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

The link David mentioned is in the Initial Report

There's nothing in the recommendation that would stop a registrar from providing the notice in a non-UN language. I fact they would have to if that was the language of the registration agreement.

Good suggestion from Susan

Terri can I get can I get a dial out to a US number: 571-299-8624

not yet

need dial

dialing

apologies, so did we change bullet 2 to must or keep as is. I missed the outcome

Staff understood there is no objection to change bullet 2 as per IPC’s public comment

ok thanks!

the point is after the registration phase

I mean after pre registration

new hand

language is too wild, it will be used in an unpredictable way

+1 Susan

What language, Maxim?

What’s “Wild” about the language?

It just instructs the IRT to facilitate solutions in situations where there is an operational issue?

what language exactly are you concerned about Maxim, why don't you suggest an alternative?

Agree -- the language is prescriptive of the work of the IRT, not any restriction of pre-registration.

The word forbidden appears nowhere in this rec

Can’t say I’m able to follow anything Maxim is saying about this rec

@Maxim -- Are you suggesting specific changes to language?

if the preregistration prevents all mechanisms of RPMs to work as intended, such preregistration should be forbidden.

If a Rr cannot meet the TM Claims requirements in conjunction with its pre-sale program(s) then it would not be in compliance with the TM Claims requirement

new proposal is wild

@Griffin , your suggestion is fine too

Let's read the ICANN comment first

Well the outcome of stating it that way would be the same - if it is not in compliance with the requirements it cannot continue to operate in that manner.....

To be clear I'm not convinced we need to change language, but if we are going to we should be clear that the solution we envision is not to bar preregistrations but to change other requirements

i didn't type anything

Maxim's language appears to be far more restrictive than the currently proposed language. Am I missing something?

I think it’s in the IPC comment

we do not need wild language

Per Sub Group A’s deliberation, there is one suggestion in response to ICANN org’s comment (captured in the summary) — if the content of the Claims Notice does not change, there is no reason to present it to the registrant more than once; as a result, the expiration period for the Claims Notice may be longer.

I suggest to take it offline, so registrars have a chance to respond

I have asked staff to help read - using phone and toggling between screens is not working well

@Maxim -- Can you clarify what you mean by "wild language" specifically?

and to add it to action items of the call results

thank you staff

@Michael, I meant there should not be a lot of variety of how it could be interpreted

Susan, that seems fair.

@Susan, sure - whatever will improve clarity will be good.

agree that would be great if irt has such flexibility

ICANN org had understood the recommendation to give the IRT flexibility; we were just looking for the possibility of more guidance (e.g. whether altering the 48-hour period is within that flexibility).

I meant there should be no way for misinterpretation

"Nothing in this Recommendation is meant to preclude legitimate pre-sales that are compliant with all RPMs. The IRT is requested to work out all relevant implementation issues."

+1 Paul

+1 Paul

+1 Paul

I need to be unmuted by staff

also like Paul's suggestion

+1 Paul as well.

@Phil: There is support for Paul’s suggestion: "Nothing in this Recommendation is meant to preclude legitimate pre-sales that are compliant with all RPMs. The IRT is requested to work out all relevant implementation issues."

this suggestion is way better

Add “using appropriate flexibility.”

Since the 48 hours is already in there, might be worth putting it in again to be clear

48h is one of the issues, there might be some other I the wilds

could we perhaps have proposed language from staff

The IRT is provided with flexibility on the 48 period.

staff will read 4

I think you can make the 48 hours an e.g. after my text and that should do it.

The PCRT Rows flagged are from these groups: #31 is from INTA 32 is from Com Laude 33 is from IPC and 34 is from GBOC – global brand ownersand consumer protection orgs

I object, it will come to the issue of police.somecity

sorry, it is mistake, nothing bad in claims here

so you are agreeing then Maxim?

yes

it worked like that last time

sounds like agreement

#4

I think Kahtymeant 4 not 5

when she stated the group's agreemetn

To be clear, it appears that this group has confirmed the existing RPMs requirement to run the Claims period across any LRPs and the first 90 days of GA. Could staff please reflect this was agreed

Thanks Susan — so the WG agreement is to accept the public comment suggesting the inclusion of Section 3.2.5 reference in the recommendation language?

Lost David audio

lost him

darn where did david go?

call dropped - sheesh

Dialing back to you

on hold and muted

back now

Summary for Q2 and Rec 5 is consistent

I am not particularly sold on the idea of extending this exemption to those “highly regulated” strings since they still register domains to third parties

My recollection, Jason, was spec 9 and spec 13 considerations but others in Sub A may want to comment

(Despite the higher bar to registration generally, which looks at other issues such as industry participation)

Broad community support for Spec 13 exemption to Claims is noted in the context here

I think that is a fair statement by Susan

Agree with Susan

I don’t think there are any other single-registrant TLDs other than those that have been granted Spec 9 exemption or Spec 13

They are totally controlled and to highly vetted subset.

I think Kathy has stated it well

I would be in support of that formulation

Pop Quiz!

if this is agreed the IRT should not have too much difficulty in capturing language

Agree with Kathy's formatting provide staff caught or will catch it on the recording.

Agree David - can likely draw from existing exemption language for Sunrise from Spec 13

And I am confident staff has captured the updated version of the rec as Kathy expressed it

Yes, noted Griffin

Yeah I think we should insert a reference to the stated exemptions within Rec 4 as well

Sorry, I thought we had moved on from further consideration of the regulated strings category from the Rec 4/5 exemptions

Ariel - what page is highlighted language on

thanks

page 36

deliberations on Rec #5

Agree with Jason that regulated strings he describes may not be in the same class as generally open TLDs, but don’t think they are sufficiently “closed” not to warrant TM Claims service

no longer on my 36 - that type of day

Oh, sorry!

(that was meant to David)

+1 Griffin, I think the challenge is that "highly regulated" is not really a defined category of TLD. It can mean any number of different levels of restrictiveness

found it on 37

My hope is that irt will note the spec 13 and exempt spec 9 are fully closed to all but afficilated entities

agree with Griffin's comments

and that gets at concern with 'highly regulated' - needs a definition as Susan suggests, seems to me

For information: “highly regulated” is a term that reflects GAC advice, it is not a defined term in ICANN policy. At the moment, not all such TLDs have the same levels of safeguards.

Thanks Mary

We are considering that balance…. My comments noted that I think, on balance, it is still warranted to run TM Claims for this “highly regulated” category of TLDs, which by the way doesn’t really have any unified definition

I don't think protecting IP rights is inconsistent with balancing against the public interest. Obviously, those are intertwined. We are running out of time on this call, but I think this conversation is worth picking back up on the next call.

Furthermore, there was not as broad support for this idea, and there was no previous proposal to apply an exemption to this category of strings, so aren’t we too little too late on making this now?

Agree - I definitely support the regulated TLD model, but still believe that in light of the other considerations it is still important that they run TM Claims period, given the lack of clear requirements, vetting processes and criteria, etc.

has SubPro eg come up with a definition or concept of “highly regulated”?

And again, we are just talking about Claims

@Brian, I don’t believe so though that group has discussed various issues around these strings quite extensively.

Many thanks to Kathy and staff and apologies all for my connection issues.

Seems like it would be a welcome tool in those regulated TLDs to help mitigate risk of infringement within the TLD

@Brian: I think SubPro has just discussed the GAC advice on highly-regulated strings, but I don’t believe they developed a definition or recommendation

Exactly - it's just telling you that someone has that string in the TMCH, right?

It doesn't prevent registration.

2 minutes left. I think we need to put a pin in this one and pick it up on the next call.

@ Susan +1

Claims do not prevent registration.

They are just notices.

it's a question of notice

Jason is breaking up for me....

Jason, your audio is cutting in and out

me too.

I don't disagree with Susan, but I think rushing this will make everyone feel like it didn't get enough air time and could preclude us reaching language we can all agree on.

It seems to be cleared up(audio)

Sorry for any perceived absence from the meeting. I have been on audio the whole time, but my Zoom has imploded three times and the last one took more than 30 minutes to reconnect.

I mean, if they are going to agree to a TM vetting process anyway, why not just use the existing TM Claims?

seems there is support but given the effort to define Spec 13 eg, the lack of an agreed definition of what is “highly regulated” may prove problematic

We can check where SubPro is with this; I believe they were discussing whether to affirm the framework for such strings from the last round. This means that there are several categories (not necessarily a definition) of “highly regulated” TLDs, each with a specific set of safeguards as PICs.

I need to drop shortly to get back on the road. Heading home from dropping my by at Uni. Stay safe y'all.

boy

I’m happy to weigh in on list if Jason puts out some language

But I’ve made my view known

next meeting: The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDS PDP WG call is scheduled on Tuesday, 18 August 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.

Thanks all

thnaks all bye

Thanks Kathy

bye all