Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:12
Nice to know this is Thursday - started forgetting days during ICANN 68
Andrea Glandon
41:22
:)
Julie Hedlund
41:23
LOL David ;-)
Andrea Glandon
41:28
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Paul McGrady
42:19
+1 Kathy - I thought the remote Policy Forum was wonderfully done. Kudos to Staff!
David McAuley (Verisign)
42:40
+1 Kathy and Paul
Ariel Liang
44:03
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=1450290187
Philip Corwin
44:20
It's Thursday on most of Planet Earth, third stone from the sun ;-)
Marie Pattullo
46:51
Not on substance but again noting Susan's point from the last meeting - the % gives equal weight to individuals and associations.
Paul McGrady
47:24
EFF was one of the more prominent organizations opposing this.
Rebecca Tushnet
47:50
+1 Zak
David McAuley (Verisign)
48:05
+1 here as well
Jay Chapman
48:10
+1
Paul McGrady
48:27
An interesting idea that doesn't have adequate support.
Ariel Liang
48:45
Hand up
Philip Corwin
49:13
CPH did not comment, But I can imagine that registrars might have significant concerns about how yo prevent re-registration
Paul Tattersfield
50:13
Even those supporting questioned the feasibility while well intentioned shouldn't have really gone out public comment
Susan.Payne
50:29
@Phil - since they commented on plenty but not on this I don't think we can make that assumption at all
Philip Corwin
51:20
@Susan--you make your assumption, I'll make mine -- but irrelevant since #13 has expired
Ariel Liang
51:32
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=1311753169
Philip Corwin
53:44
Can staff remind us whether current URS provides any sanctions against a registrant with an abusive pattern of conduct?
Marie Pattullo
54:33
Same comment as above on the %s.
Julie Hedlund
54:56
Noted @Marie
Marie Pattullo
55:17
Thanks. It seems to be a strange "weighting".
Griffin Barnett
55:29
Not sure why the CPH feels the definitions are vague - they seem pretty specific and clear
Griffin Barnett
55:38
(Even if they disagree with them)
Julie Hedlund
55:41
@Phil: We will check, but we think there is no penalty for abusive respondents.
Susan.Payne
55:54
CPH not bothering to read te document yet again apparently
Susan.Payne
56:35
they may not like the definitions, but they can't say there aren't any
Susan.Payne
57:23
@Phil - no sanctions for the registrant. there are sanctions for the brand owner. hence the proposal
Paul Tattersfield
57:40
not a reasonable proposal no chance of support
Paul McGrady
57:53
Some venerable brands (e.g. Chanel) support the concept. Would be nice to see this concept preserved, even if some of the unworkable details need to go.
Marie Pattullo
58:08
+1 Griffin.
Paul Tattersfield
58:25
will also have the side effect of un-measurable nastygrams
Julie Hedlund
58:35
@All: As a reminder, this is a full WG meeting so this is the time to have that discussion.
Griffin Barnett
01:00:01
Sorry yes I conflated this with the Sub Team B meeting but fair enough that this is the full WG
Paul Tattersfield
01:00:49
Rebecca+1
Griffin Barnett
01:02:06
If we distill this proposal down to its essence, it would read something like: There should be enhanced penalties for repeat offenders and high volume cybersquatters
Griffin Barnett
01:02:16
All of the other detail is implementation
Susan.Payne
01:02:38
agree Griffin
Marie Pattullo
01:02:42
+1 Griffin and again, it is misleading to use the %s as equal weighting.
Griffin Barnett
01:03:15
For comments who don’t agree with the proposed definitions, why?
Paul McGrady
01:03:44
+1 Griffin. Then, we could leave it to the IRT to work out what those could be.
Julie Hedlund
01:04:43
@Susan: Thanks for that and staff have noted it.
Susan.Payne
01:04:57
thanks - can you change the donut please
Julie Hedlund
01:05:06
@Susan: We will
Rebecca Tushnet
01:05:10
Then the IRT would have to fundamentally change the nature of the URS/the registration process, or just state something unenforceable. Both seem bad.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:05:23
The IRT does not seem like the place to do the former.
Griffin Barnett
01:06:08
Not sure I get your argument that this would fundamentally change the nature of the URS… isn’t part of our job to consider changes?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:06:11
No penalty for repeat offender but there may be a ‘cost’ to the practice - repetitious offending may be used as proof I would think under the rules (like 5.9). Think we can move on on this proposal.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:01
Fundamentally change it from cheap, quick, and simple to something that affects even those at risk (escrow)
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:21
Change and make into a completely new administrative procedure seem like two different things
Rebecca Tushnet
01:07:39
Sorry, even those not at risk of losing
Griffin Barnett
01:07:42
Not sure how this change would make it into a completely new administrative procedure
Paul McGrady
01:07:46
@Rebecca, not necessarily. It could be something as simple as enhancing response fees for anyone with more than X# of URS decisions against them.
Marie Pattullo
01:08:13
Repeat offenders are not in need of our protection and they do not benefit the DNS.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:15
That's, frankly, useless given defaults and identity issues.
Griffin Barnett
01:08:19
And again, most if not all of the penalties outlines here are effectively straw man suggestions
Rebecca Tushnet
01:08:41
If we don't have an idea of what could actually work, then saying "let the IRT nerds do it" is not a good idea.
Paul McGrady
01:08:46
@Rebecca, if its useless to the Complainant than it is harmless to the Respondent, so why not agree to it?
Griffin Barnett
01:09:20
We believe what we proposed could actually work if people didn’t just have negative knee-jerk reactions to it
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:09:38
whatever merits might be I agree with Prof. Tushnet about tossing something like this to the implemtation team
Rebecca Tushnet
01:09:55
Because there are already fees for large #s and it's the smaller #s (1-3) where there are often the most significant issues. But I don't think we should deter responses in general given the nature of the proceeding.
Jay Chapman
01:10:02
Agree, David
Rebecca Tushnet
01:10:06
If you just increase response fees you aren't deterring and you should admit that.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:10:20
Deterring cybersquatting, that is.
Griffin Barnett
01:10:22
Can Zak repeat his question?
Griffin Barnett
01:10:38
Sorry, was typing in chat
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:43
:))
Paul McGrady
01:12:17
@Rebecca, so what are the practical deterrents you could get behind? Or, is cybersquatting inherently undeterrable and we need to do something far more radical than the RPMs in order to get relief?
Philip Corwin
01:13:10
That is not correct.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:13:27
Fair question Paul but the answer involves complementary consideration of both URS and UDRP IMO
Zak Muscovitch
01:13:33
Fair point, Susan
Paul McGrady
01:13:39
+1 Susan.
Philip Corwin
01:14:10
We discussed all individual URS proposals, and when we did every WG member had an opportunity to propose that any one become a WG recommendation for the Initial Report.
Zak Muscovitch
01:14:47
Ahh, that's right too, Phil. I recall that now
Marie Pattullo
01:15:18
Turn it around: why don't you want repeat offenders to be sanctioned?
Marie Pattullo
01:16:00
+1 to Griffin's explanation.
Paul McGrady
01:16:53
@Marie - a great question. They are sanctioned from participating in the New gTLD program. Why not at the second level? Surely we can come up with something, no matter how small, that we don't have to put onto the load already being carried by contracted parties. For example, my proposed enhanced response fee.
Griffin Barnett
01:17:53
We can’t spend the time to discuss this?
Griffin Barnett
01:17:56
That’s ludicrous
Marie Pattullo
01:18:32
Thanks Paul, and agree Griffin.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:18:46
Also a fair question from Marie but thus is to be a rapid process and there seems to be inadequate support here to undertake that kind of retrofitting. Also – repeat offending can be an element of proof and can lead to transfer in UDRP I would think.
Paul McGrady
01:19:25
@Phil - agree we should get this on the "live another day list" for the concept.
Jay Chapman
01:19:36
Right, David - or a court of law
Marie Pattullo
01:19:57
Why is it retrofitting David? This would be for the future, no?
Griffin Barnett
01:20:06
Repeat offenders are already considered in applying a presumption of bad faith, which goes to meeting the burden of proof but we feel that that top elf activity warrants further deterrents
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:20:23
I think to add a penalty here should be done by us and not implementation team
Griffin Barnett
01:21:29
*top elf = type of (weird auto correct)
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:22:25
for instance, Marie, we should decide whether it is 'two or more' or some other threshold not IT - at least in my view.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:23:14
Aside - often interesting which of these get us into quite a debate.
Marie Pattullo
01:23:56
With you David - thanks! - and agree on us finding the threshold. So can we distil this as suggested by Griffin and take it forward?
Philip Corwin
01:24:22
For the record--I never meant to imply that any SG or Constituency within Council has a "veto" over WG recommendations.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:40
Personally I think we move on, Marie, but willing to discuss Griffin's ideas if we decide otherwise
Griffin Barnett
01:25:10
I’m happy to work on distilling this proposal, and happy to take other volunteers
Griffin Barnett
01:25:16
SO we can “move on”
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:30
as long as that applies to all other individual proposals
Marie Pattullo
01:25:31
+1 Paul
Marie Pattullo
01:25:41
Paul McG
Ariel Liang
01:25:44
Hand up
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:22
16, 22 bingo
Zak Muscovitch
01:26:50
Another easy one! ;)
Marie Pattullo
01:28:34
It's those %s yet again... can we please *not* make that simplistic weighting seem to be determinative?
Paul Tattersfield
01:31:26
It’s just an attempt to inject costs into an allegation, it will mean letters threatening costs to acquire domains, not reasonable or appropriate for such a cheap, speedy low evidential requirements RPM
Rebecca Tushnet
01:32:13
+1 Paul
Rebecca Tushnet
01:33:04
I would start to worry about national theft/unauthorized charges laws if we say something like that.
Marie Pattullo
01:33:04
Isn't it rather an attempt to deter bad actors clogging the system?
Paul McGrady
01:33:46
Would it be both parties pay a fee and the winner gets refunded?
Griffin Barnett
01:35:18
Not sure what Phil means by "dmismissal"
Griffin Barnett
01:35:24
*dismissal even
Griffin Barnett
01:35:47
Initial screen?
Griffin Barnett
01:35:51
You mean losing the URS?
Griffin Barnett
01:36:03
Not sure what Phil is referring to
Michael R. Graham
01:36:13
Sorry -- have to leave for another meeting.
Philip Corwin
01:38:27
I meant that when a URS is filed that does not appear to be black & white but shades of gray it can be dismissed with the complainant having the opportunity to file a UDRP
Griffin Barnett
01:38:45
So that would be the complainant losing the URS?
Ariel Liang
01:38:57
Re the context of the proposal, it includes the following paragraph re the circumstance that Phil mentioned: The loser pays model could be adopted in all cases regardless of whether the respondent meets the “repeat offender” or “high-volume cybersquatting” thresholds, or it could be limited only to those cases involving a “repeat offender” or “high-volume cybersquatting.”
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:39:42
Thanks Ariel - if this moves forward there is some work to do, hopefully by us and not the IT
Brian beckham
01:39:46
.BE has implemented this abs this was raised earlier
Brian beckham
01:40:38
also “impact on the DN market” seems a questionable criteria for us to consider
Marie Pattullo
01:41:48
Good point Brian - shouldn't this, like any, market be as clean as we can make it?
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:51
Should take it to court if you want to inject costs they have the necessary safeguards, there is no point us here replicating the judicial system
Philip Corwin
01:42:40
@Griffin--you are correct. Just reviewed URS and the only examiner screen is satisfaction of administrative requirements, not whether prima facie case was made in complaint.
Marie Pattullo
01:42:41
It's not about injecting costs, it's about acting as a deterrent to bad actors.
Paul Tattersfield
01:42:48
there is strength in having differentiated solutions
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:52
I agree Marie, but there are bad actors on both sides and we need to provide balanced, graduated solutions
Griffin Barnett
01:45:26
Paul T - already penalties for abusive complaints/RDNH and complainants already pay filing fee even if they lose
Griffin Barnett
01:45:56
Plus, given the stats complainants clearly generally bring complaints in good faith
Griffin Barnett
01:46:26
I would hope there wouldn’t be tens of thousands of dollars of attorneys fees in a URS… might want to get a different attorney in that case
Paul Tattersfield
01:46:37
its still an alegation and low evidential requirements
Griffin Barnett
01:46:49
Clear and convincing evidence is low?
Griffin Barnett
01:47:14
It’s generally considered the second-highest burden of proof short of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case
Jay Chapman
01:48:22
Agree, Zak.
Griffin Barnett
01:48:32
Is Zak really suggesting that we can’t do anything with this because of where we are in the process? We specifically agreed to have these discussions and opportunity for refinements following the public comment period, which is where we arte
Marie Pattullo
01:48:38
Phil said this week that we're actually ahead of schedule (good to hear ;-)) so could this also not be taken forward with simplified wording?
Zak Muscovitch
01:49:13
Griffin - did I say that?
Paul Tattersfield
01:52:19
@Griffin people will just let domains go on any allegation its not worth the hassle to them - great for well intentioned TM holders but way too easy to abuse by people when no infringement is occurring. Impossible to police
Griffin Barnett
01:52:46
I would propose as a path forward that this proposal 22 be added into our effort to prepare a refined version of proposal 15 for further discussion, as a think loser pays could potentially be an appropriate penalty just in the limited cases of repeat offenders or hvcs
Brian beckham
01:53:10
given this conversation it would seem appropriate to allow the proponents to refine their proposal in light of public comment and have a discussion on that
Marie Pattullo
01:54:44
We also put out the proposals as we couldn't agree ourselves. So now we do have ways forward, as we see the main concerns and as Griffin said, we can work to simplify the wording to deal with many concerns from the consultation.
Paul Tattersfield
01:55:25
this should have been done earlier in the process
Paul McGrady
01:58:17
I hope that the proponents of some sort of loser pays model (of which I am one) takes up Phil's proposal to take this back to work on so that the concept lives another day.
Zak Muscovitch
01:59:33
Sounds good, Griffin
Paul McGrady
01:59:54
@Griffin, that makes sense. 15&22 are highly related. They try to reach the same thing - trying to find a way to deter bad actors.
Paul Tattersfield
02:01:26
thats a shame
Zak Muscovitch
02:03:23
THis is the current text of 6(a):
Zak Muscovitch
02:03:24
(a) Each Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available listof Examiners and their qualifications.
Paul McGrady
02:03:27
Did WIPO and Forum support this?
Griffin Barnett
02:04:42
Thanks Zak - yeah I did believe that was already a requirement that providers adhere to
Susan.Payne
02:06:58
CVs is dealt with elswhere
Susan.Payne
02:07:06
I think there was a recommendation
Griffin Barnett
02:07:47
So the latter concern is more of a violation of the existing URS rule rather than something that seems to need a policy fix
Paul McGrady
02:08:06
Can we all just bless this one? :)
Griffin Barnett
02:08:29
Agree I think clearly sufficient support here to move it forward
Kathy Kleiman
02:08:52
@Staff: can we go back up to the top?
Griffin Barnett
02:09:27
Agree Phil - that’s what I was alluding to earlier
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:09:36
Good meeting, thanks Kathy, staff and all, nice to hear Ockham’s razor made it into the discussion.
Paul McGrady
02:09:41
We can just note in the implementation guidance that they way the Forum is doing it complies.
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:10:43
agree
Griffin Barnett
02:10:53
@David - better than OCcham’s Flamethrower :)
Paul McGrady
02:10:55
Yay!
David McAuley (Verisign)
02:11:06
good point Griffin
Paul Tattersfield
02:11:12
thanks all, bye
Ariel Liang
02:11:14
Thanks all
Griffin Barnett
02:11:16
Thanks all