Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Andrea Glandon
38:06
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Maxim Alzoba
39:42
I posted an update too
Rebecca Tushnet
39:55
As did I
Maxim Alzoba
40:09
yes
Paul McGrady
40:44
@Maxim and Rebecca - did your positions change? If not, I think the co-chairs have what they need.
Ariel Liang
41:14
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit#
Rebecca Tushnet
42:14
With respect, I think Ariel is not answering the question
Rebecca Tushnet
42:34
Which was what was pre-Small group and what was suggestions from the Small Group
Ariel Liang
43:31
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
44:37
Sorry--they are still under discussion/new and not our language
Kathryn Kleiman
45:48
Support that addition
David McAuley (Verisign)
46:14
i support it
Jason Schaeffer
49:00
+1 Phil
David McAuley (Verisign)
49:08
makes sense
Griffin Barnett
50:23
I would just suggest for that bullet “Witholding, reserving, or self-allocating trademark-corresponding domains…” for grammatical reasons
Griffin Barnett
51:50
Agree - the initial sentence should say “Sunrise abuse of the type intended to be prohibited under this Recommendation include:”
Griffin Barnett
52:53
Maxim - doesn’t the previous highlighted paragraph cover your concern?
Rebecca Tushnet
54:01
I should have added: possibilities include "the WG did not agree on these examples"; "the WG also received views that pricing practices were not within its jurisdiction"; "other views emphasized the risk of targeting pricing decisions on legitimate business models, including the practice of identifying reserved names"
Rebecca Tushnet
54:45
If we don't identify legitimate business practices, the preamble is meaningless
Maxim Alzoba
55:01
intents are not important at implementation phase, there are no safeguards
Rebecca Tushnet
55:04
it merely restates that practices that don't violate the rules don't violate the rules
Paul McGrady
55:32
Can Maxim give a real world example that actually happened in the last round?
Maxim Alzoba
55:56
may I respond to Paul?
Paul McGrady
57:25
@Maxim - and did any trademark owner actually object? If not, your example proves the non-problem.
Alan Woods (Donuts)
57:40
Also isn't it a bit chicken and an egg. If the new implementation of the recommendation' created the ambiguity that is complained of - won;t that become 'ICANN policy' itself therefore the preamble is rendered useless?
Marie Pattullo
58:02
... this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.
Rebecca Tushnet
58:20
That's my concern, Alan, especially without a counterbalancing list of "we don't mean …."
Marie Pattullo
58:22
Reserving a name to a police dept is obviously legitimate.
Alan Woods (Donuts)
58:25
Perhaps "the working group further notes that the IMPLEMENTATION of this recommendation is not intended to...
Ariel Liang
58:57
Hand up from staff
Griffin Barnett
59:14
Maxim seems to be overlooking the “intent” element
Kathryn Kleiman
59:46
Can Paul offer language revisions in light of concerns thus far?
Rebecca Tushnet
59:57
In terms of examples, I note that the objections to the .madrid ALP included that it would interfere with TMCH registrants (and people here might agree)
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:09
they may if the language if adoptee
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:14
adopted
Marie Pattullo
01:00:22
+1 Paul.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:00:36
Maxim is right: it's not a red herring because this proposal is to cover new ground which is plausibly in the area he has raised
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:39
I do not think it is a rad herring
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:44
red
Jason Schaeffer
01:00:46
Brian. If I may respond.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:01:24
part of the concern is around language that is a bit open and can be misused -
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:33
we do not have consensus, so it opinion of some members and objected by some other members
Kathryn Kleiman
01:01:56
Ariel, can you highlight language that would be moved?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:02:10
Tx!
Ariel Liang
01:02:12
Basically the bullet points
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:40
the language has huge potential of being used for extortion of money from Registries
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:02:51
whether moved or not I would like to comment on the notion of discriminatory pricing practices when we get to 2d bullet
Rebecca Tushnet
01:03:10
Ariel, I think moving is a good first step but it does also need additional views
Rebecca Tushnet
01:03:15
in the context
Ariel Liang
01:03:28
Yes Rebecca. That’s staff’s understanding as well
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:55
. sucks - what percent of all TLDs is that? it is less then 0.1%
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:12
a reason for concern for specific language is that this is essentially direction to another team - the IRT
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:30
Sunrise is only for TMCH entries
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:53
might be free for all TMCH entries?
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:02
I agree with David: if we just give free floating "registries can do bad things" language then many different things could happen inconsistent with what we agreed on
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:12
(registry operators, sorry; too fast typing)
Griffin Barnett
01:09:14
I would prefer not to adopt Kathy’s suggested change to the initial language introducing the bullets
Griffin Barnett
01:09:28
About referring to the IPC and BC because it was not just those groups
Griffin Barnett
01:10:03
If we want to clarify the language to make clear that we are talking about abuse perpetrated by ROs we can do that
Kathryn Kleiman
01:10:23
Some primary forms of perceived Sunrise misuse expressed by trademark owners of Registry Operators' conduct include...
Kathryn Kleiman
01:11:35
Some communities in the WG and commenters shared...
Paul McGrady
01:11:54
I'm glad that we are working with the actual language now and not off on wild goose chases.
Kathryn Kleiman
01:12:02
:-)
Ariel Liang
01:12:09
Hand up from staff
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:25
+1 for removal of discouraging
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:12:30
agree with Brian and Phil on discouraging
Alan Woods (Donuts)
01:13:05
+1
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:40
if claims are still active at the later than sunrise registration - the harm is minimal (TM owner is notified and able to act)
Kathryn Kleiman
01:14:33
Is everyone comfortable with the 2nd bullet point?
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:36
I remind all of us - reservation is a dynamical process, not static
Ariel Liang
01:15:17
Hand up
Griffin Barnett
01:15:41
I would suggest staff perhaps try and update the language based on the discussion and put it to email list and perhaps if needed we discuss on next call
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:43
for example, ICANN changed red Cross required list of reserved names almost 2 months ago
Griffin Barnett
01:16:20
But Sunrise period is concrete period fort each TLD so intentional reservation practices circumventing Sunrise is the only issue
Alan Woods (Donuts)
01:19:53
+1 David
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:22
direct price regulation will lead to issues in anti monopoly agencies around the globe
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:30
ALP did not work
Steve Levy
01:20:34
Is pricing really irrelevant when the price is based primarily on the value of a trademark corresponding to a given generic word?
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:44
Rebecca +1
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:57
. Madrid is the only survivor of ALP
Ariel Liang
01:21:30
The picket fence related language is already in the context
Griffin Barnett
01:21:44
I take the point that the ALP needs to work better in order to provide a legitimate means of getting certain domains to certain parties without running afoul of Sunrise requirements
Paul McGrady
01:21:53
Were those proposed additions in the public comment?
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:05
@Griffin first, it needs to work
Rebecca Tushnet
01:22:12
To be clear: I don't think we can resolve ALP issues in context language--I just think a richer picture would help
Kathryn Kleiman
01:22:26
common words; dictionary words seems fair wording to add to the new Context language.
Paul McGrady
01:22:55
Again, Were those proposed additions in the public comment?If not, we are just relitigating here. If they were, who said them?
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:56
publication of reserved lists was not supported
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:58
Brian - if we miove the discussion to list as Ariel suggested will we separately address the 'additional guidance' from small team now? or on list? I also want to comment on that
Ariel Liang
01:24:12
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
01:24:21
per the empirical research of Barton Beebe & Jeanne Fromer: in the US and Europe, 75-90% of the 1000 most used dictionary words are registered trademarks (in English; preliminary results suggest similar but somewhat lower results in other EU languages)
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:22
the same way as a publication TMCH names was not supported
Philip Corwin
01:24:42
Personal view -- our goal here is to provide general guidance to an IRT which, if the Rec receives consensus, will be tasked with drafting a specific RA provision that more precisely delineates what registry conduct may trigger an enforcement action
Griffin Barnett
01:24:47
It is these kinds of judgment calls that should militate in favor of a third-party dispute resolution procedure applicable to this provision
Griffin Barnett
01:24:55
Akin to picdrp
Paul McGrady
01:26:35
So what is in here already is from public comment. What others are suggesting is just re-litigation of their old positions.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:45
also language of public comments opposing it
Philip Corwin
01:27:49
@Griffin -- with our recommendation to allow joint filings under pddrp, why isn't it a sufficient 3rd party enforcement mechanism to take action against discriminatory sunrise circumvention that results in second level infringement? why is something more, new, and undefined required?
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:11
@Paul, the language does not take into account public connents of CPH
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:17
comments
Paul McGrady
01:28:41
@Maxim - Ariel just said that the text reflects public comment.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:29:26
(BTW, for folks who like this stuff, the non-registered most-used dictionary terms include: “despite,” “died,” “difficult,” “disease,” “killed,” “lack,” “loss,” “older,” “problem,” "violence” “least,” “perhaps,” “probably,” “trying,” “drug,” “religious,” “wants,” “husband,” “wife,” “married,” “male,” “woman,” “daughter,” “herself,” and “himself”)
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:39
some words can cost a lot - 2 letter domains, for example
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:00
the language is not agreed upon
Paul Tattersfield
01:34:23
I think there is a concern that if we provide general guidance it continue to fail to translate into productive outcomes from IRT & GDS. I know with ALP it would have been much easier if we could have said something along the lines “The working group recommends there should be a predictable process to timely evaluate and approve or reject an ALP request”.
Paul McGrady
01:34:39
Whatever its called, people can put in their pet positions, but let's not pretend it is helpful implementation guidance.
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:33
it is an anecdotal example
Jason Schaeffer
01:40:36
+1 David
Jason Schaeffer
01:40:59
We should try for implementation guidance.
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:09
+1 David
Paul McGrady
01:41:54
I have no objection in trying to get to agreed to implementation guidance, but do not think it is appropriate to compile everyone's various opinions and claim it is implementation guidance.
Griffin Barnett
01:42:20
I agree with David - I think we should give one more shot for a refined version of implementation guidance based on staff attempt at further revision based on today’s discussion
Griffin Barnett
01:42:45
I think we can reach something generally agreeable with a few key refinements
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:43:50
We just need to thank staff for giving it a go
Paul McGrady
01:44:45
@Brian - do you mean a challenge mechanism that goes to a neutral or do you mean some mechanism for aggrieved parties to complain to ICANN Compliance?
Paul McGrady
01:45:08
Kathy, were your comments in your personal capacity or as co-chair? Hard to follow.
Griffin Barnett
01:45:23
But context doesn’t need to capture consensus views? At the very least surely we can say that someone the WG supported a new third-party challenge mechanism as a means of enhancing compliance around this proposed new RA provision
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:29
third party mechanism was opposed by WG members also
Griffin Barnett
01:45:31
*some in the WG
Kathryn Kleiman
01:46:19
Agree with Griffin on this: But context doesn’t need to capture consensus views?
Griffin Barnett
01:47:32
It’s not “unrelated” to ICANN Compliance…. In my view it would be coordinated with Compliance in a similar way PICDRP and PDDRP are
Alan Woods (Donuts)
01:47:49
100% agreed Phil - I'm trying to figure out how this is not recommendation
Jason Schaeffer
01:48:26
+1 Phil
Maxim Alzoba
01:48:39
+1 Phil
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:09
we do not have consensus here
Paul McGrady
01:51:16
@Phil- can you answer the question that Brian actually asked?
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:08
this proposal did not have consensus support
Griffin Barnett
01:52:18
I take Phil’s points, but don’t agree with his characterization that the proposal about a challenge mechanism is unrelated to this recommendation…it’s clearly related bc it is a chellenge mechanism for the prohibited activity under this recommendation
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:23
we will not survive such comeback, so we do not need to add it here
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:53:26
I do not think it can appear as just some thought external challenge and some did not - it is a policy rec that deserves a consensus call and we cannot simply send it along with equal treatment to other ideas, there is enough opposition to it that that would not be right, IMO
Philip Corwin
01:54:12
In a personal capacity, I don't believe we need a new 3rd party challenge mechanism for aggrieved trademark owners to communicate to ICANN Compliance a belief that they should enforce the new RA provision
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:18
hand down - my reasons are above in chat against what Brian suggested
Kathryn Kleiman
01:54:45
@Paul - we've had a conversation for over an hour...and I'm glad we did!
Paul McGrady
01:55:47
@Kathy - not about the small team #2 outputs. Were we on the same call?
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:47
unlimited number of third parties challenging domain names in an unpredictabile manner - will cause consumer confusion and loss of confidence
Griffin Barnett
01:56:16
Maxim - on what basis do you assert that? PICDRP and PDDRP didn’t have that effect
Paul McGrady
01:56:38
@Jason - we can simply put a header on the Deliberations (Opinions section) that none of the below ideas got consensus. That seems fine and universal.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:16
@Griifin - check the text of the text for safeguards limiting period or number of parties
Griffin Barnett
01:57:29
What text?
Paul McGrady
01:57:50
@Brian, you didn't misstate anything. This is just strawmaning by those who want to censor it out of the Deliberations section.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:55
@Griffin, of the 3rd party tool suggestion
Kathryn Kleiman
01:58:06
+1 David (in my personal capacity)
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:16
+1 David
Maxim Alzoba
01:58:46
ops, time running fast on this topic
Griffin Barnett
01:59:33
Let’s conclude…. It seems to me we have agreed on the current text of Rec 2, that Staff should propose revised implementation guidance by refining the text currently in green on screen, and that we don’t have agreement to include additional small group language re challenge mechanism but that we could (potentially) capture that discussion as part of context
Philip Corwin
01:59:34
Thanks to all WG members for their civil and constructive commentary during today's meeting
Kathryn Kleiman
01:59:43
Tx Brian for chairing today!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:59:52
Thanks Brian, staff (good luck), and all
Ariel Liang
02:00:05
We need it :) @David
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
02:01:01
Thx Ariel