Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG
Nathalie Peregrine
21:02
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Rebecca Tushnet
21:20
That's because you had me on mute on your end~!
Rebecca Tushnet
21:24
I really tried !
Philip Corwin
24:20
I have a comment to make after your introduction, just before we get into substance.
Brian Beckham
25:21
Did anyone else lose Julie's audio?
Ariel Liang
25:31
I can hear Julie
Philip Corwin
25:53
Audio still good, via phone
Nathalie Peregrine
26:07
@Brian it appears the audio on your end is disconnected.
Brian Beckham
26:13
Thx - sorted on my end !
Nathalie Peregrine
26:20
Perfect!
Paul Tattersfield
32:29
Some of the individual proposals didn’t seem to have the same level of scrutiny do you think they warrant more scrutiny Phil?
Kathy Kleiman
33:09
Tx you, David!
Griffin Barnett
33:30
I would support David chairing if he is willing!
Ariel Liang
33:59
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=1163822586
David McAuley (Verisign)
34:00
Thanks
Philip Corwin
34:36
@Paul--this sub group will only be considering WG recommendations, not individual proposals -- they will be discussed by the full WG, and we can discuss our approach at that time.
Paul Tattersfield
36:14
Thanks Phil
Philip Corwin
36:26
My personal view, as I have stated several times, is that few of the individual proposals have a realistic possibility of becoming recommendations to be considered during the consensus call -- but I have not yet reviewed community comments to see if any individual proposals received broad support.
David McAuley (Verisign)
37:05
Once I got into the rhythm of reading this tool I found it quite useful, thank you staff members
Philip Corwin
38:51
Yes, the tool is very helpful
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:05
Hearing Kathy, it is notable, I think, that on TMCH Rec #1 the support, no opinion, and no response are over 64%.
David McAuley (Verisign)
40:20
when added together
Rebecca Tushnet
41:22
Brian, I have the same problem, and downloading does not help
David McAuley (Verisign)
41:56
This makes using a laptop at home, as I do, sort of an issue
Susan Payne
42:20
@David, but if you read the actual comments it seems clear that commenters did not really know how to categorise their support level response. There are "support" "significant change" and "do not support" all actually making the same points of aspects of the recommendation they disagree with
Justine Chew
42:22
The problem is it's in view only mode.
Justine Chew
42:45
@Ariel, perhaps you can use the group function instead?
Mary Wong
42:53
Reminder that the Sub Group’s work on these preliminary recommendations is to determine whether to maintain its agreed preliminary recommendations based on comments received. To the extent comments repeat what the WG has already discussed and agreed (or not), that should not be overly difficult unless new data or substantive arguments not previously considered are raised.
Paul Tattersfield
42:53
you can download a copy
Susan Payne
43:05
I think this might be something for staff to consider in future public comments - maybe there needs to be more guidance on how to categorise
Kathy Kleiman
43:11
Ariel, can we set the upper section to scroll through? We should be able to read the recommendation too.
David McAuley (Verisign)
43:13
Susan, I agree that comments tend to wander a bit amongst categories but think the overall point is still valid
Ariel Liang
44:13
@Justine - I will check after the call. Did you mean giving members edit access to the spreadsheet?
Mary Wong
44:38
@Phil, yes - and as you and the leadership team have noted, the current exercise is not intended to re-open old discussions.
Ariel Liang
44:57
@Kathy - you can still double click the blue row on the top and see the full text of the recommendation
Justine Chew
45:51
@Ariel, I didn't consider if grouping would work in view-only mode. Let me check after the call.
Brian Beckham
45:56
In addition to what Julie mentioned concerning the order (each could have different levels of complexity), I wonder if we are better to stick with the existing order as this allows people to plan.
Ariel Liang
48:59
I can do the universal change after the call
Kathy Kleiman
49:40
Ariel, could you page down a bit?
Kathy Kleiman
50:01
4th column is "subgroup response"
David McAuley (Verisign)
52:08
I think Rebecca said it well - not to necessarily go through comments in detail but to allow folks to voice concerns and point to new info/issues that were brought up
Philip Corwin
52:38
Adding to my remarks about the comment tool, I found it very efficient -- I was able to review comments on all 3 of today's recommendations in just under one hour.
Mary Wong
53:47
@Rebecca @David - yes exactly. As Julie has noted, what staff does is not to read or go through the whole document. We just need to make sure that the Sub Group has the opportunity to discuss any new issues or substantive arguments - as mandated for ICANN’s accountability and transparency purposes.
Kathy Kleiman
53:57
What is the 3rd item?
Julie Hedlund
54:17
3. Whether, where a trademark contains dictionary term(s), the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs should be limited in their scope such as to be applicable only in those gTLDs that relate to the categories of goods and services for which the dictionary term(s) within that trademark are protected.
David McAuley (Verisign)
54:37
Thanks Mary, agreed
Brian Beckham
54:44
Correct, so they misunderstood this as a recommendation, when in fact it merely states a question the WG considered.
Brian Beckham
55:15
Also, what is the "realm" of a dictionary word?
Mary Wong
55:17
This question and description is something the Working Group discussed extensively - including how to best describe it clearly.
Griffin Barnett
55:48
Agree Brian - the recommendation states that the status quo on these issues would be maintained, so not sure why there was a thought that something was proposing a change
Jason Schaeffer
56:12
+1 Phil
Griffin Barnett
58:23
If I recall, there is additional context in the report
Paul
59:13
Q3 maybe could use some clarity, but it has become moot since the Q was for public comment purposes. What is very clear is the Recommendation that was put forward which is that the status quo holds.
Philip Corwin
59:45
Agree with Paul
Mary Wong
01:01:41
Please note that staff highlighting concerns voiced by commentators doesn’t mean the concerns themselvesare new arguments. We just need to be sure that all the comments are considered by the group.
Susan Payne
01:01:42
@Paul - I don't think this was a Q for the public comment. The WG is identifying the charter Qs it considered and confirming it decided to maintain SQ on each
Paul Tattersfield
01:03:13
Good question Paul
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:03:15
Same question pertains, Paul, with respect to support conceptually IMO
Philip Corwin
01:04:18
I'd like to speak to this
Paul
01:07:49
@Phil, @Staff, thank you for the clarification.
Brian Beckham
01:07:49
correct
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:11:57
I think this discussion is useful background for a good start but am also hoping we will touch on Sunrise Recs 1 and 2. It strikes me on TMCH #1 there is status quo going forward, at least IMO
Paul Tattersfield
01:12:16
consdier them to dispose of them?
John McElwaine
01:12:21
I'm staying on the line but need to go on hold to attend a status conference with a Judge. It likely wont be 30 mins.
Justine Chew
01:13:14
I appreciate that staff has laid out ALL the comments for our consideration, and also being able to highlight anything that might be an outlier comment that we haven't already debated to death.
Philip Corwin
01:14:10
Good point Mary
Paul
01:16:51
@Julie, Mary, Brian and Phil. Thank you for the clarification about why the process is important.
Paul
01:18:22
@Phil - I agree, but laying out the ground rules at the very beginning was important. I think the rest will go more quickly.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:19:28
Support, no response, and no opinion are about 87% on Sunrise rec #1
Paul
01:23:04
Can someone explain the idea more fully? Sorry to be too slow.
Griffin Barnett
01:24:08
It’s a formulation of the “spanning the dot” approach to Sunrise - allowing the mark (e.g. Real Madrid) to be able to span the dot for purposes of a Sunrise registration, e.g. where the TLD forms part of the mark can you get a Sunrise reg for REAL.MADRID rather than just REALMADRID.MADRID for instance
Griffin Barnett
01:24:42
This commenter suggested this approach be permitted but just limited to community and geoTLDs
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:24:57
Thanks Griffin
Griffin Barnett
01:25:06
Hopefully that is helpful lol
Susan Payne
01:25:06
@Rebecca "radio"? not geographic
Philip Corwin
01:25:28
I think Radio is a community TLD
Rebecca Tushnet
01:26:33
I guess my point is that I believe BBC actually has a trademark in BBC, so it doesn't exactly need that in the way Real Madrid might, which really doesn't have rights in "Real" standing alone
Griffin Barnett
01:26:39
I also vaguely seem to recall generally the spanning the dot Sunrise issue but my recollections of the discussions and results are super foggy
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:26:42
I recall discussion as well - may have been in Sunrise sub team
Susan Payne
01:26:45
@Phil, but why is that different to "online" or "doctor". suppose your TM is "drain doctor"
Mary Wong
01:27:21
The WG had a discussion with ICANN GDD in Nov 2018 where how the TMCH deals with “spanning the dot” was raised.
Paul
01:27:38
Thanks Griffin.
Susan Payne
01:28:21
Registry Operator is able to do this as a secondary sunrise if they want to
Mary Wong
01:29:00
@Susan, yes - if it’s something the registry offers during their Sunrise period.
Griffin Barnett
01:29:56
Thanks Julie and Mary for the additional info
Griffin Barnett
01:30:06
Very helpful
Philip Corwin
01:30:57
@Susan -- agree it is not different, which suggests that any discussion would wind up being broader than geos and communities
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:31:00
Support (32+%), no response (29+%), and no opinion (7+%) add to over 69% - non-support here is up from others we considered so far today to 20%
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:31:11
on Sunrise Rec #2
Griffin Barnett
01:33:29
Seems that most of the comments would be useful implementation guidance, but not necessarily require a change to the recommendation itself
John McElwaine
01:37:03
I'm back
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:37:06
I agree with Phil about absolute need for more precise language and also that this should not, if approved, be left to implementation team
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:34
+1 Phil -- it would be interesting to see the "context" on this recommendation. Could Staff provide that link?
Mary Wong
01:38:38
@Kathy - sorry, we missed that remark. Which link did you have in mind?
Ariel Liang
01:38:53
Here is the link: https://community.icann.org/x/wCGJBw (note all recommendations/proposals with their context are listed here: https://community.icann.org/x/XCCJBw)
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:06
Tx Ariel!
Ariel Liang
01:39:51
I scroll to the IPC comment
Ariel Liang
01:40:00
Which mentions the TM-PDDRP related suggestion
Ariel Liang
01:41:20
Context:The Working Group is uncertain about the scope and extent of abuses of the Sunrise Period.Some Working Group members noted abuses such as discriminatory pricing and unfair business practices related to Registry Operators, as well as anecdotal evidence of trademark owners using questionable means to gain priority for the Sunrise Period.Some Working Group members suspected that trademark owners may have the potential to abuse Sunrise due to TMCH’s acceptance of non-standard character claim marks and common/dictionary words, as well as the broad scope of registration within the TMCH. However, there is a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the suspicion.
Griffin Barnett
01:42:07
Because the recommendation is not contractual language - obviously it cannot be enforced in its current form, that was never the intention
Susan Payne
01:42:33
+1 Griffin
Paul
01:42:51
I guess I don't understand how not circumventing ICANN policy is a major ask...
Susan Payne
01:43:00
@Michael - that's why we have a PDP - for the CPs to engage in the development of recommendations and implementation thereof!
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:45:05
Thanks Julie and Ariel for leading this call
Philip Corwin
01:45:15
Good meeting/thanks to everyone
Griffin Barnett
01:45:17
Thanks very much staff - great work in getting these comments organized the way you have
Paul Tattersfield
01:45:19
thanks all, bye
Kathy Kleiman
01:45:20
Full house!
Ariel Liang
01:45:21
Thanks everyone!
Jason Schaeffer
01:45:21
Thanks
Griffin Barnett
01:45:23
Thanks all, see you next time