Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Julie Bisland
28:38
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 20:00 UTC.
Maxim Alzoba
29:18
Hello All
Paul McGrady
30:11
Thanks!
Susan Payne
30:52
yep
avri doria
31:14
The things some PDP WG chairs will do to fulfill their responsibilities are stellar - a call from the car in the garage is commendable.
Greg Shatan
31:32
@Jeff, just as understandable as usual....
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:36
better (ish) audio npow
Steve Chan
31:53
There is a hand from Kavouss
Steve Chan
32:57
There WAS a hand :)
Anne Aikman-Scalese
40:46
Who determines the conflict issue once a party objects? Is there an appeal from that determination?
Jim Prendergast
41:33
there was an IRP proceeding related to a panelist having a perceived conflict of interest - https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dot-sport-v-icann-2015-03-27-en
Paul McGrady
44:40
Is it clear in the Guidebook that there is an Ombudsman, CEP, and IRP process for these sorts of objections to the nuetrailty of the nuetrals? If not, couldn't we just drop a line in the new AGB saying that?
Susan Payne
45:25
Perhaps we need a quick review of the providers used for the various objections processes and we can see what their rules say about challenge process to a panellist. No need for us to be reinventing the wheel if they all have a suitable process - we maybe only need some requirement of a specified challenge process
Anne Aikman-Scalese
45:54
It seems as though there should be a final determination of the conflict of interest issue (including possible appeal) before the Objection proceeding moves forward.
Susan Payne
46:03
for future-ppointed providers
Susan Payne
46:35
sorry, "future-appointed"
Paul McGrady
47:23
Do we know the entire universe of providers and what their rules are RE: conflicts?
Justine Chew
47:23
That should be part of the criteria by which ICANN assesses / appoints service providers --- ie provision for dealing with COI.
Paul McGrady
47:50
@Jeff, same question as in the next above. Worried that the IRP is only "in theory"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:54
That indeed could be recommended @Justine
Paul McGrady
48:19
text above, not text above
Paul McGrady
48:25
not next above. sorry
Jim Prendergast
48:27
Providers were but not panelists
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
48:30
but we need to know what át arms length'and external Independent provisoipn of services actually means
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:08
Indeed Jim how mi=uch further a provider goes in transparency is more a due dillegence issue
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:09
p
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
49:14
pre cotraction
Paul McGrady
50:06
So the Policy would be "All panelist for providers will be free from conflicts of interests and there will be an appeal mechanism should a party believe that a panelist or a provider has an unresolved conflict of interest." Then, the AGB can just implement that.
Susan Payne
50:24
+1 Paul
Paul McGrady
51:09
@Jeff - either/both
Anne Aikman-Scalese
51:41
I agree with Paul - it could be whatever appeal mechanism we determine in relation to other possible appeals. Appeal mechanism should be swift and simple.
Steve Chan
51:46
It may be worth looking at section 2.4.3 of the AGB again, which talks about Code of Conduct Guidelines for Panelists, to if there is truly a delta to be resolved
Paul McGrady
52:46
Kathy's point is important. Why set it up to where an aggreived party is automatically sideways to ICANN
Susan Payne
53:00
I think Provider should have a suitable process for "appeal mechanism"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:08
indeed @Paul
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:28
Yes @Susan personally I also think so
Kathy Kleiman
53:40
Building on Paul's suggestion: appeals on Panelist conflict of interest within the third party arbitration organization
Anne Aikman-Scalese
53:44
I am not aware of appeal mechanisms among providers that can occur prior to the process (entire objection process) proceeding.
Paul McGrady
53:46
It puts ICANN Org in the weird place of having to defend third party actor's actions.
Kathy Kleiman
55:16
Agree with ALAC
Kathy Kleiman
56:23
costs will be prohibitive...
Rubens Kuhl
56:48
This comment seems to be about the high cost of community objections / LPI objections in the last round...
Rubens Kuhl
57:06
Which were 6 to 7 figures.
Paul McGrady
57:20
How do we define "wealthier"? GM is wealthier than Jaguar/Landrover, but both can afford 2 more panelists, I suppose.
Justine Chew
58:03
+1 Jeff, that is our concern -- do all service providers follow that UDRP policy on costs being picked up by party asking for 3 panelists higlighted by Susan?
Rubens Kuhl
59:00
LPI -> 3 panelists
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
59:05
I believe community objections only had the option of 1 panelist
Rubens Kuhl
59:15
Community Objections -> 1 or 3
Susan Payne
59:58
costs of the objection - panellist cost are going to be a part of the total cost. I don't think 3 panellists will be 3 times the cost, but I agree 3 will increase the cost
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:00:46
didn’t panelists get paid by the hour? if so then how does it not triple the cost?
Alexander Schubert
01:00:49
what have been the average community objection cost for a loser?
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:55
OK - I can see that both parties would have to agree to move up to 3 Panelists.
Alexander Schubert
01:01:00
Hundreds of thousands?
Greg Shatan
01:01:06
Where do I sign up to be a panelist? :-)
Paul McGrady
01:01:15
Are we married to the idea of a 3 panel option?
Jason Schaeffer
01:01:47
Yes, Alexander many hundreds of thousands.
Justine Chew
01:02:27
Correct. There was also some uncertainty over total ultimate costs - ie level of costs spiralling upwards without knowing before hand.
Jason Schaeffer
01:03:09
Yes, costs were very unclear.
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:38
I like the prior idea - that unless both parties agree to 3 panelists, the 3 person-panel does not go forward.
Rubens Kuhl
01:04:24
ICANN offered to pay one objection per government. I believe Argentina took that offer in the Patagonia objection.
Steve Chan
01:04:44
Jeff, can I ask a clarifying question?
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:06:04
the AGB does clarify that community objections only had the choice of 1 panelist
Emily Barabas
01:06:26
High-Level Agreement: For all types of objections, the parties to a proceeding should be given the opportunity to agree upon a single panelist or a three-person panel - bearing the costs accordingly.
Steve Chan
01:06:45
Right, just wanted to make sure that implication was understood, especially in regards to Limited Public Interest.
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:00
Steve - could you put the existing (prior) list in the chat?
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:04
I think you raise important issues
Steve Chan
01:07:56
Sure, one second. Moving the document back to my other screen lost my place…
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:22
Tx!
Justine Chew
01:09:56
Yes, there should be greater transparency in the selection and appointment of service providers, AND all rules which are to apply to any objection process should be available upfront.
Steve Chan
01:11:35
@Kathy, all, for your reference, see section 3.4.4 of the AGB
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:11:38
@Jeff .. but supplemental rules and documents extended beyond that - specifically for CPE - and i warn that without addressing it here it may happen for objections going forward
Steve Chan
01:12:24
There will be one expert in proceedings involving a string confusion objection.There will be one expert, or, if all parties agree, threeexperts with relevant experience in intellectual property rights disputes in proceedings involving an existing legal rights objection.There will be three experts recognized as eminent jurists of international reputation, with expertise in relevant fields as appropriate, in proceedings involving a Limited Public Interest objection.There will be one expert in proceedings involving acommunity objection.
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:12:32
Sounds like Jeff is talking about appropriate role for supplemental procedural rules (versus substantive)
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:12:35
non-substantiative is one thing, but reinterpretation of the AGB is another
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:04
Can we bring CPE out as a special case. It sounds like a whole set of rules and procedures need to be written for it.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:14:20
I do understand, however I am using CPE to illustrate the issues that could creep into the Objections going forward
Emily Barabas
01:16:43
High-Level Agreement: Extension of the “quick look” mechanism, which currently applies to only the Limited Public Interest Objection, to all objection types. The “quick look” is designed to identify and eliminate frivolous and/or abusive objections. (High-Level Agreement D)
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:23
@Steve and All, Limited Public Interest Objections were treated differently -- and required 3 Panelists (according to Steve's notes above). Before we change that, I think we should look more carefully at this...
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:25
A good number of objections were weaponised to win contention sets, but I wouldn't call those frivolous, even though biased.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:22:25
objections without standing should be considered frivolous
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:19
bye all, I have to drop for the Council meeting
Julie Bisland
01:23:29
NEXT CALL: Monday, 23 September 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:23:44
Thanks everyone Bye for now then....
Paul McGrady
01:24:10
I like 60 minutes better than 90
Anne Aikman-Scalese
01:24:35
Agree with Paul - 60 minutes is much better.
Jim Prendergast
01:25:08
less than 90 by 3-5 minutes..