Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Terri Agnew
21:31
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Julie Hedlund
24:48
The link David mentioned is in the Initial Report
Philip Corwin
28:31
There's nothing in the recommendation that would stop a registrar from providing the notice in a non-UN language. I fact they would have to if that was the language of the registration agreement.
Philip Corwin
28:58
Good suggestion from Susan
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:07
Terri can I get can I get a dial out to a US number: 571-299-8624
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:43
not yet
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:47
need dial
Terri Agnew
29:56
dialing
Susan.Payne
30:31
apologies, so did we change bullet 2 to must or keep as is. I missed the outcome
Ariel Liang
30:53
Staff understood there is no objection to change bullet 2 as per IPC’s public comment
Susan.Payne
31:02
ok thanks!
Maxim Alzoba
37:04
the point is after the registration phase
Maxim Alzoba
37:17
I mean after pre registration
Maxim Alzoba
38:16
new hand
Maxim Alzoba
42:01
language is too wild, it will be used in an unpredictable way
Griffin Barnett
42:50
+1 Susan
Kathy Kleiman
43:17
What language, Maxim?
Griffin Barnett
43:24
What’s “Wild” about the language?
Griffin Barnett
43:57
It just instructs the IRT to facilitate solutions in situations where there is an operational issue?
Susan.Payne
44:17
what language exactly are you concerned about Maxim, why don't you suggest an alternative?
Michael R. Graham
44:34
Agree -- the language is prescriptive of the work of the IRT, not any restriction of pre-registration.
Griffin Barnett
44:46
The word forbidden appears nowhere in this rec
Griffin Barnett
45:07
Can’t say I’m able to follow anything Maxim is saying about this rec
Michael R. Graham
45:15
@Maxim -- Are you suggesting specific changes to language?
Maxim Alzoba
46:18
if the preregistration prevents all mechanisms of RPMs to work as intended, such preregistration should be forbidden.
Griffin Barnett
46:28
If a Rr cannot meet the TM Claims requirements in conjunction with its pre-sale program(s) then it would not be in compliance with the TM Claims requirement
Maxim Alzoba
46:37
new proposal is wild
Maxim Alzoba
47:13
@Griffin , your suggestion is fine too
Kathy Kleiman
47:25
Let's read the ICANN comment first
Griffin Barnett
47:37
Well the outcome of stating it that way would be the same - if it is not in compliance with the requirements it cannot continue to operate in that manner.....
Rebecca Tushnet
52:52
To be clear I'm not convinced we need to change language, but if we are going to we should be clear that the solution we envision is not to bar preregistrations but to change other requirements
Susan.Payne
53:18
i didn't type anything
Michael R. Graham
53:30
Maxim's language appears to be far more restrictive than the currently proposed language. Am I missing something?
Julie Hedlund
53:30
I think it’s in the IPC comment
Maxim Alzoba
53:48
we do not need wild language
Ariel Liang
54:26
Per Sub Group A’s deliberation, there is one suggestion in response to ICANN org’s comment (captured in the summary) — if the content of the Claims Notice does not change, there is no reason to present it to the registrant more than once; as a result, the expiration period for the Claims Notice may be longer.
Maxim Alzoba
55:48
I suggest to take it offline, so registrars have a chance to respond
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:11
I have asked staff to help read - using phone and toggling between screens is not working well
Michael R. Graham
56:12
@Maxim -- Can you clarify what you mean by "wild language" specifically?
Maxim Alzoba
56:12
and to add it to action items of the call results
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:32
thank you staff
Maxim Alzoba
56:57
@Michael, I meant there should not be a lot of variety of how it could be interpreted
Rebecca Tushnet
57:53
Susan, that seems fair.
Mary Wong
58:00
@Susan, sure - whatever will improve clarity will be good.
David McAuley (Verisign)
58:51
agree that would be great if irt has such flexibility
Mary Wong
59:44
ICANN org had understood the recommendation to give the IRT flexibility; we were just looking for the possibility of more guidance (e.g. whether altering the 48-hour period is within that flexibility).
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:20
I meant there should be no way for misinterpretation
Paul McGrady
01:00:42
"Nothing in this Recommendation is meant to preclude legitimate pre-sales that are compliant with all RPMs. The IRT is requested to work out all relevant implementation issues."
Susan.Payne
01:01:07
+1 Paul
Michael R. Graham
01:01:17
+1 Paul
Scott Austin
01:01:17
+1 Paul
Philip Corwin
01:01:23
I need to be unmuted by staff
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:30
also like Paul's suggestion
Marie Pattullo
01:02:02
+1 Paul as well.
Julie Hedlund
01:02:32
@Phil: There is support for Paul’s suggestion: "Nothing in this Recommendation is meant to preclude legitimate pre-sales that are compliant with all RPMs. The IRT is requested to work out all relevant implementation issues."
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:20
this suggestion is way better
Julie Hedlund
01:04:22
Add “using appropriate flexibility.”
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:33
Since the 48 hours is already in there, might be worth putting it in again to be clear
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:43
48h is one of the issues, there might be some other I the wilds
Susan.Payne
01:07:28
could we perhaps have proposed language from staff
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:29
The IRT is provided with flexibility on the 48 period.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:07:57
staff will read 4
Paul McGrady
01:08:13
I think you can make the 48 hours an e.g. after my text and that should do it.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:43
The PCRT Rows flagged are from these groups: #31 is from INTA 32 is from Com Laude 33 is from IPC and 34 is from GBOC – global brand ownersand consumer protection orgs
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:13
I object, it will come to the issue of police.somecity
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:47
sorry, it is mistake, nothing bad in claims here
Susan.Payne
01:14:50
so you are agreeing then Maxim?
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:56
yes
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:20
it worked like that last time
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:15:41
sounds like agreement
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:16:33
#4
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:16:49
I think Kahtymeant 4 not 5
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:16:57
when she stated the group's agreemetn
Susan.Payne
01:20:34
To be clear, it appears that this group has confirmed the existing RPMs requirement to run the Claims period across any LRPs and the first 90 days of GA. Could staff please reflect this was agreed
Ariel Liang
01:21:36
Thanks Susan — so the WG agreement is to accept the public comment suggesting the inclusion of Section 3.2.5 reference in the recommendation language?
Griffin Barnett
01:21:58
Lost David audio
Julie Hedlund
01:21:59
lost him
Paul McGrady
01:22:10
darn where did david go?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:11
call dropped - sheesh
Terri Agnew
01:22:19
Dialing back to you
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:38
on hold and muted
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:05
back now
Ariel Liang
01:23:30
Summary for Q2 and Rec 5 is consistent
Griffin Barnett
01:25:44
I am not particularly sold on the idea of extending this exemption to those “highly regulated” strings since they still register domains to third parties
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:47
My recollection, Jason, was spec 9 and spec 13 considerations but others in Sub A may want to comment
Griffin Barnett
01:26:22
(Despite the higher bar to registration generally, which looks at other issues such as industry participation)
Griffin Barnett
01:27:30
Broad community support for Spec 13 exemption to Claims is noted in the context here
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:30:07
I think that is a fair statement by Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:31:06
Agree with Susan
Griffin Barnett
01:32:31
I don’t think there are any other single-registrant TLDs other than those that have been granted Spec 9 exemption or Spec 13
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:32:49
They are totally controlled and to highly vetted subset.
Griffin Barnett
01:34:48
I think Kathy has stated it well
Griffin Barnett
01:34:54
I would be in support of that formulation
Paul McGrady
01:34:59
Pop Quiz!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:35:14
if this is agreed the IRT should not have too much difficulty in capturing language
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:35:28
Agree with Kathy's formatting provide staff caught or will catch it on the recording.
Griffin Barnett
01:35:40
Agree David - can likely draw from existing exemption language for Sunrise from Spec 13
Griffin Barnett
01:36:01
And I am confident staff has captured the updated version of the rec as Kathy expressed it
Ariel Liang
01:36:17
Yes, noted Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:36:33
Yeah I think we should insert a reference to the stated exemptions within Rec 4 as well
Griffin Barnett
01:37:41
Sorry, I thought we had moved on from further consideration of the regulated strings category from the Rec 4/5 exemptions
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:11
Ariel - what page is highlighted language on
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:38:22
thanks
Julie Hedlund
01:38:24
page 36
Julie Hedlund
01:38:36
deliberations on Rec #5
Griffin Barnett
01:39:32
Agree with Jason that regulated strings he describes may not be in the same class as generally open TLDs, but don’t think they are sufficiently “closed” not to warrant TM Claims service
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:39:49
no longer on my 36 - that type of day
Julie Hedlund
01:40:08
Oh, sorry!
Julie Hedlund
01:40:22
(that was meant to David)
Susan.Payne
01:40:37
+1 Griffin, I think the challenge is that "highly regulated" is not really a defined category of TLD. It can mean any number of different levels of restrictiveness
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:40:39
found it on 37
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:41:38
My hope is that irt will note the spec 13 and exempt spec 9 are fully closed to all but afficilated entities
Susan.Payne
01:42:02
agree with Griffin's comments
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:42:14
and that gets at concern with 'highly regulated' - needs a definition as Susan suggests, seems to me
Mary Wong
01:42:56
For information: “highly regulated” is a term that reflects GAC advice, it is not a defined term in ICANN policy. At the moment, not all such TLDs have the same levels of safeguards.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:43:15
Thanks Mary
Griffin Barnett
01:43:22
We are considering that balance…. My comments noted that I think, on balance, it is still warranted to run TM Claims for this “highly regulated” category of TLDs, which by the way doesn’t really have any unified definition
Paul McGrady
01:44:07
I don't think protecting IP rights is inconsistent with balancing against the public interest. Obviously, those are intertwined. We are running out of time on this call, but I think this conversation is worth picking back up on the next call.
Griffin Barnett
01:44:09
Furthermore, there was not as broad support for this idea, and there was no previous proposal to apply an exemption to this category of strings, so aren’t we too little too late on making this now?
Griffin Barnett
01:45:26
Agree - I definitely support the regulated TLD model, but still believe that in light of the other considerations it is still important that they run TM Claims period, given the lack of clear requirements, vetting processes and criteria, etc.
Brian beckham
01:45:28
has SubPro eg come up with a definition or concept of “highly regulated”?
Griffin Barnett
01:45:44
And again, we are just talking about Claims
Mary Wong
01:46:12
@Brian, I don’t believe so though that group has discussed various issues around these strings quite extensively.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:13
Many thanks to Kathy and staff and apologies all for my connection issues.
Griffin Barnett
01:46:16
Seems like it would be a welcome tool in those regulated TLDs to help mitigate risk of infringement within the TLD
Julie Hedlund
01:46:19
@Brian: I think SubPro has just discussed the GAC advice on highly-regulated strings, but I don’t believe they developed a definition or recommendation
Marie Pattullo
01:46:24
Exactly - it's just telling you that someone has that string in the TMCH, right?
Marie Pattullo
01:46:38
It doesn't prevent registration.
Paul McGrady
01:46:52
2 minutes left. I think we need to put a pin in this one and pick it up on the next call.
Scott Austin
01:47:06
@ Susan +1
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:47:13
Claims do not prevent registration.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:47:18
They are just notices.
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:47:27
it's a question of notice
Griffin Barnett
01:47:40
Jason is breaking up for me....
Terri Agnew
01:47:42
Jason, your audio is cutting in and out
Marie Pattullo
01:47:46
me too.
Paul McGrady
01:47:51
I don't disagree with Susan, but I think rushing this will make everyone feel like it didn't get enough air time and could preclude us reaching language we can all agree on.
Terri Agnew
01:47:57
It seems to be cleared up(audio)
Philip Corwin
01:48:04
Sorry for any perceived absence from the meeting. I have been on audio the whole time, but my Zoom has imploded three times and the last one took more than 30 minutes to reconnect.
Griffin Barnett
01:48:14
I mean, if they are going to agree to a TM vetting process anyway, why not just use the existing TM Claims?
Brian beckham
01:48:15
seems there is support but given the effort to define Spec 13 eg, the lack of an agreed definition of what is “highly regulated” may prove problematic
Mary Wong
01:49:20
We can check where SubPro is with this; I believe they were discussing whether to affirm the framework for such strings from the last round. This means that there are several categories (not necessarily a definition) of “highly regulated” TLDs, each with a specific set of safeguards as PICs.
Paul McGrady
01:49:26
I need to drop shortly to get back on the road. Heading home from dropping my by at Uni. Stay safe y'all.
Paul McGrady
01:49:40
boy
Griffin Barnett
01:50:01
I’m happy to weigh in on list if Jason puts out some language
Griffin Barnett
01:50:07
But I’ve made my view known
Terri Agnew
01:50:18
next meeting: The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call is scheduled on Tuesday, 18 August 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Griffin Barnett
01:50:22
Thanks all
Paul Tattersfield
01:50:26
thnaks all bye
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:50:27
Thanks Kathy
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:32
bye all