Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
36:49
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Maxim Alzoba
37:38
hello all
Ariel Liang
37:53
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit
Paul McGrady
40:27
"ICANN Arcana" I LOVE it!
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:10
Ariel, what page is that on screen material on?
Ariel Liang
41:24
We are starting on page 1
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:29
Thanks
Mary Wong
41:30
Haha Paul
Ariel Liang
41:36
It is a separate doc just for the overarching data recommendation
Ariel Liang
42:26
Posting again here for those just joined: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yg6XP1USJFK7Ko5eQFD5EGNC4gwWM-vh07MGSqJ3e0Q/edit
Jeffrey Neuman
42:45
What is meant by "abused" labels? I probably should know, but drawing a blank.
Mary Wong
44:15
@Jeff, basically it’s TM+50
Jeffrey Neuman
44:46
Ah. We should drop a footnote on the definition of that to be precise.
Kathryn Kleiman
45:17
good point
Julie Hedlund
45:48
@Jeff: Thanks. Staff have noted this action item.
Mary Wong
49:49
Correct, Jeff - so we were being inclusive for purposes of comprehensiveness and for the WG’s discussion.
Mary Wong
50:24
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cct-final-recs-08sep18-en.pdf
Paul Tattersfield
50:49
I have concerns will removing anything at this late stage without further review
Paul Tattersfield
51:33
Susan +100
Jeffrey Neuman
51:44
@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.
Paul McGrady
51:52
Who is the "sponsor" of this additional recommendation?
Paul McGrady
52:31
@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.
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:58
CCT #8 (survey of registrants), as one example, suggests gathering both objective and subjective data - hard to know what that means
Jeffrey Neuman
53:45
@David - Good point. That recommendation is more for SubPro than for RPM
Jeffrey Neuman
54:48
I would consider removing CCT recommendation #888888 and asking SubPro if they include it.
Jeffrey Neuman
55:00
oops #8, my keyboard is low on batteries
Paul Tattersfield
55:11
@Paul M not sure it is comparable given one was from public comment and one was from WG members
David McAuley (Verisign)
55:29
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
Jeffrey Neuman
56:25
@David - I agree
Jeffrey Neuman
58:35
@Kathy - I think that makes sense and once we define "abused labels" and "as appropriate", the recommendation makes a lot of sense
Mary Wong
59:34
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”.
Paul Tattersfield
59:48
thank you Rebecca
Mary Wong
01:01:37
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 Tattersfield
01:02:10
paul is breaking up
Rebecca Tushnet
01:02:12
The report Mary linked to is from Sept. 2018, FWIW
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:24
e lost some audio - copul of sentences
Mary Wong
01:02:59
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.
Paul Tattersfield
01:04:05
agree Paul
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:10
I do think we complained a lot about lack of data, which is reflected in many of our actual recommendations.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:47
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
Paul McGrady
01:05:00
Staff are fabulous and they had no control over when the review team finalized their work.
Susan.Payne
01:06:03
@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.
Susan.Payne
01:06:41
Maybe Paul's suggestion of handling this in phase 2 would be a sensile path so this gets the attention it clearly deserves
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:45
I agree with Jeff's point about being as specific as we can on data being sought
Paul McGrady
01:07:11
+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.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:07:12
in context of the CCT bullet points
Paul McGrady
01:08:20
Pings? :)
Kathryn Kleiman
01:08:52
IBM
Philip Corwin
01:08:56
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.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:10:04
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.
Paul McGrady
01:10:26
@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.
Griffin Barnett
01:10:33
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
Jeffrey Neuman
01:10:37
@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.
Paul McGrady
01:11:21
+1 Brian. That makes sense.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:11:40
@Brian - With respect to #26 and 28, RPM is the appropriate group
Mary Wong
01:11:51
@Kathy, no they would not.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:12:02
@Kathy - no IBM would not know the number of claims notices sent out
Philip Corwin
01:12:15
@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.
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:16
Agree Jeff - the risk is falling between the two groups
Paul McGrady
01:12:31
@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?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:12:50
Phil, that's one reason it's worth seeing when it's possible to follow up
Jeffrey Neuman
01:13:02
@Phil - Registrars require you to establish an account before you get to the shopping cart and claims notice.
Paul McGrady
01:13:24
:) Smiley face Jeff, so you know I am just ribbing you.
Philip Corwin
01:13:51
If that can be done within the remaining term of this WG, if Council grants our PCR this Thursday.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:14:11
@paul - with mutual respect, SubPro has been considering the CCT review team recommendations since day 1. We did not wait until the end :)
Philip Corwin
01:14:43
I believe our recommendations to make the claims notice language more clear and less intimidating addresses any perceived problem as best we can.
Paul McGrady
01:14:49
@Jeff, I'm vanquished.
Mary Wong
01:17:03
@Roger,our point is that queries to the CNIS are not the same as actual number of Claims Notices actually sent.
Paul Tattersfield
01:17:14
Why wouldn't the registry know if the domain was or was not purchased?
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:28
registrations which were done with claims is in ICANN invoices, but it is only positive outcomes, we do not know neutral or negative
Mary Wong
01:18:32
@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.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:18:36
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
Griffin Barnett
01:18:42
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
Griffin Barnett
01:19:07
Which would require some kind of survey of the registrant / abandoning registrant itself
Paul McGrady
01:19:19
@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.
Griffin Barnett
01:19:41
Agree Paul, which is what I noted earlier in chat
Mary Wong
01:20:00
As staff noted, this would add a specific obligation to registrars.
Roger Carney
01:20:23
@Jeff, caching only works for 48 hours as the Id changes every 48 hours
Paul McGrady
01:20:34
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?
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:06
surveys are not welcome by end users in general
Jeffrey Neuman
01:21:11
@Paul - and that is the million dollar question :)
Philip Corwin
01:21:20
I am on the phone and unmuted at my end
Paul McGrady
01:21:54
@Kathy - the data on why a potential registrant doesn't register after they get a Claims notice.
Griffin Barnett
01:22:54
Semi-individual? really?
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:02
frightened person does not tend to write something after the failure of the registration
Mary Wong
01:23:08
@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 Tattersfield
01:23:13
@Paul M not registering probably would be the best approach for most people
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:18
agree with Phil re time element
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:37
pdp might not survive the third PCR
Jeffrey Neuman
01:24:03
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.
Griffin Barnett
01:25:30
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
Griffin Barnett
01:25:34
I think we need to move on
Mary Wong
01:25:39
@Griffin, yes, exactly.
Paul McGrady
01:25:57
@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.
Paul McGrady
01:26:07
data blind
Jeffrey Neuman
01:26:14
Not asking for qualitative data, but we can ask for objective data.
Mary Wong
01:26:25
@Paul, thank you - that was our conclusion as well.
Ariel Liang
01:26:40
URS: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?pli=1#
Mary Wong
01:26:53
@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.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:07
what incentives are for the not successful registrants to finish the questionnaire?
Zak Muscovitch
01:27:27
Kathy / Staff, are new edits all in pink?
Griffin Barnett
01:27:27
Maybe we can reward them with 12 cents per completed survey lol
Jeffrey Neuman
01:27:32
@Mary - from registrars, TMCH and registries
Paul McGrady
01:27:56
@Maxim - a .Moscow gift card :-)
Mary Wong
01:27:58
@Jeff, the CNIS query data is not reliable for showing number of notices sent or acknowledged.
Jeffrey Neuman
01:28:24
ok, you are focusing on the notices...I was focusing on the other elements
Mary Wong
01:29:29
@Jeff, oh ok, got it. Thanks!
Jeffrey Neuman
01:30:54
MoUs can be just as binding and enforceable. It depends on how they are drafted
Jeffrey Neuman
01:32:19
Can you scroll up please
Ariel Liang
01:32:38
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?pli=1#
Griffin Barnett
01:34:05
Where is the point about reviewing previous compliance csss?
Griffin Barnett
01:34:08
*cases
Griffin Barnett
01:34:12
Not seeing it in the text...
Griffin Barnett
01:35:04
I mean, I guess it may be informative to see if the existing compliance mechanisms have been sufficient in resolving issues
Susan.Payne
01:35:21
agree - wouldn't have even assumed that was intended by the text
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:07
ombudsman office might know (urs related cases with positive /negative results without details)
Griffin Barnett
01:37:46
Right I think Jeff’s point is the whole purpose for this recommendtion
Griffin Barnett
01:38:05
so that the IRT craft a compliance mechanism that covers potentially failures by providers
Griffin Barnett
01:38:31
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
Griffin Barnett
01:38:34
obligations
Jeffrey Neuman
01:39:39
+1 Susan - the way it was worded almost justified the reasons why ICANN was not enforcing the provider obligations.
Griffin Barnett
01:40:46
Not following Maxim’s point, sorry
Paul McGrady
01:41:00
Has anybody ever asked ICANN Compliance to issue a breach notice to a Provider? If not, why is that? If yes, what happened?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:01
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
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:09
if mou does not contain all required for urs
Griffin Barnett
01:41:54
Presumably a provider must implement the URS policy, rules, etc…. So failure to do so would be enforceable
Jeffrey Neuman
01:41:57
Does ICANN have a Procurement Department?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:42:18
Don't they enforce compliance with the hundreds of vendor agreements they must have
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:28
not sure it is named this way
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:39
if the vendor agreement is poorly written - then not all intended purpose s can be reacted
Griffin Barnett
01:43:46
this version of urs rec 6 looks good to me… seems to capture our previous discussions
Zak Muscovitch
01:44:11
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;
Zak Muscovitch
01:44:39
Since the recommendation already states "developed with help from URS Providers, Practitioners, Panelists, as well as researchers/academics who study URS decisions closely"
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:45:21
is there any limitation on translations - is it UN languages?
Griffin Barnett
01:46:19
Who’s responsibility would it be otherwise Jef?
Jeffrey Neuman
01:46:32
@Griffin - ICANN
Jeffrey Neuman
01:46:34
Org
Griffin Barnett
01:46:38
The IRT is ICANN staff led
Jeffrey Neuman
01:46:44
Just like they do FAQs for everything else
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:01
Aside: Where did the ICANN org lablelling/branding come from? Is there a hsitory/transcript that I can read up on?
Paul McGrady
01:47:03
+1 Kathy - this is well traveled ground at this point.
Griffin Barnett
01:47:31
Agree Paul…
Jeffrey Neuman
01:47:33
Griffin - But making educational matters go through all these layers to write is just so inefficient and wasteful
Griffin Barnett
01:47:55
Personally I agree Jeff, but others in the WG felt it was necessary to seek external input
Griffin Barnett
01:47:59
So here we are
Griffin Barnett
01:48:23
You may want to review the historical discussions we held on this issue to see that discussion
Jeffrey Neuman
01:48:45
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
Griffin Barnett
01:49:02
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
Paul McGrady
01:49:13
+1 Griffin
Susan.Payne
01:49:26
+1 Griffin. It's not perfect but it's also not accidental that the recommendation has come out saying this
Julie Hedlund
01:49:29
@Noted all — it may not be elegantly worded but it is what the WG agreed to
Griffin Barnett
01:51:30
Should the highlighted text be the implementation guidance? Seems like this would be more helpful to the IRT actually
Griffin Barnett
01:51:33
Than what’s there
Griffin Barnett
01:52:03
I mean I guess it’s captured in the report so maybe doesn’t matter...
Julie Hedlund
01:52:18
@Griffin: The WG agreed to include the text as context, but not as Implementation Guidance.
Griffin Barnett
01:52:25
Fair enough Julie
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:06
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?
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:39
ICANN compliance is a dept, but inside of ICANN
Jeffrey Neuman
01:55:04
Just for clarification, I do not believe an IRT is required to have a public comment period. I am double checking though
Paul Tattersfield
01:55:23
Thanks Maxim what is ICANN org
Julie Hedlund
01:55:33
@Kathy: Staff have corrected the typo in the recommendation.
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:00:51
can this be addressed by instead saying notice etc obligations are, of course, subject to restrictions as found in applicable law.
Julie Hedlund
02:01:36
@All: Nothing was changed in the original recommendation based on the EPDP Wave 1 report
Paul Tattersfield
02:03:51
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?
Julie Bisland
02:04:03
Next call: Thursday, 24 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:04:12
Thanks Kathy, staff, and all
Maxim Alzoba
02:04:31
thanks all
Griffin Barnett
02:04:32
Paul T - I think everyone understands what the references to ICANN Compliance means