
21:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

21:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?ts=5e547004#heading=h.ghi4hytcc3

23:27
Thx Emily

24:54
Registrant Technical Protections (?)

25:28
+1 Alan

25:39
Does the title match the header in the 2012 AGB?

25:59
could Staff repost link?

26:35
Here is the link again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing

28:09
Not to reopen the debate, recognizing that this has been discussed… But EBERO has not proven effective in that the SLAM stats show there were several times a Registry should have been EBERO’d and was not. I think somewhere along the line the EBERO program needs to be reconsidered.

30:32
Understood, and the outcome of the analysis saved my skin a few times :) I just think the concept needs to evolve.

31:15
I agree Elaine.

32:44
I would go a step further. The EBERO program is a crutch that keeps failing registries from going out of business. I don't know of any other industry where unsuccessful business are propped up like this. I might be wrong but .WED has been in EBERO since 2017. I think its still there.

33:08
Great!

34:37
I wonder why

36:19
(great re: changes to EBERO, not re: the issues Jim raises above...)

37:42
The COI was nuts for companies that dwarf ICANN. Should have been the other way around. :)

37:49
.wed went into EBERO voluntarily, it was not a technical issue it was a financial issue.

40:19
"and also an"

40:32
If we are all confused...then good idea to clarify!

40:37
(and remove acronyms)

43:43
personally I would like to explore a hybrid option

44:00
Third option please - ie hybrid as you say

45:23
Great to have another check if there is a change or just before contracting. But, we cannot lose our gatekeeping check - it makes no sense to make folks go through an auction with another party that shouldn't even be there.

46:13
@Jeff, have we considered whether there is an avenue for questioning outcomes of background checks?

47:30
@Jeff, but is there a mechanism for ICANN to acknowkledge the comments and respond to them? ICANN just ignored them last time.

49:29
+1 Paul. I am just concerned that there is no easy recourse to ICANN Org making "a mistake" in completing a background check.

52:03
A timely recourse mechanism

53:34
"ICANN must create a mechanism for the submission of information related to applicant background screening which may not be appropriate for public comment. At a minimum, ICANN must confirm receipt and tha the information is being reviewed."

55:04
+1 Karen

55:07
+1 Paul, makes sense

55:44
@Jeff, yes.

56:18
Less concerned about applicant appeals, more so about third parties against applicant getting okay-ed under grey circumstances eg failing threshold of URS/UDRP rulings against applicant's rep.

56:19
@Jeff, yes, as long as it is in there somewhere

57:32
:)

57:52
Maybe that's the other Jeff Newman that's appeared on the list of late?

59:27
See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-review-24jan20-en.pdf

59:27
means the Newman who propagated the Newman rule

01:00:53
maybe what surprised the group was that ICANN made a decision to not put those registries in EBERO. I don't think anyone anticipated that type of decision

01:01:00
@Jeff, can a registry that is about o need an EBERO allowed to choose their EBERO provider? Matters from a data protection standpoint.

01:01:16
to need

01:01:54
@Paul, I think ICANN makes that decision and it's one of the reason that the EBERO providers are geographical diverse, or at least they used to be.

01:02:35
right

01:06:02
@Jeff, thanks. Imagine what the EU DPA would think about an EU registry having its data sent to China.

01:07:00
Support 26.5 and think they could answer my question there

01:07:09
The SSR2 report is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-review-24jan20-en.pdf

01:07:44
EBERO FAQS: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/faqs-2013-04-02-en

01:09:08
By definition, are data protection laws ever stable ;)

01:09:43
@Christopher - thank you for the update. Where the EBEROs sit matters.

01:12:19
<Makes sense

01:14:31
"affiliates" should be "affiliates and trademark licensees", correct?

01:15:13
bott0m of b.

01:21:09
Okay thanks Jeff

01:21:44
That sounds reasonable, Jeff

01:27:37
I think this makes sense. We have to move past the old idea that this industry is only about selling huge amounts of second level domain names

01:29:13
It sounds like we are talking about granting a Code of Conduct exemption where a Registry OPerator has made a good faith effort to recruit registrars to sell its TLD, but it has not been able to get registrars to do it

01:29:33
Do we have any Registrars on this call?

01:29:39
If we want to take that approach, then we can put something in the Section that deals with the Code of Conduct / Legal Agreement

01:29:56
I am with a Registrar :)

01:30:05
[A corporate registrar]

01:31:52
That's correct Alan

01:32:16
Are there any representatives of GoDaddy or Blacknight or Tucows on this call?

01:33:36
I was not talking about brands but rather the "different" registry with unusual registration rules.

01:36:14
will we continue this topic next meeting?

01:38:35
We would need to check

01:42:10
@Staff, would be a huge thank you if we could get calendar invites to those sessions as well

01:43:13
lost of progress today THANKS everyone Bye for now!

01:43:17
Next meeting: Thursday, 05 March at 20:00 UTC

01:43:23
Great, interesting discussion today!

01:43:35
Good discussions and progress

01:43:49
bye, thanks