Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Hedlund
21:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Emily Barabas
21:21
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?ts=5e547004#heading=h.ghi4hytcc3
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
23:27
Thx Emily
Kathy Kleiman
24:54
Registrant Technical Protections (?)
Susan Payne
25:28
+1 Alan
Elaine Pruis
25:39
Does the title match the header in the 2012 AGB?
Kathy Kleiman
25:59
could Staff repost link?
Julie Hedlund
26:35
Here is the link again: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kUlmZH8nxWTgfcRluA5FxLheMm4XhhOwkRt7om52aQU/edit?usp=sharing
Elaine Pruis
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.
Elaine Pruis
30:32
Understood, and the outcome of the analysis saved my skin a few times :) I just think the concept needs to evolve.
Donna Austin, Neustar
31:15
I agree Elaine.
Jim Prendergast
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.
Kathy Kleiman
33:08
Great!
Justine Chew
34:37
I wonder why
Kathy Kleiman
36:19
(great re: changes to EBERO, not re: the issues Jim raises above...)
Paul McGrady
37:42
The COI was nuts for companies that dwarf ICANN. Should have been the other way around. :)
Donna Austin, Neustar
37:49
.wed went into EBERO voluntarily, it was not a technical issue it was a financial issue.
Paul McGrady
40:19
"and also an"
Kathy Kleiman
40:32
If we are all confused...then good idea to clarify!
Kathy Kleiman
40:37
(and remove acronyms)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
43:43
personally I would like to explore a hybrid option
Justine Chew
44:00
Third option please - ie hybrid as you say
Paul McGrady
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.
Justine Chew
46:13
@Jeff, have we considered whether there is an avenue for questioning outcomes of background checks?
Paul McGrady
47:30
@Jeff, but is there a mechanism for ICANN to acknowkledge the comments and respond to them? ICANN just ignored them last time.
Justine Chew
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.
Justine Chew
52:03
A timely recourse mechanism
Paul McGrady
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."
Paul McGrady
55:04
+1 Karen
martinsutton
55:07
+1 Paul, makes sense
Paul McGrady
55:44
@Jeff, yes.
Justine Chew
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.
Paul McGrady
56:19
@Jeff, yes, as long as it is in there somewhere
Justine Chew
57:32
:)
Donna Austin, Neustar
57:52
Maybe that's the other Jeff Newman that's appeared on the list of late?
Julie Hedlund
59:27
See: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-review-24jan20-en.pdf
Anne Aikman-Scalese
59:27
means the Newman who propagated the Newman rule
Jim Prendergast
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
Paul McGrady
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.
Paul McGrady
01:01:16
to need
Donna Austin, Neustar
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.
Jim Prendergast
01:02:35
right
Paul McGrady
01:06:02
@Jeff, thanks. Imagine what the EU DPA would think about an EU registry having its data sent to China.
Paul McGrady
01:07:00
Support 26.5 and think they could answer my question there
Emily Barabas
01:07:09
The SSR2 report is available here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ssr2-review-24jan20-en.pdf
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:07:44
EBERO FAQS: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/faqs-2013-04-02-en
Jeff Neuman
01:09:08
By definition, are data protection laws ever stable ;)
Paul McGrady
01:09:43
@Christopher - thank you for the update. Where the EBEROs sit matters.
Annebeth Lange
01:12:19
<Makes sense
Paul McGrady
01:14:31
"affiliates" should be "affiliates and trademark licensees", correct?
Paul McGrady
01:15:13
bott0m of b.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:21:09
Okay thanks Jeff
Annebeth Lange
01:21:44
That sounds reasonable, Jeff
Paul McGrady
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
Jeff Neuman
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
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:33
Do we have any Registrars on this call?
Jeff Neuman
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
Jeff Neuman
01:29:56
I am with a Registrar :)
Jeff Neuman
01:30:05
[A corporate registrar]
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:31:52
That's correct Alan
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:16
Are there any representatives of GoDaddy or Blacknight or Tucows on this call?
Alan Greenberg
01:33:36
I was not talking about brands but rather the "different" registry with unusual registration rules.
Kathy Kleiman
01:36:14
will we continue this topic next meeting?
Emily Barabas
01:38:35
We would need to check
Paul McGrady
01:42:10
@Staff, would be a huge thank you if we could get calendar invites to those sessions as well
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:43:13
lost of progress today THANKS everyone Bye for now!
Michelle DeSmyter
01:43:17
Next meeting: Thursday, 05 March at 20:00 UTC
Annebeth Lange
01:43:23
Great, interesting discussion today!
martinsutton
01:43:35
Good discussions and progress
avri doria
01:43:49
bye, thanks