Logo

051040040 RPMs in all gTLDS PDP WG - Shared screen with speaker view
David McAuley (Verisign)
28:07
sure, as you prefer
Ariel Liang
29:51
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit#gid=809273920
Zak Muscovitch
32:30
How is it that we are hearing a proposal at this time. It is out of order
Zak Muscovitch
33:03
Point of order please to the Chair
Julie Hedlund
33:41
?
Susan.Payne
33:43
david, you are fading in and out pretty regularly
Kathy Kleiman
34:53
me too
Susan.Payne
36:02
@Brian - there was also an individual proposal covering this and we didn't review (I think) but held it over to be dealt with this oerarching Q
Griffin Barnett
36:20
I mean…. The question clearly begs for a proposal to make the URS a consensus policy (as well as potentially other new gTLD RPMs)
Julie Hedlund
37:05
@Susan: That is staff’s understanding.
Philip Corwin
37:44
Susan is correct -- there is the overarching Q and also the specific Q on whether URS should become CP
Susan.Payne
39:00
I'm very confused - there is already a proposal to make the URS a consensus policy, so it's not new
Kathy Kleiman
39:14
There is an extensive discussion in our public comment summary of our work.
Kathy Kleiman
39:31
(of URS Indiv #31)
Ariel Liang
39:49
Analysis summary of proposal 31 is on pages 25-26: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4KlFc/edit#
Zak Muscovitch
40:03
@Susan we are supposed to be reviewing public comments....
Paul Tattersfield
42:18
Thanks Maxim
Susan.Payne
42:30
@Zak, thanks, I thought you were arguing this was a new proposal, which I don't think it is. But sounds like that wasn't your concern
Maxim Alzoba
44:59
there is no value in Claims - Sunrise is literally decades over
Maxim Alzoba
45:21
for pre 2012 TLDs, all other TLDs are going to be new gTLDs with RPMs
Philip Corwin
45:54
Most of the new gTLDs apply to the opening of a gTLD and could not apply to a legacy; the only possible ones for Consensus Policy are URS and TM-PDDRP
Griffin Barnett
46:54
@Phil - TM Claims could also apply, if applied on an ongoing basis
Maxim Alzoba
47:48
@Griffin, it had to be announced prior to the General Availability - so it is more than 20 years late
Maxim Alzoba
47:53
for that
Kathy Kleiman
48:03
Great summary
Maxim Alzoba
48:13
old hand, I wrote in the chat
Philip Corwin
48:40
@Griffin--yes in theory, but we have no broad support for going beyond 90 days on claims
Griffin Barnett
49:24
I wasn’t commenting on support, I was just responding to your statement about which new gTLD rpms could in theory apply to legacy gTLDs in some capacity
Paul Tattersfield
49:53
Jason +100
Philip Corwin
50:01
understood
Justine Chew
51:51
Thanks @Mary. And .AERO RA is up to renewal soon.
Griffin Barnett
51:58
If almost all registries already operate the URS either as new gTLDs or legacies who have voluntarily adopted it, what it the problem with having remaining legacy gTLDs adopt the URS as well?
Griffin Barnett
52:33
Especially where one of those registries is advocating in favor of it?
Paul Tattersfield
52:40
Where does ulitmate authority lie? With ICANN.org or the community?
Griffin Barnett
53:35
I don’t find the rationale from the comments against adoption of URS as a consensus policy particularly persuasive
Mary Wong
54:32
@Paul, it depends on whether the binding obligation on Contracted Parties comes from their contract (i.e. is included in the RA as a result of bilateral negotiations between ICANN org and the registry operator) or via Consensus Policy (i.e. out of a GNSO PDP that’s adopted by the Board). For the 2012 new gTLDs, it was a contractual obligation in the standard RA.
Kathy Kleiman
55:10
Double muted?
Paul Tattersfield
55:39
Thanks Mary and for the legacy TLDs like .info and .org?
Susan.Payne
57:30
we should also be looking at the comments on Indiv Prop 31, rather than these comments in isolation
Mary Wong
57:36
@Paul, as mentioned: of the legacy gTLDs that have renewed their RAs, only .com and .net do NOT have the URS included in their contract with ICANN. There are three remaining legacy gTLDs that have not yet renewed their contracts and, as such, are not currently obligated to implement the URS (.aero, .name, .post).
Griffin Barnett
57:51
Agree Susan
Kathy Kleiman
58:16
My family loves donuts - our shelter-in-place treat.
Paul Tattersfield
58:28
So if its not a consensus policy will URS be reomved from those TLDs?
Griffin Barnett
58:50
No
Griffin Barnett
58:56
(@ Paul T)
Paul Tattersfield
01:00:05
So GDD effectively front-runs this working group and the multistakeholder model?
Griffin Barnett
01:00:36
RPMs are a floor not a ceiling, so nothing has ever prevented individual registries from voluntarily taking on additional ones
Ariel Liang
01:01:06
Julie is sharing :)
Paul Tattersfield
01:02:21
Where is the ICANN mandate then? Given the multistakeholder model hasn't approved and the public comment didn’t approve?
Paul McGrady
01:02:40
So the question is, will the WG be given a full, robust opportunity to discuss this, or is the perceived lack of support from public comment binding?
Griffin Barnett
01:04:25
Most of the comments on overarching Q2 against adoption of URS as a consensus policy simply say that it was intended specifically for new gTLDs and so therefore it should not become a consensus policy applicable to legacy gTLDs…but this rationale is not particularly useful
Mary Wong
01:04:33
@Paul, Consensus Policies can only be changed, superseded or dropped via the GNSO policy process. However, for contracts such as the Registry Agreement, proposed amendments and renewals are posted for public comments prior to them taking legal effect.
Greg Shatan
01:05:38
@Paul, given the spread in the donut, I don’t think the donut offers any position, much less a binding one.
Griffin Barnett
01:06:22
I think comments arguing it shouldn’t be applied to legacy TLDs based on the lack of utilization are also not persuasive, bc as we all know, the vast majority of registrations, and therefore vast majority of abuse where the URS would be a tool for addressing same, is still occurring in legacy gTLDs and not new gTLDs
Paul McGrady
01:06:59
Did we bypass any other overarching questions?
Julie Hedlund
01:07:39
@Paul M: The WG has discussed all of the other overarching questions
Greg Shatan
01:08:12
We cant not have this discussion.
Brian Beckham (WIPO)
01:08:15
@Paul M when I reviewed the calls from 1 and 3 (IIRC), in effect, yes, we "bypassed" them (though we did have a conversation)
Paul Tattersfield
01:08:16
@Mary Weren’t those public comments were overwhelmingly against?
Paul Tattersfield
01:08:38
@Mary Weren’t those public comments overwhelmingly against?
Greg Shatan
01:09:09
There is no majority in the donut. At best, a plurality.
Mary Wong
01:10:11
@PaulT, I don’t have specific information on the nature of the comments regarding all the legacy renewals, since there were quite a few renewals over the years.
Paul Tattersfield
01:10:55
I was talking about the .org and .info comment periods May 2019?
Mary Wong
01:13:41
@PaulT, we don’t have the comments on hand to check; but I don’t believe the comments on renewals addressed the question of URS as Consensus Policy, which is the issue this WG is trying to determine.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:14:24
i am aware on NO internal Verisign discussions about adopting URS as contract - we want URS adopted by this group but I have no idea what plans are otherwise
Paul McGrady
01:15:19
But the question isn't whether or not the URS be a voluntarily contractual provision. The question is should it be a Consensus Policy. The WG could have asked the first question, but it didn't.
Paul Tattersfield
01:15:20
Procedurally, it is inappropriate for the ICANN organization to impose these mechanisms on .org, a legacy TLD that dates from the earliest days of the domain name system. Such a move must come, if at all, from the ICANN community after an evidence-based discussion. ICANN staff have presented no evidence of any need for Trademark Claims and URS in the .org TLD.” – EFF and DNRC from the staff report
Griffin Barnett
01:15:30
The UDRP applies to all gTLDs, old and new…. Not sure what Zak’s point is re URS vs. UDRP application to legacies
Griffin Barnett
01:15:48
Clear and convincing cases can’t happen in legacy gTLDs?
Griffin Barnett
01:16:04
Zak is now waxing on the utility of the URS generally rather than the actual question before us
Griffin Barnett
01:16:59
What evidence does Zak have for his projection that thousands of harassing URS cases would come forward if applied to .COM and .NET?
Paul McGrady
01:17:27
Zak is doing what I think needs to be done - substantive comments on whether or not to adopt the URS as Consensus Policy. Glad we have moved off the topic of whether or not we should discuss the question. It appears we finally are.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:17:43
@Zak: The fix for that is procedural - to enforce the standards - not to dump the mechanism.
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:08
I wonder if it is going to potentially be something applicable only to new registrations or all?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:18:37
@Paul: Asking this specific question is in the charter, so of course we're discussing it.
Paul McGrady
01:19:06
@Maxim - an important question. New registrations? New renewals? Or, retroactive to all?
Nat Cohen
01:19:13
Hi Cyntia, my sense is that this WG had the opportunity to try to make the URS more robust, under enforceable contract, and chose not to do so.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:19:31
@Rebecca: That's just factually incorrect. It wasn't made consesus policy is because it was out of scope at the time.
Paul McGrady
01:20:26
@Cyntia - for the first 50 minutes it wasn't at all clear that we would get to the substance. Kudos to Phil for moving us off discussion on whether or not we will discuss and moving us into the actual substantive discussion.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:38
@Paul, it is going to affect operations and assets management
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:55
so this thing is important too
Paul McGrady
01:21:17
I'm not on any side of any aisle. :-) I'm sure I have colleagues who quite like the URS. I just don't.
Griffin Barnett
01:21:27
I think we kinda know now what URS is going to look like
Rebecca Tushnet
01:21:31
Cyntia, I'm talking about this WG's discussion where we ended up without consensus about whether the URS did its job, and were able to agree to at most it might.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:21:35
@Nat: That's not at the discussion in the sub-teams I participated in.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:23:10
@ Rebecca: Thanks. I disagree on your perception of the where we landed here.
Paul Tattersfield
01:23:30
Wasn't only the first 90 days originally?
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:11
also what happens when 10years registration stuck in URS - totally useless domain ?
Griffin Barnett
01:24:57
Proposals to improve the efficacy of URS were rejected
Griffin Barnett
01:27:20
And I completely disagree with assertions that URS is not fit for purpose for legacy gTLDs… as I noted earlier in chat, the bulk of activity for which URS would be well-fit for purpose is taking place in legacy gTLDs rather than new gTLDs - such as phishing and pharming
Cyntia King (USA)
01:27:32
@Maxim: As I understand the current position, the domain would revert to the origial registrant. I'm not aware that we had consensus to transfer of the domain under the URS
Paul Tattersfield
01:27:38
I Totally agree Greg
Griffin Barnett
01:28:20
And there is no evidence that the URS would be used for some kind of concerted widespread harassment of registrants
Zak Muscovitch
01:28:23
@Cyntia, at the end of the suspension the domain name goes back into general circulation and is available for registration by anyone.
Paul Tattersfield
01:29:02
Totally agree Greg, How can ICANN claim any legitimacy as a multistakeholder governance model it if deals with the bigger issues privately with their contracted parties?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:29:05
@Zak: The question was what happens iif the registration is for 10 years.
Zak Muscovitch
01:29:24
Then it is a zombie domain name for 10 years... :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:51
@Cyntia, I think it drops at the end of the 10 years. Goes back into the pool of registrable domain names
Cyntia King (USA)
01:30:18
@Zak & @Maxim: Who would register an obviously abusive registration for 10 years?
Paul Tattersfield
01:30:51
apple.horse? Cyntia
Griffin Barnett
01:31:26
I think 10-year long registrations are quite rare in general, but don’t have statistics on that
Cyntia King (USA)
01:31:29
@Kathy: But what happens after year 1 & the extension of year 2? A complaint of brand owners is what happens to the domains after that.
Griffin Barnett
01:31:38
That’s not the rule
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:03
it is more about stuck and frozen state
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:52
@Cyntia, nothing prevents that (in case where the domain was registered for 10 years)
Cyntia King (USA)
01:33:23
BUt don't the URS rules only provide for suspension for 1 year, & possible extension of suspension for 1 more year? The domain never goes into the registration of hte successful brand owner, so when the suspension is lifted, the domain will be in the hands of hte original registrant.
Griffin Barnett
01:33:42
No, suspension for remaining duration of registration period, but possible extension of 1 additional year
Griffin Barnett
01:34:02
Then the registration expires
Griffin Barnett
01:34:18
It isn’t automatically retained by the initial registrant, as far as I understand
Griffin Barnett
01:34:48
I am having a hard time following Nat’s comments
Paul Tattersfield
01:35:15
Look what happened with price caps being removed by ICANN staff for legacy gTLDs like .org and the Californian AG had to help the ICANN board with the right approach
Greg Shatan
01:36:03
The timelines in the New gTLDs are not likely to produce RDNH.
Paul Tattersfield
01:36:14
90 days too?
Griffin Barnett
01:36:54
phishing is a trademark issue when the phishing relies on use of a trademark
Griffin Barnett
01:37:09
Which is common practice
Greg Shatan
01:37:16
URS is still only for trademark reasons.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:37:20
@Griffin: Thanks for the clarification for me.. That makes less sense to me than my misunderstanding of the suspension period.
Philip Corwin
01:38:11
Personal view -- the overarching Q is whether any RPM should be CP and subject to URS and under what transition rule. So it is not correct to say that application of URS to remaining legacy gTLDs that have not adopted it would apply to all existing registrations. BC for example has supported for only new registrations post-adoption. So scope of application as a CP is an open question, if we wish to address it
Griffin Barnett
01:38:15
How does the position on a different individual proposal apply here?
Paul Tattersfield
01:38:16
@griffin RA 3.18 ? doesn't require infringment and most phlising domains do not infringe statistically
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:10
only TM was considered
Paul Tattersfield
01:39:36
and more quickly than a URS
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:50
URS is more about freezing , not about taking down or transferring
Nat Cohen
01:40:17
But it does result in termination of ownership rights
Paul Tattersfield
01:41:09
RA 3.18 does the job Cyntia
Nat Cohen
01:41:21
You don’t want the solution to be worse than the problem.
Griffin Barnett
01:41:21
Paul…. Not sure I understand your reference to RA 3.18?
Griffin Barnett
01:41:26
Do you mean RAA 3.18?
Jason Schaeffer
01:41:27
Agreed Paul and Cyntia on need for a better tool to take down abusive sites
Paul Tattersfield
01:42:26
3.18(1) “…Registrar shall take reasonable and prompt steps to investigate and respond appropriately to any reports of abuse.”
Rebecca Tushnet
01:42:27
Richard Roberts at the University of Md is doing really fascinating work on what domain names are associated with phishing/similar spoofing and it is surprising how much is simply not in the second level TLD and thus untouched by URS/UDRP
Griffin Barnett
01:42:44
@Paul T - yes you are quoting from the RAA not the RA
Rebecca Tushnet
01:42:49
I think it would be a great service for ICANN to bring him & his team in to the discussion
Griffin Barnett
01:42:49
I am familiar with 3.18 of the RAA
Cyntia King (USA)
01:43:08
The URS is for obviously abusive registrations. How is this the Bogey Man?
Kathy Kleiman
01:43:10
Sorry, what should be looked at more holistically?
Michael R. Graham
01:43:22
So, is that a consensus: That we need a better tool to take down clearly abusive domains and recidivist registrations, but the URS is not sufficient and therefore should not be applied under consensus -- instead, a new PDP should be formed to consider that "better tool"?
Griffin Barnett
01:43:50
The cries for a better tool, having gone through 4 years of discussions in this WG, I find incredibly disingenuous
Griffin Barnett
01:44:22
We had the opportunity to do that by adopting meaningful improvements to the URS and those were soundly rejected by those now apparently decrying the lack of a better tool
Michael R. Graham
01:44:22
@Rebecca -- has Roberts published anything on this?
Nat Cohen
01:44:29
The UDRP was also intended for “Clear cut cybersquatting” yet an unbalanced administration and mission creep led it to be repurposed as a tool to seize inherently valuable domain names.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:44:39
@Rebecca: I glad Mr.Roberts work is intersting. That doesn't address the problem we're working on. Obviously abusive domain registrations.
Griffin Barnett
01:45:13
@Nat - not sure there is any valid support for that proposition
Rebecca Tushnet
01:45:28
He has a few papers--he sent me one that's under review, I think, and was very willing to consider doing more w/ICANN. I've been trying to figure out best way to bring his empirical work in
Rebecca Tushnet
01:45:41
It doesn't obviously support any "side" here but is really useful in data
Nat Cohen
01:46:19
@Griffin - as someone who has had to defend over 20 unjustified UDRP complaints, I can speak to that personally
Rebecca Tushnet
01:46:21
Cyntia, if you claim the problem is phishing then it matters whether the remedy can actually address it
Michael R. Graham
01:47:19
@Nat -- Not sure how URS has been repurposed in that way since the result is Suspension and not transfer, and the prior owner is able to re-register after termination.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:47:41
@Nat: The UDRP has had the same (3) standards since it's inception. I agree there've been a few bad decisions & we need to do more active monitoring. A few improper decisions doesn't invalidate the model nor transfer to this mechanism, tho.
Nat Cohen
01:48:03
@greg - the WG would do well to consider the impact on the registrants of 130 million .com domain names who will bear the impact of the policy decisions ICANN adopts.
Griffin Barnett
01:48:07
A rapid suspension remedy for cases of phishing and pharming, and spread of malware (all of which often use a trademark or facsimile in the domain name as a vector to accomplish these forms of abuse) would actually be helpful; to my earlier point, many such activities still rely on legacy gTLDs
Rebecca Tushnet
01:48:24
https://www.cs.umd.edu/~ricro/research/publications/ccs19_te.pdf for long term reading/consideration
Michael R. Graham
01:48:50
@Rebecca -- URS can be used to address phishing -- and the fact that there may be other non-second level domain name means of phishing does not negate the fact that a tremendous amount of phishing does rely on second level typosquat domains.
Paul McGrady
01:49:30
@Rebecca - thanks for posting the article! Interesting! Looking forward to a good read.
Greg Shatan
01:49:30
@Nat, the impact for many, many registrants will be positive, since it provides an avenue for dealing with fake domains resembling their registrations.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:49:45
Empirically the URS isn't used much to address phishing--our data collection coded for any mention of phishing and it was rare
Griffin Barnett
01:50:00
Bc most of it still occurs in legacy gTLDs
Nat Cohen
01:50:02
@Cyntia - the three criteria often collapse into one - whether the panelist considers the registration and use is bad faith. Confusing similarity is so broadly viewed as to be largely meaningless. Legitimate interest is usual conditional on bad faith. So you are left with a panelist’s subjective views as to what is bad faith.
Rebecca Tushnet
01:50:05
That doesn't mean .com would be the same but that is kind of the point--there is no reason to think URS is fit to do .com
Griffin Barnett
01:50:48
Well the people who actually work daily to combat phishing and similar harms are telling you that the URS could be a useful tool for addressing it if extended to legacy gTLDs
Nat Cohen
01:50:53
Panelists find bad faith for all sorts of reasons that are not “clear cybersquatting” and have ordered the transfer of inherently valuable domain names that are not even targeting the complainant.
Greg Shatan
01:51:14
There is also no reason to think URS is not fit to do .com, as a gTLD.
Griffin Barnett
01:51:18
Bc the UDRP standard is not clear cybersquatting
Michael R. Graham
01:51:20
@Nat -- Would adopting a precedential system of URS decisions address your concerns about inconsistency and subjectivity?
Cyntia King (USA)
01:51:36
@Rebecca: It's not just my claim. Phishing is an issue. However, our working group has a limited purview.
Paul McGrady
01:51:49
However the co-chairs go on this, at least we were able to talk through it substantively. I'm glad about that.
Julie Bisland
01:51:56
Next call: Thursday, 27 August 2020 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Nat Cohen
01:52:03
@Michael - I think there are numerous steps that could be adopted to make the URS more reliable.
Cyntia King (USA)
01:52:37
@Nat - where were you over teh past few years as we discussed that?
Griffin Barnett
01:53:33
The fact is, we found no significant evidence that the URS was applied improperly
Cyntia King (USA)
01:53:41
I agree thre can be guardrails & improvements - we've been talking about that for 4 years. We've made some recommendations, which is why I believe teis mechanism could be useful in other tLDs
Nat Cohen
01:53:46
Zak was engaging on behalf of the ICA. I would hope that Phase 2 would be run more efficiently.
Griffin Barnett
01:53:59
We can all agree on your latter point Nat
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:54:02
Thanks Brian, Phil, Kathy, staff and all.
Michael R. Graham
01:54:18
Thanks all.
Nat Cohen
01:54:20
@Griffin - Agreed
Paul McGrady
01:54:30
Thanks Brian. Challenging call. Well done.
Paul Tattersfield
01:54:35
thanks all
Griffin Barnett
01:54:36
+1