Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Renee Fossen (Forum)
31:00
Funny!
David McAuley (Verisign)
31:01
timing was perfect
Julie Bisland
31:04
Staged!
Jay Chapman
31:04
haha
Julie Bisland
31:06
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
David McAuley (Verisign)
33:32
can speak to it briefly
Kathy Kleiman
34:25
Can this be bigger?
Paul McGrady
35:19
@Kathy - I believe it was sent out to the list, so may be able to better view it that way. Agree, font small.
Ariel Liang
35:39
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#
Ariel Liang
36:16
PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=1311753169
Kathy Kleiman
37:53
Wow, have we any other "donut" like this one?
Kathy Kleiman
38:37
They love us, Paul :-)
Kathy Kleiman
39:38
+1 David
Petter Rindforth
40:06
Good idea!
Rebecca Tushnet
40:31
If the complaint contains the requisite information, then it should not be a burden to explain the relevant facts.
Paul McGrady
40:53
@Kathy - right!? Its like getting a good hand in Poker?
Petter Rindforth
41:22
Move on
Julie Hedlund
41:22
hand up from Kathy
Paul Tattersfield
42:10
facts are important
Rebecca Tushnet
45:39
Is it worth following up with Tucows about what they mean?
Philip Corwin
46:12
There's no domain transfer in URS, just suspension
Kathy Kleiman
46:24
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.
Philip Corwin
47:21
The suspension can be extended one year, but ownership never actually transfers
Philip Corwin
48:10
And in separate discussions it seems we are not adding any transfer capability, not even a right of first refusal
Griffin Barnett
48:29
I agree with Paul re the categorization of the CPH comments here
Philip Corwin
48:30
CPH appears to have concerns, but not really opposed
Griffin Barnett
48:53
I also note that NameBrights’s comments couched as non-support seem to misapprehend what the recommendation is designed to do
Ariel Liang
49:19
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
50:45
The NameBright comment could probably be addressed by some clarification that there's no intent to create a transfer remedy
Kathy Kleiman
51:16
hand yup
David McAuley (Verisign)
51:49
sounds fair
Ariel Liang
52:01
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
Cyntia King (USA)
52:25
Hello, all. Sorry for joining late.
Ariel Liang
52:41
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
52:50
+1 Kathy given that I think there are also questions about Tucows' comments on the previously discussed recommendation
David McAuley (Verisign)
53:08
I can go back to CPH is that is what we decide
David McAuley (Verisign)
53:30
on which button they intended to push
Julie Hedlund
53:42
hand up from Ariel
Rebecca Tushnet
54:03
We could also ask Tucows and hope to have an answer by the time the WG in full meets
Paul McGrady
55:04
@Rebecca, agree. I think that makes sense.
Kathy Kleiman
55:18
+1 Rebecca - can someone from Staff w/our SubgroupA Co-Chairs send a note to Tucows?
Kathy Kleiman
55:31
Subgroup B :-)
Philip Corwin
55:32
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
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
56:20
makes sense, thx Paul & Rebecca
Ariel Liang
56:21
Many Tucows’ comments are related to “remove Registrar”, in several recommendations/questions they responded
David McAuley (Verisign)
56:28
agree
Ariel Liang
58:38
Thanks Paul
Julie Hedlund
58:54
Thanks Paul that action is noted.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:00:28
This seems like where Tucows may have wanted their partial answer to go, I guess we'll see when we heare from them
Philip Corwin
01:01:08
The NOs do not appear to provide any rationale. Is that correct?
Ariel Liang
01:01:19
No, it is a simple multiple choice question
Ariel Liang
01:01:49
Sorry, I meant to say “yes” to Phil’s question
Philip Corwin
01:02:06
Without rationales the answers are not very helpful
Ariel Liang
01:02:16
Hand up
Rebecca Tushnet
01:04:48
+1 Phil. Frustrating!
Paul Tattersfield
01:05:26
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 McGrady
01:05:50
@Paul T. - interesting point.
Paul McGrady
01:06:44
@Phil - interesting point, a transfer inherently adds a year which is a year more suspension than what was initially awarded.
Philip Corwin
01:08:08
Yes, just one year extension of the suspension -- but a registrar must be paid to do that
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:30
Do we think that there are processes in place at transferee registrars to treat the extension as different from ordinary registrations?
Philip Corwin
01:09:52
No change to remedy, just which registrar gets paid for the one year extension
Rebecca Tushnet
01:10:09
Because for them it would be a new registration they're handling, not an extension of an existing registration
Julie Hedlund
01:13:17
Staff have noted the action.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:29
Thanks
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:18
I'm not opposed to passing this on to the full WG but I think we might have a few operational Qs worth addressing
Philip Corwin
01:15:12
Zak--can you explain ICA's opposition? What is the concern?
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:26
yes
Cyntia King (USA)
01:15:55
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.
Zak Muscovitch
01:21:37
Cynthia if you get a moment, maybe explain more how the bad registrar negativly affects the complainant
Cyntia King (USA)
01:23:09
The comments are not cleearly saying "No".
Cyntia King (USA)
01:23:43
Look at the groups saying "Yes" & the individuals saying "No"
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:55
will open up a whole new kettle of fish
Cyntia King (USA)
01:25:04
Problems w/ registrars should eventually be addressed by ICANN, but that's a lengthy process.
Philip Corwin
01:25:09
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
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:23
no pressure, Jay
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:37
I see no basis for doing that Phil.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:25:43
+1 @Phil
Paul Tattersfield
01:26:02
the question I guess is would it get broad support and it doens't look like it does unless there is substantial work
Cyntia King (USA)
01:26:10
Agree @Phil.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:11
Do we (WG) really have time for the cascade of new problems that may/will arise...
Philip Corwin
01:26:26
We have a situation where winning complainants are unable or reasonably unwilling to use a one-year registration extension that URS has always permitted.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:29
And how to do you stop a renewal by the Complainant once the domain name is transferred to their own account.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:36
Operationally impossible...
Ariel Liang
01:27:00
Hand up
Philip Corwin
01:27:05
Kathy, it is unfortunate that you missed a lot of the prior discussion.
Zak Muscovitch
01:27:15
So this could be a backdoor to the complainant getting a ROFR?
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:27
@Phil - nothing in this recommendation/question limits this question to that narrow application.
Philip Corwin
01:27:39
IRT could be instructed to make sure that it's one year only, no further extension, no right of first refusal.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:27:48
Isn't there a page hosted by the provider or registry, Kathy, Zak, so the content would make clear it is suspended?
Philip Corwin
01:28:11
We in this WG could strictly limit it
Griffin Barnett
01:28:20
Hi folks, need to drop off for another call
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:51
The registrant has no account with the other registrar
Kathy Kleiman
01:30:24
This goes against the transfer policy
Zak Muscovitch
01:30:34
No account and no agreement. Also unsure what happens when it expires.
Paul McGrady
01:31:50
@Cyntia - old hand or new?
Paul Tattersfield
01:32:53
Phil it ssems to me that's a different bar level to other recs and questions
Jay Chapman
01:33:54
+1 Kathy
Cyntia King (USA)
01:33:56
Registrant domain are transferred to new registrars already in specific circmstances. This simply outlines a new specific circumstance.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:34:21
I agree w/ Phil's suggestions.
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:30
+1 Paul - well summarized.
Zak Muscovitch
01:36:50
Agree with this approach, Paul
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:36:54
I can support what Paul just suggested
Paul Tattersfield
01:36:58
Agree
Georges Nahitchevansky
01:37:09
agree
Jay Chapman
01:37:15
agree
Philip Corwin
01:37:21
OK with Paul's suggestion as it preserves the issue within the context of perfecting Rec 8
Ariel Liang
01:37:24
hand up
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:19
with the concerns raised by others...
Philip Corwin
01:38:20
Being unable to utilize the permitted one year extension is an implementation issue
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:44
that this is a very narrow issue...
Philip Corwin
01:39:01
Paul, always take yes for an answer ;-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:53
@Ariel: will you be added some of the concerns raised in this discussion as well?
Ariel Liang
01:40:01
Yes, recorded
Philip Corwin
01:42:45
IPC and INTA split on this one...interesting
Philip Corwin
01:43:51
That may be true for Tucows privacy service, but not necessarily others
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:01
:-)
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:08
I think you've done it!
Philip Corwin
01:46:12
Agree. It should go on, but should be tweaked in accord with comments
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:27
Great!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:47:47
Good meeting, thanks Paul and staff and all
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:54
Tx Paul!
Zak Muscovitch
01:48:01
Many thanks, Paul!
Paul Tattersfield
01:48:04
Great meeting, thanks Paul, Bye All
Philip Corwin
01:48:07
Happy 4th of July!
Jay Chapman
01:48:13
Thanks, all
Julie Hedlund
01:48:36
Great job Paul and all — bye!