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

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

Thx Emily

Registrant Technical Protections (?)

+1 Alan

Does the title match the header in the 2012 AGB?

could Staff repost link?

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

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.

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

I agree Elaine.

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.

Great!

I wonder why

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

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

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

"and also an"

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

(and remove acronyms)

personally I would like to explore a hybrid option

Third option please - ie hybrid as you say

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.

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

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

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

A timely recourse mechanism

"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."

+1 Karen

+1 Paul, makes sense

@Jeff, yes.

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.

@Jeff, yes, as long as it is in there somewhere

:)

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

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

means the Newman who propagated the Newman rule

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

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

to need

@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.

right

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

Support 26.5 and think they could answer my question there

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

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

By definition, are data protection laws ever stable ;)

@Christopher - thank you for the update. Where the EBEROs sit matters.

<Makes sense

"affiliates" should be "affiliates and trademark licensees", correct?

bott0m of b.

Okay thanks Jeff

That sounds reasonable, Jeff

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

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

Do we have any Registrars on this call?

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

I am with a Registrar :)

[A corporate registrar]

That's correct Alan

Are there any representatives of GoDaddy or Blacknight or Tucows on this call?

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

will we continue this topic next meeting?

We would need to check

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

lost of progress today THANKS everyone Bye for now!

Next meeting: Thursday, 05 March at 20:00 UTC

Great, interesting discussion today!

Good discussions and progress

bye, thanks