Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Jim Prendergast
25:39
back to back 0300 UTC calls. how did that happen?
Paul McGrady
26:11
@Jim- just lucky
Jim Prendergast
26:18
haha
Heather Forrest
26:23
Woo hoo, showing APAC time zones some love!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
26:28
they rotate individually not with each other
Maxim Alzoba
26:57
hello all, will not be able to use mic due to early hour
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:09
I know how it feels as every 2 cycles has me in the midnight to dawn for double the joy ;-)
Elaine Pruis
27:15
As noted above my SOI has been updaged
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
27:19
Understandable @Maxim
Elaine Pruis
27:21
:) thanks
Terri Agnew
27:45
Membership wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ogp1Aw
Steve Chan
27:54
Document available here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BkRn9nYeBNjyx2mTw-3nIDn22jTumWd4w1PZR-KNrPs/edit?usp=sharing
Justine Chew
31:30
Apologies for late arrival
Rubens Kuhl
33:54
I don't think this belongs in SCO... looks like a good idea in the wrong place.
Steve Chan
34:54
The incentives aspect seems to lend itself to consideration in the context of application types?
Paul McGrady
35:43
Can we think a bit about how this could go wrong? What if the translation is such that it isn't really a sensitive string like the other regulated string?
Paul McGrady
36:10
Guard and Guarda
Elaine Pruis
36:10
Yes some examples would be helpful
Paul McGrady
37:05
I'm not sure I can come up with examples on the fly, but I think we should
Maxim Alzoba
37:29
it might be complicated, for example regulations in the same area in different countries are different, which prevails?
Maxim Alzoba
37:56
and the strings follow local regulations
Justine Chew
38:47
@Maxim. wouldn't those considerations be raised in the rationale for any SCO to be filed?
Maxim Alzoba
38:53
requirements for a license might be different
Rubens Kuhl
39:00
One example of "lost in translation" issues: both bank and bench translate to "banco" in Portuguese. What if the applicant thought of .bench instead of .bank ?
Maxim Alzoba
40:05
spa and Spa?
Maxim Alzoba
40:16
as city
Justine Chew
40:22
Again the grounds are included in the SCO. As with defence as what Jeff said.
Maxim Alzoba
41:06
but it creates situations, where two cities, where one is
Maxim Alzoba
41:17
restricted to citizens
Maxim Alzoba
41:23
and another is not
Justine Chew
41:24
+1 Jeff. Every objector has to formulate their grounds, so DSRPs would evaluate whatever is raised.
Maxim Alzoba
41:39
why the first city prevails?
Paul McGrady
45:54
The old standard was nonsense since it was an infringement standard. Infringement requires use.
Rubens Kuhl
47:47
We could use the decisions from 2012 to determine what was the actual standard applied.
Paul McGrady
55:07
"likelihood of confusion" is included in the INTA comments
Paul McGrady
56:01
It wasn't. The initial standard as written now in the AGB is an active infringement
Steve Chan
56:07
All, I am definitely not an expert on LRO, but it seems it is there. There is further detail in 3.5.2.
Greg Shatan
56:08
Likely to infringe is problematic.
Steve Chan
57:30
Ok. I did say I’m not the expert! Just digging through the AGB while you’re all speaking.
Greg Shatan
57:32
Just don’t want the INTA comment to be interpreted to say that likelihood of confusion analysis can’t be applied prior to use. I don’t think that’s what the INTA comment means anyway....
Steve Chan
01:00:28
But if 3.5.2 is more along the lines of what folks want, the WG could affirm that this is the intended standard.
Paul McGrady
01:00:37
@Greg - I don't disagree. INTA's language of take unfair advantage of is a big improvement.
Justine Chew
01:01:42
@Jeff, it sounds like a small drafting team might be called for to re-write/correct this section in the AGB?
Heather Forrest
01:02:30
Someone is watching Seinfeld....
Greg Shatan
01:02:52
I agree intentions were good. But language was chosen that did not carry out those intentions.
Greg Shatan
01:03:22
INTA comment is not enough because it doesn’t erase the GNSO Rec 3 infringe language.
Greg Shatan
01:03:45
And it was The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, not Seinfeld.
Greg Shatan
01:04:09
Seinfeld would not work on Rosh Hashanah.... :-)
Greg Shatan
01:05:22
I would not call “bad faith” a relaxation of the standard.
Paul McGrady
01:05:45
bad faith can be an additional element
Greg Shatan
01:06:47
+1 Paul. Jeff, you are a mindreader.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:07:52
sorry Anne
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:08:44
But can you have bad faith without a likelihood of confusion?
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:44
how to prove bad faith without use?
Greg Shatan
01:10:12
From the application and other facts available at that time.
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:12
the difference between domains of second level and TLDs is huge, and standards for attack on applicants should be higher
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:32
and the sale of an application might be a merger or something other method
Greg Shatan
01:14:38
Checkers and Culver’s are burger chains....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:15:13
this antipodean did wonder … Thx @Greg
Greg Shatan
01:15:16
Just in case that wasn’t obvious from the context. Perhaps .fuddruckers should be used in the example.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:15:27
I prefer Five Guys :)
Rubens Kuhl
01:15:31
I would register a .checkers domain for use as in the board game...
Justine Chew
01:15:33
+1 Paul thank you1
Greg Shatan
01:16:11
+1 Jeff, though I will take Shake Shack over 5 Guys.
Greg Shatan
01:16:28
If you’re buying burgers, Jeff, I’m in.
Paul McGrady
01:16:38
@Ann and thanks Greg!
Jim Prendergast
01:16:56
so is shake shack
Paul McGrady
01:16:56
I saw a 5 guys in London. Yum
Greg Shatan
01:17:01
Wimpy’s should not be in this discussion. :-(
Justine Chew
01:17:02
Really? Not in Asia :(
Paul McGrady
01:17:16
hahahahahahaha! Great one Ann!
Rubens Kuhl
01:17:42
There was a Five Guys in the mall near the venue of ICANN Barcelona.
Tom Dale
01:20:34
Apologies, I have to leave for another call.
Paul McGrady
01:21:21
Support new appeal mechanisms that don't erode what we already have.
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:34
We should note that new IRP is different from the 2012 IRP; the new IRP might fit the desired new substantive appeal mechanism description, saving us from baking yet another mechanism from scratch.
Greg Shatan
01:22:48
IRP is still fundamentally a challenge to Board decisions. It could be used as a model for an appeal but no more.
Greg Shatan
01:23:02
What Jeff said.
Justine Chew
01:23:26
Correct, IRP deals with action, mis-action, inaction by ICANN. At least that's what I understand.
Greg Shatan
01:23:37
IRP is not even fundamentally an appeals process.
Greg Shatan
01:25:04
I think any.”new” ICANN quasi-judicial mechanism has to look back to the existing ones. Nothing should be built from scratch, but nothing should be built entirely from parts on hand, either...
Paul McGrady
01:25:11
If ALAC and INTA agree, it must be OK. :)
Greg Shatan
01:25:28
+1 Paul :-)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:25:39
Indeed it IS a good thing :-)
Greg Shatan
01:25:39
Can we go to sleep now?
Justine Chew
01:25:52
Huh? Lol.
Greg Shatan
01:26:18
It’s midnight in NYC
Justine Chew
01:27:00
My "huh?" wasn't directed at you @Greg. It was directed at @Paul.
Paul McGrady
01:27:07
+1 Anne
Greg Shatan
01:27:17
Aha!, @Justine. Thanks.
Justine Chew
01:27:32
@Anne, thanks for bringing that up.
Paul McGrady
01:27:55
@Justine - I'm just being a bit silly at 11pm Chicago time. :)
Justine Chew
01:28:35
Hence the ... "Lol."
Greg Shatan
01:30:24
11 pm Chicago time is even later than midnight New York time, metaphysically speaking.
Paul McGrady
01:31:40
@Greg - I'm still at the end of my day whilst you are at the beginning of yours
Justine Chew
01:32:38
I think you're right @Jeff
Paul McGrady
01:34:25
Sounds like we are talking about an appeal from preliminary decisions (e.g. conflicts) and final decisions (substantive outcomes).
Justine Chew
01:34:55
+1 Jeff
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:37:01
+1 Greg
Greg Shatan
01:37:54
Yes, RfR was a bad fit — Pere Squeg in Hound Role (or something like that).
Greg Shatan
01:38:57
And let’s not forget “substantive procedure”.... :-)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:42:03
I'm a bit concerned about a large number of decisions being subject to appeals, absent some form of objective test.
Greg Shatan
01:42:41
There needs to be a Standard of Appeal.
Greg Shatan
01:43:05
“Because I feel like it” is not a valid standard of appeal.
Paul McGrady
01:45:06
+1 Donna and +1 Greg. We need an appeals mechanism but we don't need to set it up to be abused.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:45:45
Exactly Paul. I think that's what I was trying to say.
Justine Chew
01:46:08
We need to allow due process, put limits - time, grounds, no frivolous attempts
Paul McGrady
01:47:18
+1 Justine
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:47:19
I also acknowledge that Jamie's list is developed from experience from 2012, and I don't want to discount that experience.
Paul McGrady
01:48:52
a) yes, b) (1) yes, b) (2) no, c) no, d) no, e) no f) no
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:49:21
Thanks @Paul.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
01:49:49
How do others feel?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:13
How is c) different from a)?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:44
e) do not support SOACs have a right of appeal
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:52:24
Having said that, would the GAC have a right of appeal through 'advice'?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:53:22
so that someone would still be an applicant?
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:10
to be in a contention set ones needs to be an applicant
Paul McGrady
01:54:39
I guess I read a) as being the applicant whose application was the subject of the objection
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:40
so a) covers both a) and c)
Justine Chew
01:55:08
Unless it is specified ... decisions by ICANN Org or ICANN Board WITH RESPECT TO anything to do with New gTLD Program?
Paul McGrady
01:55:17
@Maxim, that is not how I read it. Let's get clarity on that
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:55:27
that was my confusion Maxim, that a) refers to applicant and b) refers to someone, but the intent is applicant in both.
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:08
should it be a defending applicant?
Paul McGrady
01:56:19
@Maxim - yes.
Justine Chew
01:56:52
Thanks all.
Terri Agnew
01:57:03
New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Thursday, 03 October 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:04
bye all
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:12
LOTS covered today people and at an unfriendly hour for so many of you... Thanks everyone
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:16
Bye for now
Rubens Kuhl
01:57:22
Bye all!
Greg Shatan
01:57:26
L’Shona Tova!
Heather Forrest
01:57:28
Thanks, Jeff