Logo

IDNs EPDP Charter Drafting Team - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
17:41
Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.
Maxim Alzoba
18:51
will reconnect in 3 min
Ariel Liang
19:37
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-f9Ml-z9LcxVs9WuX53kIkp29j0JLh6d/edit
Maxim Alzoba
24:22
URS is second level
Maxim Alzoba
25:39
UDRP and URS have a common issue - new rule for making a decision
Maxim Alzoba
26:15
it depends on the members composition
Maxim Alzoba
26:34
review is in few years
Ariel Liang
26:38
We have moved the involuntary transfer related question (related to UDRP) to a previous section, where the question about whether the transfer policy should be adjusted is asked
Maxim Alzoba
26:43
RPM is not yet implemented
Maxim Alzoba
27:02
new hand
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
27:10
would this work? Consider the impact of the IDN EPDP recommendations on DRPs and trademark protection mechanisms and provide recommendations for addressing any impacts.
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
27:35
@Maxim - we are trying to narrowly scope PDPs, right?
Maxim Alzoba
30:07
new hand
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
30:35
It is such an edge case, that a UDRP will be filed on an IDN name (which is rare to begin with), the complainant wins, and that IDN is associated with one or more variants to which other IP owner has rights
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
30:54
It is so far edge and unlikely that waiting is not an issue
Maxim Alzoba
31:02
ok
Maxim Alzoba
35:21
it is logic of implementation: change of ownership is not an edge case - it is a substantive thing
Maxim Alzoba
36:06
technical experts are in Operational stream
Maxim Alzoba
36:16
this one is legal - operational
Maxim Alzoba
36:32
it was an agreement from the time of the scoping team
Dennis Tan
36:47
+1 Jeff, and the registry operator would have policies around variant names, legacy and new.
Maxim Alzoba
37:26
URS rules are above a Registry, UDRP is above the Registrar and not reviewing it will lead to conflicts
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
38:08
The conflict would be such a rare if at all occurence
Maxim Alzoba
38:16
then we should postpone the principle at all
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
38:21
A transfer of one would result in the transfer of all
Maxim Alzoba
39:08
but how do we want to make the principle (same entity) working without changing of URS/UDRP?
Maxim Alzoba
39:33
it is not a new rule - then it will not be followed by URS/UDRP
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
39:59
It can just be an inevitable byproduct of the same entity rule. If a UDRP Complainant wins a UDRP, it gets the name plus all the variants (whether or not it had IP rights in the Variant)
Maxim Alzoba
40:30
but how do we recommend such important item without a proper due review?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
40:37
Its no different if there is a court order, or DNS Abuse takedown, or any other action that results in suspending or transferring a name
Maxim Alzoba
40:53
court order is a border case - we do whatever they say
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
41:34
I see the UDRP is a quasi legal process that is imposed by contract as opposed to by law
Maxim Alzoba
41:58
changing things there without a proper legal review? it is quite wrong
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
42:50
I am not saying "no legal review". I am saying that the legal review is done elsewhere
Maxim Alzoba
43:53
if it is done later - it will not be implemented in full
Maxim Alzoba
44:12
until the completion
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
44:45
Because of the new g3, I think most of J can be eliminated
Maxim Alzoba
44:52
it will be in a years
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
45:09
@Ariel, hopefully that will be reflected in the other PDPs as well.
Maxim Alzoba
45:19
URS review in RPMs 1 is over
Edmon Chung
46:09
agree with jeff based on the new framing (re jx)
Maxim Alzoba
46:16
so it will not include ‘same principle’ review … it is too late for that, and the review of RPMs is in 5 years after the implementation ...
Ariel Liang
46:17
Yes Donna. Some coordination is needed so the other PDP groups know what charter questions may concern them
Maxim Alzoba
46:43
PDPs: SubPro and RPMs 1 are effectively over
Maxim Alzoba
47:14
killing all domains seems to be a wrong idea
Maxim Alzoba
49:06
we can not and should not regulate law enforcement actions
Maxim Alzoba
49:16
it is way out of ICANN remit
Maxim Alzoba
50:31
TM-PDDRP is a death of a Registry (if approved)
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
50:38
@Maxim - the point is the question of involuntary suspensions. If one name is "suspended" regardless of why, does that result in the suspension (or not) of all of the "variants".
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
50:52
I don't think it matters "why" there is a suspension
Maxim Alzoba
50:55
@Jeff, how can we regulate law enforcement?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
51:12
We are not regulating law enforcement
Maxim Alzoba
51:22
if they even order all domains transferred to them, so we should not touch it
Maxim Alzoba
51:33
RPM PHASE 2 only UDRP
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
51:36
we are simply discussing whether all variants should be suspended if one of them is suspended (regardless of why)
Ariel Liang
51:50
Phase 2 only concerns UDRP
Maxim Alzoba
51:59
it is too late for coordination with Subpro RPMs1
Maxim Alzoba
52:15
their work is finishf
Maxim Alzoba
52:32
post mortal coordination is spiritual thing
Maxim Alzoba
53:07
also IGO thing too
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
53:22
You can bring an action, but it would need to meet the current criteria
Maxim Alzoba
53:30
but it is not finished and can be interacted with
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
53:32
There is no case on point of this
Maxim Alzoba
54:03
basic logic - if we do not cover it - it will not be covered
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
54:43
The issue on whether a variant is "confusingly similar" to a Complainant's mark. And this is NOT an issue that this PDP should consider
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
55:30
I think what Edmon is saying is consistent with what I was trying to say. If this EPDP identifies a issue that needs to be addressed, but is out of scope of this EDPD, then there needs to be a mechanism to 'punt' as Edmon said.
Maxim Alzoba
56:06
during the work of the scoping team the legal review of the same principle was left for this very PDP
Maxim Alzoba
56:53
and the implementation was divided into operational+tech stream with ICANN and ROs, and legal + operational left for this PDP
Maxim Alzoba
57:15
@Jeff, I was not saying that
Maxim Alzoba
57:32
it was about decision who should be regarded as a rightful registrant
Maxim Alzoba
57:41
not about similarity
Maxim Alzoba
58:02
@Jeff, please do not put words in my mouth
Dennis Tan
58:30
Like we ask for the WG to coordinate with SubPro IRT, we can ask this group to coordinate with RPM Phase 1 IRT for trademark and drp matters, right?
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
59:04
@dennis - Maxim is right because it is a policy question
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
59:49
Yes, but this can happen without variants. The first one that complains and wins a UDRP get it
Edmon Chung
01:00:22
but the question of "who is going to win" as jeff mentioned and i agree, is decided by the panels, although based on UDRP/URS but are legal aspects NOT IDN policy
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:00:55
Maxim, a Complainant needs to provide that it has legimitate rights under the UDRP. Not that it has the most senior rights or that it is the most appropriate entity to get the name.
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:27
@Edmon, those are consequences of a new legal principle , which has to be integrated into URS / UDRP/TMCH somehow
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:01:44
@Donna - We are defining the scope here with this charter. So the scope is whatever we say (and the Council agrees)
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:50
@Jeff, simple - TM for the same string
Edmon Chung
01:02:22
@maxim how is that different from TheRapist.tld and Therapist.tld?
Donna Austin, GoDaddy Registry
01:02:31
If that's the case Jeff we seem to have a disagreement on scope.
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:32
@Jeff, this group was created in the wake of the work of the IDN scoping team
Ariel Liang
01:02:37
@Maxim - would you able to compose the exact question that you’d like to ask related to legal review? It may make it easier for the DT to review the wording/scope of such question
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:55
@Edmon, if one was registered as a string and another as variant - it is not an issue now
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:06
by different entities
Maxim Alzoba
01:03:39
btw- TMCH is a part of RPMs
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:02
RPMs was not aware of the same entity rule, and thus TMCH too
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:41
SSAC paper is a parer and not a policy
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:49
J4 1) is wrong - RO can not check with TmCH - it is prohibited
Edmon Chung
01:08:05
agree with jeff
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:15
it should have same protection
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:08:27
the registry gets a list of strings from the TMCH
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:32
maybe it should be on TMCH side - to be able to have the same protection
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:34
jold
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:29
no - it discussed exact match rule only
Ariel Liang
01:12:35
RPM Phase 1 didn’t have a discussion about variants
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:21
string to string , variant1 to variant1, variant2 to variant2
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:46
new hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:14
and it means all those should be in TMCH
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:27
all variants of the string
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:37
htanks all
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:17:15
I think J6 is out of scope
Julie Bisland
01:17:28
Next call: Tuesday, 09 March 2021 at 18:00 UTC
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:35
we can do it over the email
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:15
old hand
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:19:15
The IDN issues were divided into 2 phases
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:19:27
The IDN Guidelines is Phase 1 (which is with the CPH)
Jeff Neuman (GNSO Liaison to the GAC)
01:19:36
and Phase 2 (which is for this ePDP)
Edmon Chung
01:20:24
thx bye
Ariel Liang
01:20:26
Thanks all
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:28
bye all