
31:00
Funny!

31:01
timing was perfect

31:04
Staged!

31:04
haha

31:06
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

33:32
can speak to it briefly

34:25
Can this be bigger?

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.

35:39
Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit#

36:16
PCRT: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16p196gjSt1CCXnowlWeXl_BcaggiXpoxiRSKFv1Mg18/edit#gid=1311753169

37:53
Wow, have we any other "donut" like this one?

38:37
They love us, Paul :-)

39:38
+1 David

40:06
Good idea!

40:31
If the complaint contains the requisite information, then it should not be a burden to explain the relevant facts.

40:53
@Kathy - right!? Its like getting a good hand in Poker?

41:22
Move on

41:22
hand up from Kathy

42:10
facts are important

45:39
Is it worth following up with Tucows about what they mean?

46:12
There's no domain transfer in URS, just suspension

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.

47:21
The suspension can be extended one year, but ownership never actually transfers

48:10
And in separate discussions it seems we are not adding any transfer capability, not even a right of first refusal

48:29
I agree with Paul re the categorization of the CPH comments here

48:30
CPH appears to have concerns, but not really opposed

48:53
I also note that NameBrights’s comments couched as non-support seem to misapprehend what the recommendation is designed to do

49:19
Hand up

50:45
The NameBright comment could probably be addressed by some clarification that there's no intent to create a transfer remedy

51:16
hand yup

51:49
sounds fair

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

52:25
Hello, all. Sorry for joining late.

52:41
Hand up

52:50
+1 Kathy given that I think there are also questions about Tucows' comments on the previously discussed recommendation

53:08
I can go back to CPH is that is what we decide

53:30
on which button they intended to push

53:42
hand up from Ariel

54:03
We could also ask Tucows and hope to have an answer by the time the WG in full meets

55:04
@Rebecca, agree. I think that makes sense.

55:18
+1 Rebecca - can someone from Staff w/our SubgroupA Co-Chairs send a note to Tucows?

55:31
Subgroup B :-)

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

56:20
makes sense, thx Paul & Rebecca

56:21
Many Tucows’ comments are related to “remove Registrar”, in several recommendations/questions they responded

56:28
agree

58:38
Thanks Paul

58:54
Thanks Paul that action is noted.

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

01:01:08
The NOs do not appear to provide any rationale. Is that correct?

01:01:19
No, it is a simple multiple choice question

01:01:49
Sorry, I meant to say “yes” to Phil’s question

01:02:06
Without rationales the answers are not very helpful

01:02:16
Hand up

01:04:48
+1 Phil. Frustrating!

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

01:05:50
@Paul T. - interesting point.

01:06:44
@Phil - interesting point, a transfer inherently adds a year which is a year more suspension than what was initially awarded.

01:08:08
Yes, just one year extension of the suspension -- but a registrar must be paid to do that

01:09:30
Do we think that there are processes in place at transferee registrars to treat the extension as different from ordinary registrations?

01:09:52
No change to remedy, just which registrar gets paid for the one year extension

01:10:09
Because for them it would be a new registration they're handling, not an extension of an existing registration

01:13:17
Staff have noted the action.

01:13:29
Thanks

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

01:15:12
Zak--can you explain ICA's opposition? What is the concern?

01:15:26
yes

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.

01:21:37
Cynthia if you get a moment, maybe explain more how the bad registrar negativly affects the complainant

01:23:09
The comments are not cleearly saying "No".

01:23:43
Look at the groups saying "Yes" & the individuals saying "No"

01:24:55
will open up a whole new kettle of fish

01:25:04
Problems w/ registrars should eventually be addressed by ICANN, but that's a lengthy process.

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

01:25:23
no pressure, Jay

01:25:37
I see no basis for doing that Phil.

01:25:43
+1 @Phil

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

01:26:10
Agree @Phil.

01:26:11
Do we (WG) really have time for the cascade of new problems that may/will arise...

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.

01:26:29
And how to do you stop a renewal by the Complainant once the domain name is transferred to their own account.

01:26:36
Operationally impossible...

01:27:00
Hand up

01:27:05
Kathy, it is unfortunate that you missed a lot of the prior discussion.

01:27:15
So this could be a backdoor to the complainant getting a ROFR?

01:27:27
@Phil - nothing in this recommendation/question limits this question to that narrow application.

01:27:39
IRT could be instructed to make sure that it's one year only, no further extension, no right of first refusal.

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?

01:28:11
We in this WG could strictly limit it

01:28:20
Hi folks, need to drop off for another call

01:29:51
The registrant has no account with the other registrar

01:30:24
This goes against the transfer policy

01:30:34
No account and no agreement. Also unsure what happens when it expires.

01:31:50
@Cyntia - old hand or new?

01:32:53
Phil it ssems to me that's a different bar level to other recs and questions

01:33:54
+1 Kathy

01:33:56
Registrant domain are transferred to new registrars already in specific circmstances. This simply outlines a new specific circumstance.

01:34:21
I agree w/ Phil's suggestions.

01:36:30
+1 Paul - well summarized.

01:36:50
Agree with this approach, Paul

01:36:54
I can support what Paul just suggested

01:36:58
Agree

01:37:09
agree

01:37:15
agree

01:37:21
OK with Paul's suggestion as it preserves the issue within the context of perfecting Rec 8

01:37:24
hand up

01:38:19
with the concerns raised by others...

01:38:20
Being unable to utilize the permitted one year extension is an implementation issue

01:38:44
that this is a very narrow issue...

01:39:01
Paul, always take yes for an answer ;-)

01:39:53
@Ariel: will you be added some of the concerns raised in this discussion as well?

01:40:01
Yes, recorded

01:42:45
IPC and INTA split on this one...interesting

01:43:51
That may be true for Tucows privacy service, but not necessarily others

01:46:01
:-)

01:46:08
I think you've done it!

01:46:12
Agree. It should go on, but should be tweaked in accord with comments

01:47:27
Great!

01:47:47
Good meeting, thanks Paul and staff and all

01:47:54
Tx Paul!

01:48:01
Many thanks, Paul!

01:48:04
Great meeting, thanks Paul, Bye All

01:48:07
Happy 4th of July!

01:48:13
Thanks, all

01:48:36
Great job Paul and all — bye!