@David: Thanks for letting us know.

Welcome to the (WG) call on (date/time). Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

Can someone remind me where this Individual Proposal 3 left off the last time we discussed it? Was it already rejected?

could Staff page down on this page, please

It was for Griffin to propose a revised formulation of the URS proposal #3

OK thanks, Ariel.

@Zak: options for extension of registrations

agree, thanks Griffin

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit#gid=692205301

What about respondents who have numerous UDRP and URS decisions against them. Rebecaa is avoiding the issue that there are some bad actors who are repeatedly cybersquatting and it is easy to see when someone has being doing this repeatedly. Consequently, a penalty would make sense

I don't see this as being a transfer proceeding at all. Right now there is nothing at all in terms of sanctions for repeat offenders. (There are for malicious complainants though). It's a question of fairness.

then where do we do it if we can’t do it here?

suggest a solution please

I thank Griffin - very much - for his work on this, and support Griffin too.

vague references to European law doesn’t make unfettered systemic cybering go away

Not only that Steve, but also only where the reimbursement cannot be collected from the respondent

You can file a UDRP to get a transfer of multiple domain names too.

cybersquatting.

no one seems to mind burdening these registrars with the registrant fees they collect

If anything, Option 3 might motivate ICANN or ROs to take anti-abuse efforts more seriously in a general sense

But as noted, it is certainly the “weakest” option in terms of actual deterrence to the specific individual losing respondent

it made it out of the discussion because there is a need to fix this problem

I don't see why it's controversial to say that a potential bad actor should know there is some form of sanction.

If you’re a good faith registrant then you shouldn’t lose a URS

then make a suggestion not just dismantle Griffin’s Proposal

+1, Griffin.

Cybersquatting itself is a big rampant problem, but there is apparently no interest in this WG in making meaningful changes in the URS to add additional deterrence, so we’ve come to something that applies only to the most egregious of scenarios

It sounds like there is agreement that there is a problem to solve, but disagreement on the specific sanction/penalty/solution.

I regret that I have to leave early but thanks to Griffin for this attempt but I have to say that IMO the remedy of transfer is a step too far. And a bit more clarity would be nice, e.g., how is default treated? Is that a ‘loss’

big problem is repeat cyberquatting,, but it is a subset of the overall level of cases. This is a very reasonable proposal.

Any loss is a loss

transfer only intended as a final backstop where reimbursement cannot be collected

if one side is suggesting a path forward and the other side won’t actually engage in the substance to get to a solution, then I don’t think both sides agree there is a problem, only making lip service to it. if even 1 person on the other side of this made even one suggestion to improve it, it would feel like we all agree there is a problem to solve. but, it looks like we are in a no budge, no movement situation on one side

Does consumer protection law protect bad actors? Surely not?

@Griffin, did you consider perhaps a more extended suspension period, or even a permanent suspension of the domain?

I don’t understand the question about consumer protection law

@Mary - not really bc that doesn’t seem to be any additional deterrence

vague references to consumer protection laws without citations or even one case does protect bad actors because it is a red herring in the way of getting to a solution

Zak - old hand?

@Griffin, there is no issue, at least not one anyone has identified with any particularity at all

I thought these 3 ideas were just that - ideas for the IRT/implementation phase? Sorry if I misunderstood that but surely if we agree that there is a problem, then implementation details are for later?

@Marie, it will be very helpful if the WG can agree on the basic nature of the remedy, while the actual text and drafting will be done by the IRT.

hand up

I think the problem is repeat offenders that we all agree is a problem. So we should move that concept forward so that the issues can be considered on the implementation stage

important procedural question following Phil’s intervention

hand up

Got that @Mary, but is that not the top part, so the repeat offender (etc.) should reimburse the successful complainant?

We do not all agree that the problem of cybersquatting can be addressed via tweaking the URS

Cybersquatting as a problem does not justify every possible intervention, and the case hasn't been made for this one as cost-justified

I don't see this as a new proposal either - it is the attempt to harmonise the 2 former proposals, taking on board the comments made.

Rebecaa so you have any idea of the costs sybersquatting. If you had deal with the issue on an enforcement basis you would see the costs. They have been written up in numerous articles over the yeatrs and the costs of having to file UDRP and URS case. We discussed over and over again iover the years and we all know that the cost is high. So pretending it is not a problem is siurprising. The whole point of this proposal is to create some balance in situations involving repeat offenders

Don’t worry I;’m just here with my cat

But still

@Griffin: Cats are family too LOL

The CPH comments felt it was potentially too broad, which is why we sought to narrow it only to the filing fees

I really do not see this as a new proposal.

Phil- what about new ideas coming out of public comment? are those also pre-doomed?

Again, the transfer backstop is one possibility…. We can accept other options without accepting that one

these are all implementation details, which frankly we are preempting and should really be left to IRT anyway

Phil didn’t answer my question

Just noting again that staff suggested a procedural path forward which may (or may not) result in a possible option for WG consensus; i.e. same as was accorded to other good faith WG members’ attempt to work together to consolidate/update proposals, give volunteers a week to try to come up with a compromise.

They are not new elements. As Griffin says, they are implementation ideas.

The new implementation options were included because public comments generally questioned the feasibility of implementing a loser pays remedy… obviously going back to work on this would entail trying to identify new implementation ideas

I've participated in filing UDRPs on behalf of a client. I know it exists and is a problem. What I am objecting to is the idea that tweaking the URS will do anything. Transfer mechanisms already exist; the other proposals don't actually make cybersquatters pay but shift the costs elsewhere, which needs another justification than deterrence.

Option 2 would make the cybersquatter pay

It charges the payment method on file with the registrar from the respondent

@Kathy, why is #11 relevant in this context? It's a proposal you said has been rejected, no?

Brian, will you answer theanswer the question of whatof what we do with new ideas that came out of public comment? will those be dismissed as well?

As I said, Griffin, I don't think that is likely to work--even if the payment mechanism remains valid, which is questionable, there are barriers to adding hundreds of dollars in charges when a third party brings a claim even if it's in the contract.

I’m happy to discuss a more constructive path forward with those who have agreed that additional deterrence against cybersquatting is a good idea, but have not come forward with their own ideas about how to achieve that

@Brian, that is correct (concerning the CCT-RT).

@Rebecca I disagree - if it is included up front in the registration agreement, I don’t think there’s an issue…. There are plenty of other similar things baked into registration agreements today, including agreement to adhere to dispute resolution procedures, pay renewal fees, redemption fees, etc

After 30 minutes of struggle and a full reboot I am finally back in

Being upfront in the contract increases transparency.

Procedural concerns aside, can this proposal -- for which I thank Griffin - get broad or even consensus support?

I am receptive to the idea of putting a pin in this an considering how we might integrate these ideas into interplay with the UDRP in Phase 2

Note that the GNSO Council has to recharter this PDP for Phase 2 (if that is relevant to this discussion).

I'm happy to confer with Griffin and Paul to see if there's a path forward to address cybersquatting.

For instance, if a prevailing URS complainant meeting these criteria can present that decision to a UDRP provider/panel and receive some kind of fast-track to UDRP transfer, that could maybe be worthy further consideratin

I would expect Loser Pays to get robust discussion in Phase 2

I support consideration of interplay with UDRP in Phase 2.

@Jason - noted

I’d be happy to chat offline

there is little doubt that this issue will end up in phase 2

at least as it applies to UDRPs

the UDRP is incomplete- it does not deter cybersquatting

No

Based on feedback today, we can perhaps strip away some of the implementation options

There doesn’t seem to be agreement that this is a new idea

Which may resolve some of the stronger concerns

No public comment on Final Report required

It makes sense to have a more detailed discussion and see how we can find effective solutions. We will likely need to wait until Phase 2, but that shouldn't bar us from trying to work together now.

Asking for comment would delay phase 2

then let’s do that so that we can discuss new ideas

Seems like there is support for a small group, Jason, Griffin, Paul?

It appears there is broad agreement within the WG that GIs do not get TMCH and related RPMs. So the issue is whether this language is technically correct in expressing that policy.

@Phil and all - one thing that staff was going to suggest for Thursday is for the WG to consider agreeing on clear policy proposals that speak to that distinction rather than redrafting the AGB text, it may be more helpful toward agreement and leave AGB tweaking to the IRT (as it is an implementation document).

@Julie, I’m on holiday with my son before he leaves for Uni so I can’t join a small group. talking comfort in knowing this issue will appear again in phase 2 for the UDRP

@Paul: Noted, thanks! Enjoy your vacation!

Next call: Thursday, 30 July 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Many thanks, Kathy and Staff and Cochairs

thanks all bye