051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Is it possibel to recommend a small change to the RAA without going out to public comment?
@Phil: that is correct
Registrar accreditation agreement
What about URS to legacy gTLDs?
We specifically asked that as a question
David McAuley (Verisign)
Agreed, it was a PC question
thanks so its dead?
I disagree that it did not receive sufficient support
legacy tlds have an agreements different than new gtlds
I think we need an actual consensus call on the question of URS as consensus policy.
Especially as Org is already inserting URS in legacy contracts.
Agree with Greg
@Phil: That is summarizing from last week.
I agree with @Greg and others that a consensus call is needed. Especially as this is one of the specific questions in the Charter if I am not mistaken.
David McAuley (Verisign)
it is Jeff
Shr said ORG not .ORG
As in ICANN Org
@Greg, and all: The WG currently does not have an agreed-upon recommendation relating to URS as a consensus policy, so there is nothing for which to have a consensus call.
Thtt is very problematic - there was no community consent
ICANN Org doing this will by default result in an even more fragmented system.
I thought there was actually a high level of support across multiple different interests on URS as consensus policy. including the CPH comment, which was supportive provided there was adequate time for implementation
It is very importatt to be consistent
Agree @ Paul T.
Agree Susan…. While there were some individuals and one SG that appeared to oppose URS as consensus policy, it seemed that everyone else supported it, including IPC, BC, CPH, and other commenters,
In the EPDP, for instance, that would likely meet the threshold for consensus (not full consensus, but consensus)
So I don’t see why it wouldn’t here
A Policy group can have a high level recommendation that it seeks the IRT to implement
I'm happy to speak to the limited data
China and US are bigger?
Do we know what happens to small complainants (brand owners) from the Global South?
so the answer is, we didn’t see late responses filed much at all, but for those that did they were primarily filed by those in the us and china… which could mean that the fees are deterring late responses from others, but that is not conclusive
Griffin, we saw more late responses than I would have expected, but what the appropriate rate should be is also unclear; otherwise I agree that the data are suggestive but not conclusive
Is it the IRT’s role to do generalized research?
You need to provide some guidance to an IRT at a high level
I mean I guess I don’t have a problem with it, it’ just that they are not really implementing a policy recommendation....
@staff please can you update on the concerns of core & afrnic om ALP that was discussed on the call last week my understanding from Kathy was that we ere going to get people with knowldge of the matter (ICANN/RO) negotiations) thanks
per what Steve Levy said - to avoid disproportionate impact of the fees
@Paul: We have summarized last week’s discussions. If there is something we missed can you please send the text to the list (as requested in our update email). Thanks so much.
Just to be clear: I don't think there's more data feasibly out there even if we wait another 10 years. We have to make inferences about it.
@Susan: what would it mean to keep this "under review" => that's a very interesting idea.
Do you have link to hand Julie?
This is the document updated from last week and circulated last Friday: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit?usp=sharing
@kathy, nothing specific, I just don't suppose this is the last time anyone will ever review the RPMs
I could support the idea of a fee waiver process under the URS, but it would only make sense if we also adopt urs as a consensus pollicy
*fee waiver for late response fees
As an aside, that present penalty against abusive complainants seems like a pretty good deterrent against the potential for abuse if urs were adopted as consensus policy
which was raised as a concern by some who opposed the idea of urs becoming a consensus policy
10b. If not, should they be expanded?
The responses for 10a seem to imply answers to 10b
It means Yes penalties should be expanded...
It’s basically the same comments as for 10a
There’s comments supporting penalties for respondents and for legal counsel…not sure what the standard would be for counsel - like, they are bound by the instructions of their clients
There are a majority of comments supporting appropriate penalties for respondents.
The individual proposal 15/22 was not about abuse of the process
It was about enhanced penalties for certain types of activity on a substantive basis
Agree with Zak. To Griffin's point, the comments don't show a problem with abuse of the *process* specifically by respondents
CPH, BC, IPC... there are large groups in favour of respondents' penalties.
I do have an AOB type question
I would like to ask about ALP - On the ALP there was some concern I think from Afnic & Core that they had not been able to negotiate an ALP scheme with ICANN prior to launch of a local gTLD. Is there anything we can put in the report to aid this negotiation process?
I think we addressed that?
I can't dial in t the moment
as I understood there were a set of similar questions from ICANN to an applicant (for ALP), when they were going in circles (question 1, then question 2 , then question 3 and again from question 1)
Paul has dialed in
Did we ask Staff or someone on the WG to reach out to CORE?
I thought so too...
preferably to Amadeu Abril and Nacho Amadoz the same time
There was a small group — they didn’t have a recommendation
But we were going to wait for Susan to get back
hand up from staff
We reported on this last week
Amadeu reported that in full at one of our F2F
I’m very confused. I thought we all agreed that there was an implementation problem with how ICANN Org implemented the ALP, but weren’t sure there was a policy fix we could recommend, other than saying there were such problems
maybe the recommendation that the staff does not limit ability of a GEO applicant to run an ALP without an explanation and does such analysis in a reasonable amount of time.
@Paul T: Staff will follow up with the Small Team now that Susan is back
great thnaks Phil
Tx for chairing, Phil!!
Thanks Phil, all.
Glad we’ve finally made it here!