051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
hi david you are fading in and out again
although not as bas as last time
Yes, we can hear you
On Q1, I did not see any ideas or facts that were not previously discussed within the WG
Agree with Phil
Agree in Q2 that both major categories have also been discussed in the WG
BC has also made this comment in the TM-PDDRP recommendation, we believe
ah thanks Ariel
tht makes sense David
I mean, discriminatory pricing against TM owners could be aiding and abetting infringement
@David — we are capturing it
I am agreeing that the Bc comment appears to be new/just noting its relationship to the other recommendation on a complaint mechanism
Perhaps the BC comment gets at the PDDRP criteria, they have been said to be overlapping, overly detailed (i.e., , and effectively meaningless.
Staff still have hand up
(David is fading in and out for me)
Hand up too, for Q2 actually
It seems the comments on Q3a-1 are specific to ALP, not QLP
@Griffin--mostly, but CORE said "QLP 100 did not suffice"
Fair enough, yes I do see that point re QLp there
@Griffin and Phil, I always felt it would have been preferable to distinguish between these three mechanisms rather than lump them together all the time. And I agree with Griffin, to the extent that one can draw any real conclusions from such limited input it seems clear that the real problem area was getting approval in a timely manner for an ALP. Which frankly we all knew about but have not really tried to address yet
Comments about the ALP seem more like an issue with how they were implemented by ICANN Org
Seems like we have multiple suggestions for a more efficient ICANN Org approval process for QLP requests
@Phil - ALP requests you mean?
Yes, I stand corrected -- ALP requests
confusingly similar acronyms -)
yes david we can hear you
@David, your audio is low
Losing you David
It came back briefly
yes, better at this time
@Phil - Spec 13 registries are already exempt from sunrise. I think CPH are suggesting code of conduct exempt TLDs shuld be treated similarly. and I agree that this might be a new point
The main takeaways for me from this set of Qs are: (1) look into implementation of ALP; (2) consider exemptions for running sunrise for certain closed gTLD types (this is another rec/question under Sunrise so I suggest we deal with that issue there)
@Susan--thanks for that clarification
Thanks David and all
Review of Qs seems to go faster than review of comments on Recommendations -- so we should adjust future SG agendas accordingly
Thank you David and everyone!
thanks David. and very happy to get the time back if we finish early :)
Thanks, David and all