie Hedlund
32:37
Link to Topic 20: Application Change Requests: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jS1m66MxbJRWhhQQTZBpyZnIuWm4ncpJFkiWz5qmASc/edit?usp=sharing
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:43
'Trademarked term AND a descriptor word that is not in itself necessarily part of a Trade mark
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:38
That is the proposed intention Yes @Jim
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
38:45
an edge case of course
Paul McGrady
38:52
Kinda. The term would be taken from a statement of goods or services for a registration that they do have.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:12
Yes @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
39:52
from their list Registration class
Paul McGrady
40:16
So for example, .DELTA could be given to the airline and the faucet company could change its string to .DELTAFAUCETS but not .DELTACELLPHONE
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:19
listed
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:31
Correct
Annebeth Lange
40:49
If they all agree, I suppose
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
40:55
or in Australia: .DELTATAPS
Susan.Payne
40:58
well that was the agreed intent (as is clear from the rationale), the point is that this should be expressed in the recommendation (or at a minimum in the implementation guidance) any not just in the rationale, where it might be overlooked years down the line
Jim Prendergast
41:24
ok - that makes sense
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:32
Yes @Susan
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
44:00
hand up
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
46:25
Remember we don't need to specifically respond (but we do need to consider) Cpmments received
Karen Lentz
46:31
@Anne there will be some feedback mechanism during the Operational Design Phase but not established in concept paper what form that takes
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
46:35
No. That's beyond our remit.
Karen Lentz
46:49
And also recall that Op Design Phase happens before the policy recommendations are approved
Karen Lentz
47:19
The comment mechanism on application changes would happen during operations
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
47:35
thanks
Elaine Pruis
53:12
Are there any other exceptions or privileges for .brands beside this
Martin Sutton
57:04
so this can be figured out during IRT?
Martin Sutton
57:46
+1 Jeff
Annebeth Lange
57:58
+1
Annebeth Lange
58:07
Sounds sensible
Susan.Payne
58:07
makes sense jeff
Paul McGrady
59:40
That seems reasonable. The point is to avoid unnecessary auctions that put ICANN in the very weird position of "selling" a trademark term registry to the brand owner(s).
Steve Chan
01:00:55
Google doc here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YJJDm9mdmSssXav1P08Uhw6Ofyp0KtfTX8QSRChrVNI/edit#gid=327262608
Kurt Pritz
01:05:07
Did the SSAC bring up the same issue?
Elaine Pruis
01:05:30
Agree, “intended use” is a problem
Jim Prendergast
01:05:47
+ ! susan - it comes up in a few places
Jim Prendergast
01:05:56
that's hould have been +1
Jim Prendergast
01:06:35
@Kurt I think you are right on SSAC
Kurt Pritz
01:06:41
I remember the SSAC was fairly persuasive on the intended use issue
Elaine Pruis
01:07:26
Others may have amazing ideas, and we may have had bad ideas
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:07:44
the general Intended Use Yes so we appear to be going to explore that as a meta issue further not just this sub part
Susan.Payne
01:09:20
@Cherly, but if we were to dispense with the intended use concept as a meta issue then I would be supportive of the carve out for Brands that the RySG is proposing
Martin Sutton
01:10:05
based on the comments received overall, there’s no convincing argument to amend the recommendations in the draft Final Report
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:10:12
So the discussion is critical then @Susan
Elaine Pruis
01:10:42
Carve out for brands seems like a reasonable compromise
Jim Prendergast
01:11:10
The fact that intended use has popped up as an issue in comments throughout the draft recommendations means its probably something we need to address
Annebeth Lange
01:11:10
+1 Elaine
Elaine Pruis
01:11:22
harm: intentions are hard to prove
Katrin Ohlmer
01:12:24
Do we have any statistics about the harm about allowing singulars and plurals or is it more a "feeling"?
Kurt Pritz
01:12:35
& intentions can be changed
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:13:09
I think mouse and mice is okay as a plural because they are two different words with different meanings. However, do you mean the four legged mouse or the one you use on your laptop?
Paul McGrady
01:13:47
https://mouseschocolates.com/
Greg Shatan
01:14:03
Donna, that’s a question of “intended use.” :-)
Susan.Payne
01:14:15
@Katrin, I think we have previously discussed whether to allow both singular/plurals way back before the initial report and overwhelmingly the support was not to allow both
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:14:23
Exactly Greg
Martin Sutton
01:15:09
@Paul - they are closed until Dec!
Greg Shatan
01:15:22
.person and .people is another interesting one....
Katrin Ohlmer
01:15:26
@Susan: Even if there has been a discussion, it does not substitue a solid statistic, right?
Marc Trachtenberg, Greenberg Traurig, Chicago
01:17:26
Are we saying now that we need to have actual statistical evidence of harm to prohibit or restrict something?
Marc Trachtenberg, Greenberg Traurig, Chicago
01:18:35
I don't think that they should be able to co-exist. But I am hearing people calling for actual evidence of harm
Katrin Ohlmer
01:19:22
I'm not aware of any harm allowing Singulars and plurals.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:20:33
If there is harm singulars and plurals should not have been delegated back in 2012.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:51
they have quite simple process, but for couple of letters
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:02
it is a registry policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:32
so depending of the text of the policy it could be enforced by registry or registry and registrar e. t. c.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:23:52
thanks Maxim
Jamie Baxter
01:29:43
you made it make sense Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:29:53
:-)
Elaine Pruis
01:31:22
Who decides what is an acronym?
Kurt Pritz
01:31:56
Idk
Elaine Pruis
01:32:03
Back to intended use
Elaine Pruis
01:32:18
@kurt lol
Martin Sutton
01:32:24
About TLD With 60 years in the industry, TLD is a leading industrial group dedicated to the design, assembly, distribution and after-sales support of Aviation Ground Support Equipment globally.
Elaine Pruis
01:33:19
A registry can have an intended use but may not be able to do much about type of content displayed on their domains.
Paul McGrady
01:34:26
Registries certainly can have such rules. .Biz has one.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:34:48
thx @Paul
Kurt Pritz
01:35:01
Biz is not restricted and registrars by and large will not carry restricted TLDs
Elaine Pruis
01:35:41
I’m nervous about how subjective this is...
Susan.Payne
01:35:55
they don't have to be restricted per se, they simply have to require the registrants to abide by the intent, at risk of cancellation of the domain if they don't
Kurt Pritz
01:36:18
Does every applicant have to state an intended purpose in case of contention based on plural/singular?
Jeffrey Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:37:02
@Kurt - Yes. They had to do so in 2012 as well (Question 18)
Jeffrey Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:37:13
It wasn't scored, but they had to answer it
Elaine Pruis
01:37:50
No requirement to adhere to q18 statements. And Not enforceable
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:38:11
I don't think so Anne. It would be in the acceptable use policy of the registry, but I don't see that it needs to be required in a Voluntary PIC.'
Katrin Ohlmer
01:38:11
+1 Elaine
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:39:43
@Elaine, that's right the 'purpose' was a requirement included because of GAC advice. So from here on in we are saying that the 'purpose' or 'intent', but you won't know that at the time you submit your application.
Jamie Baxter
01:40:21
What happens if one applicant wants to stick to intended use and the other applicant wants to get in contention? which route is taken?
Elaine Pruis
01:40:38
Intended use is only a cat-walk turn from a beauty contest
Kurt Pritz
01:41:34
Jamie’s point is, it could be a mess and we cannot anticipate every scenario
Jamie Baxter
01:41:39
what if there are only two appliants
Jamie Baxter
01:42:07
exactly
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:42:24
The answer to Question 23 of the application may also be relevant. Intended services.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:42:38
For this to work, every applicant needs to identify its 'intended' purpose at the outset and be willing to be held to it if it ends up in a contention set.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:29
Yup
Annebeth Lange
01:43:52
Yes, but then we have the problem with enforcing it
Kurt Pritz
01:44:21
This seems to be another level of complexity that will deter new applicants, difficulty in evaluations, and litigious enforcement.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:44:31
@Annebeth, we have a problem enforcing and create complications with resolving contention sets.
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:44:38
Applicants won't know at the time whether they are in contention so procedures may need to be supplemental at the time of the contention set determination.
Marc Trachtenberg, Greenberg Traurig, Chicago
01:45:01
+ to Kurt re increasing complexity = disputes and litigation
Elaine Pruis
01:45:07
When do we decide this jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:45:13
+1 to Kurt
Elaine Pruis
01:45:22
Ok thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:34
List with feedback befoe the next call if possible
Justine Chew
01:46:04
@jeff, you forgot Rubens :)
Elaine Pruis
01:48:32
Please make the text bigget
Steve Chan
01:49:01
@Elaine, better?
Elaine Pruis
01:50:00
Yes, thanks much
Paul McGrady
01:51:29
I volunteered by email, but am volunteering here to be on the small group to see if we can address these comments.
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:51:45
I'd like to volunteer too
Elaine Pruis
01:52:37
It would be great to have some volunteers that have not weighed in on auctions already
Paul McGrady
01:52:54
Sorry about the earlier full group send.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:56
The work needs to be strictly time limited for fast turn around
Jim Prendergast
01:53:04
Seems like everyone going to ICANN Auction of Last Resort addresses all the concerns but for those who want losers to get paid. But Ill expand in small group if allowed.
Steve Chan
01:53:22
Volunteering for the small group - Sending to Emily, Julie and/or Steve works…
Elaine Pruis
01:54:13
Jeff would you restate the purpose… is it to address these comments, or make new recommendations?
Elaine Pruis
01:54:15
Or both
Jim Prendergast
01:54:16
I do appreciate ORG flagging stuff they find unworkable
Elaine Pruis
01:55:26
Thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:55:30
Thanks everyone lots covered today (were staying pretty well on track atm :-) Keep up the good work...
Andrea Glandon
01:56:04
03 UTC
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:23
Good luck USA
Jim Prendergast
01:56:26
grab the popcorn
Paul McGrady
01:56:29
9pm Sears Tower Time on Wednesday night. Can't wait!
Annebeth Lange
01:56:31
Thanks all and bye for now. I wish US good luck with the election!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:56:35
Bye for now
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:56:37
Jeff you are right!
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:37
no comments