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

hello all

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit

"ICANN Arcana" I LOVE it!

Ariel, what page is that on screen material on?

We are starting on page 1

Thanks

Haha Paul

It is a separate doc just for the overarching data recommendation

Posting again here for those just joined: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit

What is meant by "abused" labels? I probably should know, but drawing a blank.

@Jeff, basically it’s TM+50

Ah. We should drop a footnote on the definition of that to be precise.

good point

@Jeff: Thanks. Staff have noted this action item.

Correct, Jeff - so we were being inclusive for purposes of comprehensiveness and for the WG’s discussion.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-recs-08sep18-en.pdf

I have concerns will removing anything at this late stage without further review

Susan +100

@Paul - Understand your views and trust me I am very much for collection of data. But we really need to be specific with our recommendations.

Who is the "sponsor" of this additional recommendation?

@Paul T. - I don't think it is any more unreasonable to remove something at this late date than it is to include this entire Recommendation at this late date.

CCT #8 (survey of registrants), as one example, suggests gathering both objective and subjective data - hard to know what that means

@David - Good point. That recommendation is more for SubPro than for RPM

I would consider removing CCT recommendation #888888 and asking SubPro if they include it.

oops #8, my keyboard is low on batteries

@Paul M not sure it is comparable given one was from public comment and one was from WG members

The points in the first set of bullets seems to make sense on its face but the points relating to CCT seem to need a bit more information

@David - I agree

@Kathy - I think that makes sense and once we define "abused labels" and "as appropriate", the recommendation makes a lot of sense

On the process question - as noted, this was a follow up action by staff based on prior WG discussion, so it is not an “individual proposal”.

thank you Rebecca

CCT Rec 11: Conduct periodic end-user consumer surveys.Future review teams should work with surveyexperts to conceive more behavioral measuresof consumer trust that gather both objective andsubjective data with a goal toward generatingmore concrete and actionable information.

paul is breaking up

The report Mary linked to is from Sept. 2018, FWIW

e lost some audio - copul of sentences

Yes, the CCT completed its work in Sept 2018 and the Board decided to adopt some of its recommendations, referred others to various constituent bodies (e.g. GNSO) and deferred action on the remainder.

agree Paul

I do think we complained a lot about lack of data, which is reflected in many of our actual recommendations.

I think it would be reasonable as part of our finalization process to refer to these recommendations of the CCT Review team as having promise to deal with the problems we encountered

Staff are fabulous and they had no control over when the review team finalized their work.

@Jeff, gosh I don't think any of us are meaning to criticise staff. I think there's just some genuine concern that we are being told on every call that we are out of time for discussions, and thisseems like it needs at least a bit of time spent on it.

Maybe Paul's suggestion of handling this in phase 2 would be a sensile path so this gets the attention it clearly deserves

I agree with Jeff's point about being as specific as we can on data being sought

+1 Susan - it never occurred to me by asking about the process that Staff may feel in any way criticized. PS: I feel a little sheepish since I'm always the one pushing for substance over process. But, here I am.

in context of the CCT bullet points

Pings? :)

IBM

I am OK with existing language on TMCH + URS. Agree that co-chairs should discuss CCT language appropriateness. On Trademark Claims, not sure how meaningful data would be collected -- registrars don't know identity of the potential registrant who terminates registration after receiving Claims Notice, or why they did.

AG was able to collect this data, even if it wasn't compelled. If you only collect data about one side of the system, then your data will be bad.

@Phil - therein lies the problem. There is a perceived problem by some but no way to evidence its existence or non-existence. We always end up in the realm of opinion when it comes to the claims notice effects.

Only way I could see of collecting the TM notices data would be to mandate all registrars to present a survey as part of the registration flow if someone receives a notice then does not complete the purchase… if this is technologically possible

@Phil - Most registrars did not submit claims notices until the domain names were in a specific shopping cart. Therefore, I believe the registrars would know their identity. Whether they store that information or not is an entirely different question.

+1 Brian. That makes sense.

@Brian - With respect to #26 and 28, RPM is the appropriate group

@Kathy, no they would not.

@Kathy - no IBM would not know the number of claims notices sent out

@Jeff-- that would presume that all potential registrants have a preexisting account with the registrar. Even if they do, knowing the identity would not tell us if the intended domain use was infringing or non-infringing.

Agree Jeff - the risk is falling between the two groups

@Jeff - with respect, if these had landed in SubPro at this point, you would not be wanting to entertain them. Since TMCH is a creature of new gTLDs, should we move this to SubPro?

Phil, that's one reason it's worth seeing when it's possible to follow up

@Phil - Registrars require you to establish an account before you get to the shopping cart and claims notice.

:) Smiley face Jeff, so you know I am just ribbing you.

If that can be done within the remaining term of this WG, if Council grants our PCR this Thursday.

@paul - with mutual respect, SubPro has been considering the CCT review team recommendations since day 1. We did not wait until the end :)

I believe our recommendations to make the claims notice language more clear and less intimidating addresses any perceived problem as best we can.

@Jeff, I'm vanquished.

@Roger,our point is that queries to the CNIS are not the same as actual number of Claims Notices actually sent.

Why wouldn't the registry know if the domain was or was not purchased?

registrations which were done with claims is in ICANN invoices, but it is only positive outcomes, we do not know neutral or negative

@Jeff, correct - that is why staff mentioned it would be the registrars, if anyone, who would of all the relevant parties be in the position of providing the data.

Phil, with respect, if data about the URS are important to see how it's working even if we think that the rules are good, data about Claims Notices are also important even if we think we've successfully improved the language

I don’t think the issue is knowing whether or not a domain was or wasn’t purchased following a notice, it’s abut knowing why a domain wasn’t registered after a notice was presented

Which would require some kind of survey of the registrant / abandoning registrant itself

@Jeff - I think that is right. Otherwise, we would have to require registrars to build a system that pops up and asks the potential customer whenever anyone does something to abandon their shopping cart.

Agree Paul, which is what I noted earlier in chat

As staff noted, this would add a specific obligation to registrars.

@Jeff, caching only works for 48 hours as the Id changes every 48 hours

Would be great to have the data. Any registrars want to speak up and say they are willing to build a survey into their system?

surveys are not welcome by end users in general

@Paul - and that is the million dollar question :)

I am on the phone and unmuted at my end

@Kathy - the data on why a potential registrant doesn't register after they get a Claims notice.

Semi-individual? really?

frightened person does not tend to write something after the failure of the registration

@Paul, as AG cautioned, that is not something you can deduce from the number of notices sent or even from the number of registrations that followed the receipt of a Claims Notice.

@Paul M not registering probably would be the best approach for most people

agree with Phil re time element

pdp might not survive the third PCR

Like I said, I believe this recommendation would be easy to solidify or could even be worded in such a manner that an IRT can implement.

We have discussed this at great length before and concluded there was no reasonable way of collecting the type of qualitative data abut abandonment of registrations following a TM notice

I think we need to move on

@Griffin, yes, exactly.

@Mary - agree. Trademark people will always look at an abandoned registration as the potential registrant wising up when directly confronted with trademark registration rights. People who are skeptical of trademark rights will always view the non-registration as a Claims Notice being over aggressive. So, without the substantive survey at the instant of non-registration, we aren't going to get good data. And without the registrars being willing to build it into their system and change how they interact with their potential customers, it isn't going to happen. So, we will always be dat blind on this issue.

data blind

Not asking for qualitative data, but we can ask for objective data.

@Paul, thank you - that was our conclusion as well.

URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?pli=1#

@Jeff, we will work on something about collecting the data from registrars, but with the caution that the data will not show the effects of the notice.

what incentives are for the not successful registrants to finish the questionnaire?

Kathy / Staff, are new edits all in pink?

Maybe we can reward them with 12 cents per completed survey lol

@Mary - from registrars, TMCH and registries

@Maxim - a .Moscow gift card :-)

@Jeff, the CNIS query data is not reliable for showing number of notices sent or acknowledged.

ok, you are focusing on the notices...I was focusing on the other elements

@Jeff, oh ok, got it. Thanks!

MoUs can be just as binding and enforceable. It depends on how they are drafted

Can you scroll up please

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?pli=1#

Where is the point about reviewing previous compliance csss?

*cases

Not seeing it in the text...

I mean, I guess it may be informative to see if the existing compliance mechanisms have been sufficient in resolving issues

agree - wouldn't have even assumed that was intended by the text

ombudsman office might know (urs related cases with positive /negative results without details)

Right I think Jeff’s point is the whole purpose for this recommendtion

so that the IRT craft a compliance mechanism that covers potentially failures by providers

Bc currently it seems the URS related compliance mechanism that exists primarily is directed at failures by registry operators in meeting their urs related obliations

obligations

+1 Susan - the way it was worded almost justified the reasons why ICANN was not enforcing the provider obligations.

Not following Maxim’s point, sorry

Has anybody ever asked ICANN Compliance to issue a breach notice to a Provider? If not, why is that? If yes, what happened?

At the end of the day whether their "current compliance department" is responsible for Vendor management, someone most likely is (or should be). We don't care who within ICANN does it....it just needs to be done

if mou does not contain all required for urs

Presumably a provider must implement the URS policy, rules, etc…. So failure to do so would be enforceable

Does ICANN have a Procurement Department?

Don't they enforce compliance with the hundreds of vendor agreements they must have

not sure it is named this way

if the vendor agreement is poorly written - then not all intended purpose s can be reacted

this version of urs rec 6 looks good to me… seems to capture our previous discussions

Wondering if this portion of the new language is redundant: "1) reaching out to the broader multistakeholder community, including Providers/experts, to assist ICANN org and the IRT to develop those educational materials;

Since the recommendation already states "developed with help from URS Providers, Practitioners, Panelists, as well as researchers/academics who study URS decisions closely"

is there any limitation on translations - is it UN languages?

Who’s responsibility would it be otherwise Jef?

@Griffin - ICANN

Org

The IRT is ICANN staff led

Just like they do FAQs for everything else

Aside: Where did the ICANN org lablelling/branding come from? Is there a hsitory/transcript that I can read up on?

+1 Kathy - this is well traveled ground at this point.

Agree Paul…

Griffin - But making educational matters go through all these layers to write is just so inefficient and wasteful

Personally I agree Jeff, but others in the WG felt it was necessary to seek external input

So here we are

You may want to review the historical discussions we held on this issue to see that discussion

An IRT can help specify all of the elements to be included in the materials, but this new wording suggests that the IRT write it. So, I guess in 5 years we will see these materials

Zak is right that the current wording is duplicative but it doesn’t really do any harm so I would suggest we not get hung up on it

+1 Griffin

+1 Griffin. It's not perfect but it's also not accidental that the recommendation has come out saying this

@Noted all — it may not be elegantly worded but it is what the WG agreed to

Should the highlighted text be the implementation guidance? Seems like this would be more helpful to the IRT actually

Than what’s there

I mean I guess it’s captured in the report so maybe doesn’t matter...

@Griffin: The WG agreed to include the text as context, but not as Implementation Guidance.

Fair enough Julie

Is there anywhere where ICANN org is defined? Is there any history of discussions?e.g. Is ICANN Compliance inside ICANN.org? If so should it be ICANN org Compliance?

ICANN compliance is a dept, but inside of ICANN

Just for clarification, I do not believe an IRT is required to have a public comment period. I am double checking though

Thanks Maxim what is ICANN org

@Kathy: Staff have corrected the typo in the recommendation.

can this be addressed by instead saying notice etc obligations are, of course, subject to restrictions as found in applicable law.

@All: Nothing was changed in the original recommendation based on the EPDP Wave 1 report

AOB Question please if I may? “Is there anywhere where “ICANN org is defined”? Is there any history of discussions on the matter? I think we need to be clear and consistent on this. For example: Is “ICANN Compliance” inside ICANN.org? If so, should it be “ICANN org Compliance” for consistency in our report?

Next call: Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thanks Kathy, staff, and all

thanks all

Paul T - I think everyone understands what the references to ICANN Compliance means