Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Ariel Liang
26:33
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/93126760/URS%20Individual%20Proposal%20Survey%20Result.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1576086277000&api=v2
Susan Payne for SCA
27:27
hand
Griffin Barnett
28:11
Agree Susan
Julie Hedlund
28:50
@Susan: There was a deadline for proposals to turn these into recommendations and there were no proposals to do so by the deadline.
Paul Tattersfield
29:35
I though ti was to remove proposals that had no prospect of being accepted because they didn't enjoy sufficient broad support
Susan Payne for SCA
31:32
@Julie and Phil, yes that is what I thought. I thought Kathy was saying something different but also that I may have misunderstood her which is why I asked the question
David McAuley (Verisign)
31:46
My recollection matches what Phil just said - for now these might go out as individual proposalls
Paul McGrady
31:47
Thanks Phil. Thanks Kathy. That is all helpful.
Susan Payne for SCA
32:36
yes sorry if I set a hare running,
David McAuley (Verisign)
33:25
at least we are not splitting hares
Griffin Barnett
33:51
nice
David McAuley (Verisign)
33:57
;-)
Griffin Barnett
34:08
I think we all understand now what we are doing, so I would implore us to move along
Paul Tattersfield
34:24
Greg +1 - the idea was to remove unviable inidividual proposals
Ariel Liang
34:33
FYI - the proposals left for today are 33, 15, 22, 4, 14, 13, 17, and 16
Ariel Liang
34:41
=== Now discussing #33 ===
Griffin Barnett
35:05
Almost even support v opposition to 33, so default to publish
David McAuley (Verisign)
35:14
might be worth stating at outset that any proposals regarding UDRP are out of scope on this call
Griffin Barnett
35:30
(with caveat re removing UDRP references, as we have previously discussed)
Maxim Alzoba
36:11
Hello All, sorry for being late
Griffin Barnett
37:41
Agree with Phil re editing/amending proposals on the fly (other than the general caveat re removing UDRP references)
Griffin Barnett
37:54
- that is to say, we shouldn't do it
Griffin Barnett
38:26
even though I would support amendments to some of the proposals, such as removing the last sentence of 33, but I think we can best address those kinds of changes with public comments in hand
David McAuley (Verisign)
38:48
The term is one of the T's and C's of a contract - much too fine to seek comment on in my view but agree with Phil on overcall contract/MOU point
Zak Muscovitch
39:37
I thinbk it would be OK to remove the last sentence aqnd publish. That's not big time 'editing' - just removal...
Cyntia King
39:56
Agree, concept is worth consideration, but this proposal is not ready for public comment, as-is.
Maxim Alzoba
41:03
@Greg, is such a MOU a formal enforceable contract from the US law point of view?
Steve Levy
41:28
+1 Greg +1 Cyntia
Maxim Alzoba
42:01
if this one is published, providing URLs for those MOUs might be a good idea
Paul McGrady
43:12
Thanks Renee!
Philip Corwin
43:15
@Maxim--good suggestion. If it is published then contextual language should note that URS providers are under MOU, that MOU is a short form contract, and provide a link to the MOU text
Greg Shatan
45:00
Keep in mind the MOU incorporates the URS Procedure and Rules, so it isn’t as barebones as it might appear.
Greg Shatan
45:30
What’s missing from the MOU that people would want to see in a longer agreement?
Ariel Liang
49:39
=== Now discussing #15 ===
Philip Corwin
50:20
Can we see the survey results and comments on #15? Thanks
Scott Austin
50:56
MOU should not be relegated to letter of intent status or an informal contract. The original agreement for ICANN to govern the internet was an MOU with the Department of Commerce MOU's are often used in governmental services.
Paul Tattersfield
52:25
Exactly Rebecca
Griffin Barnett
54:08
Publc comment can be on anything
Paul Tattersfield
55:19
Its not only threshold its also non neutral language
Griffin Barnett
55:43
Paul T - what is non neutral?
Paul Tattersfield
56:15
the way proposals are framed
Griffin Barnett
56:36
I mean... it is a proposing a change to the URS so it by definition is not going to be neutral
Paul McGrady
56:52
This proposal gets to the heart of whether or not we want the URS to be a deterrent and not just a remedial mechanism.
Griffin Barnett
57:05
the proposal is what it is, I don't think there is any particular framing here
Cyntia King
57:46
Thanks for the clarification, Phil.
Mary Wong
57:50
Staff hand up.
Cyntia King
01:00:35
Good to know, Mary. Thanks.
Scott Austin
01:02:22
+1 Paul M.
Claudio DiGangi
01:02:47
question: what were the survey results for #14?
Claudio DiGangi
01:03:04
I mean #15
Cyntia King
01:03:15
I support Proposal 15 for comment
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:25
nicely done Greg, barely
Griffin Barnett
01:03:43
We previously agreed to merge 14 and 15... I don't think we should spend substantial time reviewing this one in detail beyond what we already discussed for 15
Ariel Liang
01:04:04
=== Now discussing #14 ===
Philip Corwin
01:04:56
#14 has been supplanted by #15, so far as I know
Susan Payne for SCA
01:05:55
but that's my point - it's not meant to go out alone
Claudio DiGangi
01:05:57
support comments on #15, and with the concept of #15 merged in
Mary Wong
01:06:35
Staff clarifies that this is not supposed to be included as a separate proposal (separate from 15).
Paul Tattersfield
01:07:05
Mary is right
Julie Hedlund
01:07:43
Yes, this should have been reflected as merged with #15 on the agenda.
Scott Austin
01:07:46
+1 Susan. Aren't the details in 15 forms of sanctions?
Paul Tattersfield
01:08:24
same with 18,19,20
Susan Payne for SCA
01:08:33
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals
Griffin Barnett
01:09:30
It appears to be a flaw in the poll insofar as the proposals that were previously merged (as in, treated collectively as a single proposal, as Susan noted and as captured in the info from many months ago) were still asked about separately in the poll
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:03
They showed some lfexibility to try and improve the proposals prior to publishing
Rebecca Tushnet
01:10:57
I'm not sure I have much to contribute--I don't support 14 being published; if it is merged into 15 then it should be evaluated as 15
Mary Wong
01:11:11
@Rebecca, that was the staff understanding, yes.
Griffin Barnett
01:11:27
We are not editing
Griffin Barnett
01:11:38
There was a prior agreement in the WG to merge certain proposals
Julie Hedlund
01:11:46
22
Ariel Liang
01:12:37
=== Now discussing #22===
Susan Payne for SCA
01:13:18
yes Griffin there is more detail in the actual proposal
Claudio DiGangi
01:13:48
I support
Paul Tattersfield
01:13:55
URS is a lightweight RPM with no safeguards and should be the last place of a loser pays model should be implemted
Zak Muscovitch
01:13:56
Whatever I said about 21 would appear to apply to this 22
Susan Payne for SCA
01:13:58
me too
Cyntia King
01:14:08
In my opinion, theI support the concept being put out for public comment.
Susan Payne for SCA
01:14:13
hmm me too to Claudio - I support
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:23
there is no way to force the party to pay
Rebecca Tushnet
01:14:23
Agree with Paul T.
Greg Shatan
01:14:27
Should we see 21 first, assuming it is meatier.
Scott Austin
01:14:41
Need to look at 21 as it addresses several of the questions raised; support 21 and 22 merged.
Susan Payne for SCA
01:15:01
@Greg, the slides don't reflect the detail of the proposal
Cyntia King
01:15:19
Disagree @Paul: The URS has the higher threshhold to bring an action & therefore, w/ teh clear & convincing standard, loser pays is very appropriate.
Greg Shatan
01:15:33
@Susan, good point thanks.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:43
but how to extract money from the party , if they do not wish to pay?
Griffin Barnett
01:16:04
@Maxim - that is discussed in the full proposal, I suggest you take a look
Justine Chew
01:17:03
So #22 is redundant?
Ariel Liang
01:17:20
=== Now Discussing #4 ===
Paul Tattersfield
01:17:30
Cyntia when decisions like this can occur injecting costs would be a disgrace
Paul Tattersfield
01:17:31
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm
Justine Chew
01:17:38
Sorry I meant #4, is it now redundant?
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:59
I remind you there is no way to prevent the registrant to use some other registrar or reseller next time or to transfer the domains to an “independent third party’ or to use such a party next time
Philip Corwin
01:18:53
Seems moot to me (in a personal capacity)
Paul Tattersfield
01:19:28
Get his mum to register - unworkable
Ariel Liang
01:20:05
=== Now Discussing #13 ===
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:14
could we post URL to the full text of proposals
Rebecca Tushnet
01:20:19
I think the comments speak for themselves
Rebecca Tushnet
01:20:43
Also Paul T's point: this is supposed to be the simplest, fastest mechanism. Adding gunk to the administration is a problem.
Paul Tattersfield
01:20:43
Totally ridicuolous - a registreant can get anyone to reregister it for them
Susan Payne for SCA
01:20:44
all the proposal are here https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/URS+Proposals
Paul Tattersfield
01:21:40
no it doesn't has it ever even happend?
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:46
how to prevent ‘unaffiliated 3rd parties’ from registering ? or another party with TM in different service class for the same string?
Michael Graham
01:21:58
Agree—suitable for public comment.
Paul McGrady
01:22:26
I, at least, would be interest to see what the public comments have to say about this one.
Paul Tattersfield
01:22:40
its embarassingly bad its unworkable
Griffin Barnett
01:22:59
I agree with Zak - I think we are going through proposals now that have very divided opinions. On substance. But surely enough support for inclusion in the initial report.
Griffin Barnett
01:23:13
Which is the exercise we are going through.
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:26
no just get someone else to register it
Michael Graham
01:24:43
Would not workability and enforceability be for implementation consideration?
Paul Tattersfield
01:25:58
the registry could make it premium ;-) as there are at least two people who want it
Scott Austin
01:25:58
Support for public comment. possibility of nefarious work around should not be a standard for removing from consideration.
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:24
@Griffin - the proposal 22 has "The loser would pay the prevailing party’s administrative filing fees as well as some level of “representationfees” associated with bringing the action (the specific details of such “representation fees” would need to be worked out as part of implementation)" , I am not sure it describes how to collect money
Griffin Barnett
01:26:53
@ MaximI thought it discusses uses credit card or other payment info on file with registrar
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:28
@Griffin, it would not work with zero balance
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:51
many registrants just refill their balance , and bad guys not necessary keep all thing under one account
Paul McGrady
01:29:30
I feel a little bit like we are forced to be commentators on what we think the proposer "really meant." Reminds me of the Monty Python old joke about "Blessed are the Cheesemakers."
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:33
what if the next potential registrant has the right for the same string?
Griffin Barnett
01:30:34
But registrars certainly verify whether the domain name has been paid for (either original registration or renewal) so there must be some kind of active/valid payment mechanism on file ... whether they used fraudulent payment or something like that is another issue
Maxim Alzoba
01:31:00
@Griffin, having info is not withdrawing from
Paul Tattersfield
01:32:31
File a UDRP?
Ariel Liang
01:32:37
=== Now Discussing #16 (above are chats about the related proposal #17) ===
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:44
@Griffin, also it is a big question who takes money and basing on what (without a contract with a losing registrant by the party doing that)
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:46
#16 it is effectively a demand to transfer (if the party has the superior rights)
Paul Tattersfield
01:36:14
George wanted to merge UDRP & URS that was thrown out
Griffin Barnett
01:36:54
Per Cyntia's point I don't think #16 would be hard to implement
Susan Payne for SCA
01:37:41
+1 Cyntia to the simple email
Griffin Barnett
01:37:48
fairly simple communication between Ry/Rr and the prevailing URS complainant and perhaps the provider to verify
Zak Muscovitch
01:37:51
Under #16, must the registrant let the registration lapse before the succesful URS complainant gets the ROFR?
Cyntia King
01:39:03
Isn't it the Registrar who enters the change in the domain status?
Susan Payne for SCA
01:39:21
Maxim surely there won't be a prohibition on this if we provide for it as a matter of policy
Cyntia King
01:39:22
Into the Whois system.
Paul Tattersfield
01:39:24
Is it a real problem? Are there any instances of people actually reregistering URS domains? It just seems like a backdoor cheaper way to avoid filing a UDRP or court case
Susan Payne for SCA
01:39:42
but isn't the point of putting this out to comment to get input on this
Paul Tattersfield
01:39:43
Against publication
Cyntia King
01:40:11
@Paul T: I have seen thisi happen.
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:18
this will require a Registry, not a Registrar work (and granting privileges on a Registry level to Registrants does not go well with Registry Code of Conduct)
Susan Payne for SCA
01:40:22
@Paul T - yes according to the practitioner subgroup it was a real issue
Paul Tattersfield
01:40:34
thanks
Cyntia King
01:40:37
Support publication.
Philip Corwin
01:40:58
Personal comment -- it's not the same as UDRP if suspended domain is not available for use (non-resolving) to the prevailing complainant.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:20
@Maxim - not a ROCC issue if mandated by ICANN requirements
Cyntia King
01:41:35
+1 Phil
Griffin Barnett
01:41:54
also, whether the change in registrant occurs at RY or Rr level is an operational issue for implementation, but the principle is what we should be focusing on here
Maxim Alzoba
01:41:59
@Griffin, it will give privileges to one particular TM owner, where there might be more than 1
Scott Austin
01:42:07
+1 Griffin Support publication.
Griffin Barnett
01:42:19
@Maxim - how is that different from UDRP?
Griffin Barnett
01:42:39
(it isn't)
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:41
UDRP is done on the Registrar level
Maxim Alzoba
01:42:56
and Registrars have agreements with Registrants
Maxim Alzoba
01:43:07
which Registries do not have
Griffin Barnett
01:43:39
So all the Ry would be obligated to do is unlock the domain / unsuspend it to allow for the change in registrant?
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:04
then the whole logic of URS will need to be changed
Griffin Barnett
01:44:37
Maybe you can explain how - seems like your concern is more formalistic than practical
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:37
Registry only locks/unlocks in URS (and deletes if the year passed in loosing case)
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:10
@Griffin, not having a contract with the party is a serious issue, it means no relations
Griffin Barnett
01:45:55
not sure why that matters.... any obligations can be passed through via RRA / registration agreement, just as they currently are for URS
Griffin Barnett
01:46:18
Maybe we can continue this offline :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:00
without a direct contract with RO, registrant is a pure third party to a RO, and it means no contacts, no actions
Paul Tattersfield
01:47:17
We need distinctive RPMS – strength is in the difference between URS, UDRP & judicial route.
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:34
John McElwaine is our liaison and will present the slides and revised schedule.
Maxim Alzoba
01:47:41
and a decision to have Registries separated with Registrants was done on purpose
Griffin Barnett
01:48:44
Again, not sure how that is relevant to implement a URS-mandated procedure (should it be invoked)
Philip Corwin
01:50:32
Those draft sections will be sent out in advance so that WG members can read them and be ready to suggest edits on the call (or prior, on the email list)
Mary Wong
01:50:42
Please remember, however, that the text in the report contextualizing the recommendations is not meant to be a comprehensive recounting of what happened; it is meant to be brief (to aid the commentator) and to simply illustrate how the recommendation came to be.
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:50
@Griffin , the only way to ensure that the particular URS winner gets the fist right - is making something like TMCH (where similar things done for claims), and the costs of URS will go higher (to implement all of that). and I am not sure it will be too far from UDRP
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:51:21
agree with Mary re reviewing contextual language - we might beat these timelines
Griffin Barnett
01:51:37
Not sure I follow you there Maxim.... it could be accomplished with an email exchange
Cyntia King
01:52:14
Only 4 years past the timeline.........
John McElwaine
01:52:20
I'm on :)
Claudio DiGangi
01:52:29
@Maxim, do you agree that the losing registrant should not be allowed to renew the domain after the suspension period concludes?
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:52:32
when will we see the text for next week
Zak Muscovitch
01:52:32
Thanks Kathy and everyone.
Griffin Barnett
01:52:37
thanks all bye
Mary Wong
01:52:41
@Cyntia, 4.5 actually for Phase One :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:52:48
@Claudio, the issue is identifing parties