Nice to know this is Thursday - started forgetting days during ICANN 68

:)

LOL David ;-)

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

+1 Kathy - I thought the remote Policy Forum was wonderfully done. Kudos to Staff!

+1 Kathy and Paul

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=1450290187

It's Thursday on most of Planet Earth, third stone from the sun ;-)

Not on substance but again noting Susan's point from the last meeting - the % gives equal weight to individuals and associations.

EFF was one of the more prominent organizations opposing this.

+1 Zak

+1 here as well

+1

An interesting idea that doesn't have adequate support.

Hand up

CPH did not comment, But I can imagine that registrars might have significant concerns about how yo prevent re-registration

Even those supporting questioned the feasibility while well intentioned shouldn't have really gone out public comment

@Phil - since they commented on plenty but not on this I don't think we can make that assumption at all

@Susan--you make your assumption, I'll make mine -- but irrelevant since #13 has expired

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=1311753169

Can staff remind us whether current URS provides any sanctions against a registrant with an abusive pattern of conduct?

Same comment as above on the %s.

Noted @Marie

Thanks. It seems to be a strange "weighting".

Not sure why the CPH feels the definitions are vague - they seem pretty specific and clear

(Even if they disagree with them)

@Phil: We will check, but we think there is no penalty for abusive respondents.

CPH not bothering to read te document yet again apparently

they may not like the definitions, but they can't say there aren't any

@Phil - no sanctions for the registrant. there are sanctions for the brand owner. hence the proposal

not a reasonable proposal no chance of support

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.

+1 Griffin.

will also have the side effect of un-measurable nastygrams

@All: As a reminder, this is a full WG meeting so this is the time to have that discussion.

Sorry yes I conflated this with the Sub Team B meeting but fair enough that this is the full WG

Rebecca+1

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

All of the other detail is implementation

agree Griffin

+1 Griffin and again, it is misleading to use the %s as equal weighting.

For comments who don’t agree with the proposed definitions, why?

+1 Griffin. Then, we could leave it to the IRT to work out what those could be.

@Susan: Thanks for that and staff have noted it.

thanks - can you change the donut please

@Susan: We will

Then the IRT would have to fundamentally change the nature of the URS/the registration process, or just state something unenforceable. Both seem bad.

The IRT does not seem like the place to do the former.

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?

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.

Fundamentally change it from cheap, quick, and simple to something that affects even those at risk (escrow)

Change and make into a completely new administrative procedure seem like two different things

Sorry, even those not at risk of losing

Not sure how this change would make it into a completely new administrative procedure

@Rebecca, not necessarily. It could be something as simple as enhancing response fees for anyone with more than X# of URS decisions against them.

Repeat offenders are not in need of our protection and they do not benefit the DNS.

That's, frankly, useless given defaults and identity issues.

And again, most if not all of the penalties outlines here are effectively straw man suggestions

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.

@Rebecca, if its useless to the Complainant than it is harmless to the Respondent, so why not agree to it?

We believe what we proposed could actually work if people didn’t just have negative knee-jerk reactions to it

whatever merits might be I agree with Prof. Tushnet about tossing something like this to the implemtation team

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.

Agree, David

If you just increase response fees you aren't deterring and you should admit that.

Deterring cybersquatting, that is.

Can Zak repeat his question?

Sorry, was typing in chat

:))

@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?

That is not correct.

Fair question Paul but the answer involves complementary consideration of both URS and UDRP IMO

Fair point, Susan

+1 Susan.

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.

Ahh, that's right too, Phil. I recall that now

Turn it around: why don't you want repeat offenders to be sanctioned?

+1 to Griffin's explanation.

@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.

We can’t spend the time to discuss this?

That’s ludicrous

Thanks Paul, and agree Griffin.

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.

@Phil - agree we should get this on the "live another day list" for the concept.

Right, David - or a court of law

Why is it retrofitting David? This would be for the future, no?

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

I think to add a penalty here should be done by us and not implementation team

*top elf = type of (weird auto correct)

for instance, Marie, we should decide whether it is 'two or more' or some other threshold not IT - at least in my view.

Aside - often interesting which of these get us into quite a debate.

With you David - thanks! - and agree on us finding the threshold. So can we distil this as suggested by Griffin and take it forward?

For the record--I never meant to imply that any SG or Constituency within Council has a "veto" over WG recommendations.

Personally I think we move on, Marie, but willing to discuss Griffin's ideas if we decide otherwise

I’m happy to work on distilling this proposal, and happy to take other volunteers

SO we can “move on”

as long as that applies to all other individual proposals

+1 Paul

Paul McG

Hand up

16, 22 bingo

Another easy one! ;)

It's those %s yet again... can we please *not* make that simplistic weighting seem to be determinative?

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

+1 Paul

I would start to worry about national theft/unauthorized charges laws if we say something like that.

Isn't it rather an attempt to deter bad actors clogging the system?

Would it be both parties pay a fee and the winner gets refunded?

Not sure what Phil means by "dmismissal"

*dismissal even

Initial screen?

You mean losing the URS?

Not sure what Phil is referring to

Sorry -- have to leave for another meeting.

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

So that would be the complainant losing the URS?

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.”

Thanks Ariel - if this moves forward there is some work to do, hopefully by us and not the IT

.BE has implemented this abs this was raised earlier

also “impact on the DN market” seems a questionable criteria for us to consider

Good point Brian - shouldn't this, like any, market be as clean as we can make it?

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

@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.

It's not about injecting costs, it's about acting as a deterrent to bad actors.

there is strength in having differentiated solutions

I agree Marie, but there are bad actors on both sides and we need to provide balanced, graduated solutions

Paul T - already penalties for abusive complaints/RDNH and complainants already pay filing fee even if they lose

Plus, given the stats complainants clearly generally bring complaints in good faith

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

its still an alegation and low evidential requirements

Clear and convincing evidence is low?

It’s generally considered the second-highest burden of proof short of beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case

Agree, Zak.

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

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?

Griffin - did I say that?

@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

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

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

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.

this should have been done earlier in the process

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.

Sounds good, Griffin

@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.

thats a shame

THis is the current text of 6(a):

(a) Each Provider shall maintain and publish a publicly available listof Examiners and their qualifications.

Did WIPO and Forum support this?

Thanks Zak - yeah I did believe that was already a requirement that providers adhere to

CVs is dealt with elswhere

I think there was a recommendation

So the latter concern is more of a violation of the existing URS rule rather than something that seems to need a policy fix

Can we all just bless this one? :)

Agree I think clearly sufficient support here to move it forward

@Staff: can we go back up to the top?

Agree Phil - that’s what I was alluding to earlier

Good meeting, thanks Kathy, staff and all, nice to hear Ockham’s razor made it into the discussion.

We can just note in the implementation guidance that they way the Forum is doing it complies.

agree

@David - better than OCcham’s Flamethrower :)

Yay!

good point Griffin

thanks all, bye

Thanks all

Thanks all