Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Nathalie Peregrine
19:35
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Ariel Liang
23:43
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=872694278
Susan.Payne
24:42
hi david you are fading in and out again
Susan.Payne
24:59
although not as bas as last time
Julie Hedlund
25:02
yes
Julie Hedlund
26:59
Yes, we can hear you
Philip Corwin
30:17
On Q1, I did not see any ideas or facts that were not previously discussed within the WG
Griffin Barnett
30:25
Agree Phil
michaelrgraham
30:45
Agree with Phil
Griffin Barnett
31:48
Agree in Q2 that both major categories have also been discussed in the WG
Ariel Liang
33:03
BC has also made this comment in the TM-PDDRP recommendation, we believe
Susan.Payne
33:14
ah thanks Ariel
Susan.Payne
33:45
tht makes sense David
Griffin Barnett
35:10
I mean, discriminatory pricing against TM owners could be aiding and abetting infringement
Julie Hedlund
36:05
@David — we are capturing it
Julie Hedlund
36:07
:-)
Griffin Barnett
36:49
+1 Susan
Philip Corwin
37:59
I am agreeing that the Bc comment appears to be new/just noting its relationship to the other recommendation on a complaint mechanism
Ariel Liang
39:10
Hand up
Brian Beckham
39:52
Perhaps the BC comment gets at the PDDRP criteria, they have been said to be overlapping, overly detailed (i.e., , and effectively meaningless.
Ariel Liang
41:01
Staff still have hand up
Brian Beckham
41:03
(David is fading in and out for me)
Ariel Liang
41:30
Hand up too, for Q2 actually
Griffin Barnett
42:08
It seems the comments on Q3a-1 are specific to ALP, not QLP
Philip Corwin
43:38
@Griffin--mostly, but CORE said "QLP 100 did not suffice"
Griffin Barnett
44:07
Fair enough, yes I do see that point re QLp there
Susan.Payne
47:10
@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
Griffin Barnett
47:19
Comments about the ALP seem more like an issue with how they were implemented by ICANN Org
Philip Corwin
47:34
Seems like we have multiple suggestions for a more efficient ICANN Org approval process for QLP requests
Griffin Barnett
47:49
@Phil - ALP requests you mean?
Philip Corwin
48:37
Yes, I stand corrected -- ALP requests
Philip Corwin
48:58
confusingly similar acronyms -)
Susan.Payne
54:20
yes david we can hear you
Terri Agnew
57:08
@David, your audio is low
Philip Corwin
57:19
Losing you David
Terri Agnew
57:29
It came back briefly
Terri Agnew
57:31
yes, better at this time
Ariel Liang
59:20
Hand u
Ariel Liang
59:22
hand up
Susan.Payne
59:39
@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
Griffin Barnett
59:58
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)
Philip Corwin
01:00:37
@Susan--thanks for that clarification
Griffin Barnett
01:04:35
Thanks David and all
Philip Corwin
01:04:36
Review of Qs seems to go faster than review of comments on Recommendations -- so we should adjust future SG agendas accordingly
Julie Hedlund
01:04:38
Thank you David and everyone!
Susan.Payne
01:04:56
thanks David. and very happy to get the time back if we finish early :)
Michael Graham
01:04:57
Thanks, David and all
Philip Corwin
01:05:04
Thx David