Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
Paul McGrady
14:19
Congrats Kathy! An exciting time for him, even if a bit hard for his mom!
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
16:03
Just FYI Maxim sent that statement already to the email list, so perhaps AOB discussion is not necessary?
Julie Hedlund
16:46
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gpVahqI6nDk9U37vK4CPhad7S1mWLoRbqbznkm0jMds/edit?usp=sharing
Julie Hedlund
19:35
hand up
Julie Hedlund
21:26
hand up
Julie Hedlund
21:30
I can address
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
22:14
Re Maxim's statement: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004457.html
Philip Corwin
26:55
I would urge a very brief discussion on PDDRP today, given our agenda. We can schedule a full discussion once the small group has agreed on a final text and background information.
Lori Schulman, INTA
28:08
Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP)
Lori Schulman, INTA
28:16
TM = trademark
Griffin Barnett
28:33
If there is someone in this group who doesn’t know what the PDDRP is by now, that’s concerning
Scott Austin
28:50
@Phil +1
Lori Schulman, INTA
28:56
TM PDDRP = Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process
David McAuley (Verisign)
29:01
Agree with Paul that the discussion yesterday was very constructive – my thanks to Paul, Zak, Greg, Brian, and staff on that call (hope I have not overlooked anyone).
Philip Corwin
29:36
Thanks Paul. We will have a comprehensive discussion once this is fully baked.
Griffin Barnett
33:53
I think in the past we have used the term “discriminatory pricing’ to identify the instances where pricing is set in a manner to circumvent the RPMs rather than simply higher or lower
Griffin Barnett
34:14
In this way it is not a picket fence issue
Maxim Alzoba
34:20
Prices regulation is not in ICANN remit
Maxim Alzoba
34:33
and outside of the picket fence
Paul Tattersfield
34:46
I think it used to be
Philip Corwin
35:03
I plan to post a question or two about this new language on the WG list for consideration by the small group. Others should feel free to do the same, rather than spend time on this call. Thanks
Griffin Barnett
35:48
Agree Paul
David McAuley (Verisign)
36:10
Thank you, Paul
Scott Austin
36:16
@Paul +1
Griffin Barnett
36:31
Not sure if it was already mentioned but this approach is also one prong of implementing Sunrise rec 2
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
38:23
@Maxim, that's good feedback -- on yesterday's call, the concept was "significant" or exponential or orders of magnitude, etc. so (not to speak for Paul) this seems to match the intent of the proposal
Marie Pattullo
39:21
"Significant" is subjective though; won't that cause a lot more uncertainty/wrangling?
Griffin Barnett
39:27
“Disproportionately inflated prices”
Maxim Alzoba
39:28
old hand
Paul McGrady
42:59
Thanks Maxim, Phil, and Kathy as well as those in chat.
Paul McGrady
44:12
"regularly scheduled program"! :-) Flashback
Philip Corwin
44:24
You're very welcome, Paul. I'd hope we see a final proposal soon as we are scheduled to move on to Final Report review in just a few meetings.
Julie Hedlund
46:37
Here is the link to the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/110It4ZZMV6V4XY77J6DUq-H_ZGtdPNV8qCB_5Ukd29E/edit?usp=sharing
Kathryn Kleiman
46:57
can Staff move one paragraph down.
Philip Corwin
49:02
I just took a quick look at Rec 10 and believe when we get to it in a future meeting we should try to integrate it and 6 into one combined and comprehensive recommendation
Paul McGrady
53:43
And I'm happy to have Zak do it!
Ankur Raheja
53:54
+1
Kathryn Kleiman
54:58
Can Staff please go up to the top?
David McAuley (Verisign)
57:14
interpreting 'sufficient detail' to at least mean commenting on each element of what constitutes a registration in violation of URS seems a good idea to me
Julie Hedlund
57:54
@Kathy: Noted by staff
Zak Muscovitch
59:42
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.
Julie Hedlund
01:00:15
Thanks @Zak!
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:50
TLDs are limited to 10 years
Philip Corwin
01:01:20
Believe the point of this language is to allow the 1 year extension without resulting in a DN transfer.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:04:18
agree, Paul
Paul Tattersfield
01:09:42
agree Paul
Zak Muscovitch
01:11:25
Agree with Paul M's characterization of this item
Mary Wong
01:11:56
In any event, under the current IRTP, only Registered Name Holders (RNH) can initiate/request a domain name transfer.
Paul McGrady
01:12:45
@Mary, yep.
Julie Hedlund
01:15:31
@Kathy: Noted by Staff.
Julie Hedlund
01:15:33
yes
Mary Wong
01:16:07
@Paul, the IRTP is also due to be reviewed at some point :)
Paul McGrady
01:16:45
@Mary - can't wait!
Lori Schulman, INTA
01:16:52
Good leadership today and last week. Ending before the 90 minutes is always good.
Mary Wong
01:18:37
@Maxim, the current URS Rec #4 doesn’t seem to require amending the texts of the RA or RAA.
Paul McGrady
01:18:55
Thanks for sharing this, but when it comes to a minority statement, the WG doesn't review/approve them, correct? They just are what they are.
Mary Wong
01:19:01
It would nevertheless be out of scope for a PDP to recommend contractual changes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:04
old
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:45
Wouldn't be better to do it after the final report?
Griffin Barnett
01:20:50
It’s not out of scope for a PDP to recommend contractual changes
Philip Corwin
01:21:02
Rec4 may go beyond the existing agreements in terms of the compliance mechanism for outside parties
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:44
It seems to me that Griffin and Mary are using the verb 'recommend' in different ways.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:19
I should have said 'may be using'
Mary Wong
01:25:30
@Griffin, I meant a PDP recommending actual text, as opposed to policy recommendations that would result in new contractual obligations.
Griffin Barnett
01:25:39
Gotcha - thanks for clarifying
John McElwaine
01:25:43
"Minority Views" refer to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation.
Griffin Barnett
01:26:44
Can a member of the public not file a general complaint with ICANN COmpliance?
Mary Wong
01:27:17
Yes they can; they can also contact ICANN Global Support.
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:21
it is a typical scenario (3rd party sends a complaints), then a contracted party gets the case from the Compliance Dept. of ICANN
Paul Tattersfield
01:27:31
I thnik George K did
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:23
Lori +1
Griffin Barnett
01:29:23
I think Lori raises a very good point
Julie Hedlund
01:29:47
It appears that is included in the context
Julie Hedlund
01:29:51
hand up
Philip Corwin
01:29:59
As I just said, it's up to the WG to determine whether we missed something so important that we should revisit a closed Recommendation. But it should be the rare exception not the rule. And it should be listed on a meeting agenda if we ever do that.
Griffin Barnett
01:30:14
It seems to me that Ry and Rr are clearly subject to a compliance mechanism, namely general complaint process to ICANN Compliance, for alleged failure to adhere to the URS requirements, so the rec really seems to be targeting URS providers primarily to ensure a similar ability exists in relation to them
Philip Corwin
01:31:03
Can staff instruct us on the rules for minority statements?
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:25
with the reference to the GNSO procedures
Julie Hedlund
01:32:01
Staff can do that at a later point
Philip Corwin
01:32:07
OK
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:17
CPH does not support URS #4
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:32:19
I think Julie had hand up
Paul McGrady
01:32:32
Agree that Staff should do that later. It is going to be a detailed discussion with lots of questions.
Mary Wong
01:32:38
@Maxim, we are not yet at consensus stage.
Griffin Barnett
01:32:42
Ok thanks
Paul Tattersfield
01:32:46
thanks Kathy, bye all