Logo

051040040 New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call - Shared screen with speaker view
Maxim Alzoba
28:59
Hello all
Andrea Glandon
29:41
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en
Javier Rúa-Jovet
30:03
I made some updates to my SOI
Javier Rúa-Jovet
30:20
I have changed from ALAC to ccNSO, that's it.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
30:43
Noted @Javier Thank you
Maxim Alzoba
30:45
Javier, congrats!
Annebeth Lange
31:03
Welcome to the cc-world, Javier!
Javier Rúa-Jovet
31:07
thx @Maxim.
Javier Rúa-Jovet
31:26
Thx @annebeth! meeting 2morrow!
Maxim Alzoba
32:23
like obligation to use only green palette on the websites for .green
Javier Rúa-Jovet
32:30
Annebeth that should be a T-Shirt "Welcome to cc-World!" I like it
Annebeth Lange
33:04
Suggest it, Javier!
Maxim Alzoba
33:09
in after f2f world - instead of T-shirt, T-shirt.gif :)
Emily Barabas
33:16
Here is the link to the review tool for RVCs/PICs
Javier Rúa-Jovet
33:30
lol
Emily Barabas
33:35
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bxEnuFrtI7996NnGPMR00JEwM6KK5m8Y_AGpSwqfi1o/edit#gid=1163822586
Jim Prendergast
34:58
ok
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
35:11
I think the third option makes the most sense.
Jim Prendergast
35:26
thanks
Kathryn Kleiman
36:43
Can we go topic by topic (RVC)? DNS Abuse, Verified TLDs, abolishing PICS entirely, etc.
Kathryn Kleiman
36:54
great!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
37:01
Sorry I kept dropping so I have established an old ADSL connection again fingers crossed
Jim Prendergast
40:30
old hand sorry
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
41:48
We can raise the issue as a hypothetical
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:04
and Avri at least usually attends our calls
Kathryn Kleiman
42:10
But our discussion right now is the mandatory PICs, right?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
42:13
so she is well aware
Kathryn Kleiman
42:42
Who should be included? and whether they should be expanded (e.g., to DNS Abuse)?
Kathryn Kleiman
46:47
Is this issue contingent on DNS Abuse decisions?
Julie Hedlund
46:53
Emily
Emily Barabas
47:30
I believe it is in the rationale
Paul McGrady
49:22
Absent some language referring to Spec. 13, I'm going to +1 Martin. I don't see a strong push to change anything either
Julie Hedlund
49:25
It’s not in 9.2 rationale
Paul McGrady
51:34
Is it timely to go through this stuff before our call with Becky and Avri?
Maxim Alzoba
52:07
it is a question of enforciable by whom? could be by registry, registry and registrar
Jim Prendergast
53:28
lightweight
CW
54:17
Spent 30 minutes trying to get on, now NO sound
Andrea Glandon
54:47
@Christopher, would you like me to dial out to you?
CW
55:31
OK. +3284345332
Maxim Alzoba
55:36
ICANN can not enforce exclusion by jurisdictions, most probably
Maxim Alzoba
55:47
at least GAC will be enraged
Susan.Payne
56:06
@kathy, I believe NABP are asking for something very different to that if you read the comment. they refer to Spec 11 3 (a)
Justine Chew
56:11
@Kathy, I don't think so.
Alan Greenberg
56:54
Sorry to be late.
Kathryn Kleiman
57:03
new hand
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
57:12
Welcome @Alan
Andrea Glandon
57:18
@Christopher, I see your phone connected; are you able to hear now?
CW
59:30
Yes I can hear on the phone, but it is extremely inconvenient.
Andrea Glandon
01:00:13
@Christopher, I’m sorry. You may need to check your speakers on your computer. I have not heard of any other issues from participants.
Justine Chew
01:00:51
I agree with Susan also.
Annebeth Lange
01:00:53
+1 Susan
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:05
:-) Yup
Alan Greenberg
01:01:07
+1
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:19
Registrar could do that if allowed
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:21
too
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:42
by Registry policies / RRA
Jim Prendergast
01:03:50
And the registries don't have direct relationships with registrants.
Justine Chew
01:04:08
It makes no sense for Compliance to just check off a RO's compliance just by confirming that the relevant clause has been inserted in the RRA.
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:54
formally Registries do not force anyone to get accredited, so if the policies are not up to expectations, probably it is up to a registrar - to get accredited or not
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:34
I do not see how it can be prevented
Kathryn Kleiman
01:06:00
Registries can enforce...
Justine Chew
01:06:55
+1 Alan, take down is different from vetting registrants
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:25
WHOIS is dead - RDAP is a new thing
Kathryn Kleiman
01:07:40
.BANK similarly
Javier Rúa-Jovet
01:08:41
Interesting.
Justine Chew
01:11:31
PICDRP is not THAT accessible
Alan Greenberg
01:11:34
PICDRP requires that you show harm
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:55
if no harm done, what is the harm?
Kathryn Kleiman
01:12:24
Concrete examples would help in these discussion -- even made up examples.
Jim Prendergast
01:12:49
did we ever hear back on that letter?
Jim Prendergast
01:14:10
thanks
Emily Barabas
01:14:40
That was all of them
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:53
The council received it but not formally replied
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:07
nor did we ask them to
Justine Chew
01:15:23
Sorry, so what are we doing with the NABP comment?
Paul McGrady
01:15:38
Kathy - here is a hypothetical: Bad guy gets .pharmacy second level domain name. Bad guy sells opioids to restricted jurisdiction from less restricted jurisdiction. Isolated incident. Someone gets addicted. Local police department files Cat1DRP complaint against registrant (not registrar, registry, ICANN, no involvement of ICANN). Domain name deleted. Thoughts?
Emily Barabas
01:16:35
Here is the link to the document currently being displayed: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmZRLAsW6wlTyQ8LA3KhOQzU1UABL9zCPWw39Yc9lB8/edit#gid=1163822586
Justine Chew
01:17:37
I think it's worthy of consideration. Perhaps Gg could indicate what NABP had in mind for a solution?
Jim Prendergast
01:17:42
14 out of 16 I thought
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:18:45
@Kathy and Justine: happy to discuss on the list.
Emily Barabas
01:19:11
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Justine Chew
01:19:15
@Gg, please? That would be helpful. Thanks,
Emily Barabas
01:19:17
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-09-24+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Emily Barabas
01:19:23
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-10-01+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP
Justine Chew
01:21:05
@Jeff, I acknowledge that we have discussed the CPE Guidelines, we need to review the output for completeness.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:44
Thus the sessions
Jamie Baxter
01:24:15
I think our prior conversations on this topic should take precedent. we’ve discussed this
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:24:47
Noted @Jamie
Justine Chew
01:25:26
Except for (1) (i)-(iv)
Annebeth Lange
01:27:49
I think we should support it if we want it. Silence should not be enough
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:24
random method with low participation does not seem to work
Paul McGrady
01:31:05
Its OK to address something by not changing anything without anyone calling out for change. And not just for this topic...
Annebeth Lange
01:31:35
+1 Paul
Jamie Baxter
01:31:37
I do not see the downside of community participation in this process
Jamie Baxter
01:32:42
+1 Alan
Paul McGrady
01:34:03
+1 Jeff -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:09
were looking for compelling arguments that you the WG can support (or not)
Paul McGrady
01:36:11
I don't know what "greater community participation" means. Isn't that what we are doing now and what the IRT will do? Haven't we already developed analogous mechanisms like the selectors for the IRP standing panel?
Justine Chew
01:37:38
@Anne, we are talking about (1)(i)-(iv) now
Annebeth Lange
01:39:41
+1 Paul. We have asked the community if what the WG has presented as recommendations can be accepted - or not. If there had been a huge, overwhelming number of opposition, this should be a sign that we are on the wrong track. However, if there is one or two or a few not supporting the work of the WG, it is difficult to see how we then could just change the result WG has presented after years of work
Paul McGrady
01:41:29
Agree Annebeth.
Justine Chew
01:43:02
@Annebeth, unfortunately the years of work didn't produce the level of detail that At-Large was comfortable with.
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:44:00
I think public comment needs to be considered. If it's not considered and discussed, there is no reason for issuing a draft Final Report.
Jim Prendergast
01:45:44
@Anne - I agree
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:46:04
were actioning discussion on these see the notes set of sesions
Anne Aikman-Scalese, Lewis Roca Tucson, AZ
01:46:55
Yes Jeff - I agree that is what we are doing now. Leadership is correct in its approach
Justine Chew
01:47:34
Just for the record, I think if the At-Large/ALAC did not submit the work that we produced in our 2 papers, this WG may not even have undertaken the discussions held in those 3 calls that staff/Jeff referred to. ALAC isn't the only the party who raised concerns.
Annebeth Lange
01:47:52
@Justine, I understand. But many of these different issues have to be a certain compromise.
Annebeth Lange
01:49:47
I agree, Paul
Justine Chew
01:51:19
@Annebeth, sure, if you could let me know what compromise we have to consider?
Julie Hedlund
01:51:52
Tuesday, 17 November at 0300 UTC
Phil Buckingham
01:51:53
+1 Jamie
Julie Hedlund
01:52:07
We link the work plan with the agenda
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:22
Keep up the good work eam!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:28
Team
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:29
bye all
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:31
thanks
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:52:33
Bye for now
Julie Hedlund
01:52:41
Thanks all!
Annebeth Lange
01:52:42
@Justine, I mean this generally. There is a lot of issues.Send me a mail!