Funny!

timing was perfect

Staged!

haha

Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

can speak to it briefly

Can this be bigger?

@Kathy - I believe it was sent out to the list, so may be able to better view it that way. Agree, font small.

Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#

PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=1311753169

Wow, have we any other "donut" like this one?

They love us, Paul :-)

+1 David

Good idea!

If the complaint contains the requisite information, then it should not be a burden to explain the relevant facts.

@Kathy - right!? Its like getting a good hand in Poker?

Move on

hand up from Kathy

facts are important

Is it worth following up with Tucows about what they mean?

There's no domain transfer in URS, just suspension

Registry Requirement 10: In cases where a URS Complainant (as defined in theURS Rules) has prevailed, Registry Operator MUST offer the option for the URSComplainant to extend a URS Suspended domain name's registration for anadditional year (if allowed by the maximum registration policies of the TLD),provided, however, that the URS Suspended domain name MUST remainregistered to the registrant who was the registrant at the time of URSSuspension. Registry Operator MAY collect the Registrar renewal fee if the URSComplainant elects to renew the URS Suspended domain name with thesponsoring Registrar.

The suspension can be extended one year, but ownership never actually transfers

And in separate discussions it seems we are not adding any transfer capability, not even a right of first refusal

I agree with Paul re the categorization of the CPH comments here

CPH appears to have concerns, but not really opposed

I also note that NameBrights’s comments couched as non-support seem to misapprehend what the recommendation is designed to do

Hand up

The NameBright comment could probably be addressed by some clarification that there's no intent to create a transfer remedy

hand yup

sounds fair

CPH did select “Do not support recommendation” in the public comment google forms, that’s why it is colored red here. It is consistent with the multiple question choice commenters made

Hello, all. Sorry for joining late.

Hand up

+1 Kathy given that I think there are also questions about Tucows' comments on the previously discussed recommendation

I can go back to CPH is that is what we decide

on which button they intended to push

hand up from Ariel

We could also ask Tucows and hope to have an answer by the time the WG in full meets

@Rebecca, agree. I think that makes sense.

+1 Rebecca - can someone from Staff w/our SubgroupA Co-Chairs send a note to Tucows?

Subgroup B :-)

When you take CPH out of the red zone there is overwhelming support for this Rec, with remaining opposition seeming to be based upon misunderstanding

makes sense, thx Paul & Rebecca

Many Tucows’ comments are related to “remove Registrar”, in several recommendations/questions they responded

agree

Thanks Paul

Thanks Paul that action is noted.

This seems like where Tucows may have wanted their partial answer to go, I guess we'll see when we heare from them

The NOs do not appear to provide any rationale. Is that correct?

No, it is a simple multiple choice question

Sorry, I meant to say “yes” to Phil’s question

Without rationales the answers are not very helpful

Hand up

+1 Phil. Frustrating!

I would guess it's what happens when the name finally drops or just before a drop, that is the concern of the objectors. i.e. what happens at a complaint friendly registrar may be different from what happens at a respondent’s preferred registrar

@Paul T. - interesting point.

@Phil - interesting point, a transfer inherently adds a year which is a year more suspension than what was initially awarded.

Yes, just one year extension of the suspension -- but a registrar must be paid to do that

Do we think that there are processes in place at transferee registrars to treat the extension as different from ordinary registrations?

No change to remedy, just which registrar gets paid for the one year extension

Because for them it would be a new registration they're handling, not an extension of an existing registration

Staff have noted the action.

Thanks

I'm not opposed to passing this on to the full WG but I think we might have a few operational Qs worth addressing

Zak--can you explain ICA's opposition? What is the concern?

yes

I am currently working on at least 7 matters where the respondent is clearly cybersquatting & hiding behind a foreign registrar or a registrar acting in bad faith.

Cynthia if you get a moment, maybe explain more how the bad registrar negativly affects the complainant

The comments are not cleearly saying "No".

Look at the groups saying "Yes" & the individuals saying "No"

will open up a whole new kettle of fish

Problems w/ registrars should eventually be addressed by ICANN, but that's a lengthy process.

I renew my suggestion that we try to work out a way to meet legitimate concerns of both sides before we get to the consensus call

no pressure, Jay

I see no basis for doing that Phil.

+1 @Phil

the question I guess is would it get broad support and it doens't look like it does unless there is substantial work

Agree @Phil.

Do we (WG) really have time for the cascade of new problems that may/will arise...

We have a situation where winning complainants are unable or reasonably unwilling to use a one-year registration extension that URS has always permitted.

And how to do you stop a renewal by the Complainant once the domain name is transferred to their own account.

Operationally impossible...

Hand up

Kathy, it is unfortunate that you missed a lot of the prior discussion.

So this could be a backdoor to the complainant getting a ROFR?

@Phil - nothing in this recommendation/question limits this question to that narrow application.

IRT could be instructed to make sure that it's one year only, no further extension, no right of first refusal.

Isn't there a page hosted by the provider or registry, Kathy, Zak, so the content would make clear it is suspended?

We in this WG could strictly limit it

Hi folks, need to drop off for another call

The registrant has no account with the other registrar

This goes against the transfer policy

No account and no agreement. Also unsure what happens when it expires.

@Cyntia - old hand or new?

Phil it ssems to me that's a different bar level to other recs and questions

+1 Kathy

Registrant domain are transferred to new registrars already in specific circmstances. This simply outlines a new specific circumstance.

I agree w/ Phil's suggestions.

+1 Paul - well summarized.

Agree with this approach, Paul

I can support what Paul just suggested

Agree

agree

agree

OK with Paul's suggestion as it preserves the issue within the context of perfecting Rec 8

hand up

with the concerns raised by others...

Being unable to utilize the permitted one year extension is an implementation issue

that this is a very narrow issue...

Paul, always take yes for an answer ;-)

@Ariel: will you be added some of the concerns raised in this discussion as well?

Yes, recorded

IPC and INTA split on this one...interesting

That may be true for Tucows privacy service, but not necessarily others

:-)

I think you've done it!

Agree. It should go on, but should be tweaked in accord with comments

Great!

Good meeting, thanks Paul and staff and all

Tx Paul!

Many thanks, Paul!

Great meeting, thanks Paul, Bye All

Happy 4th of July!

Thanks, all

Great job Paul and all — bye!