Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Paul Tattersfield
22:43
I have no object to it being included but I think it could have been improved
Paul Tattersfield
22:49
objection
Susan Payne
23:15
I thiink we might hope that the community input helps improve
Maxim Alzoba
23:27
yws
julie.hedlund
23:29
yes
Maxim Alzoba
23:30
ye
Kathy Kleiman
23:32
yes
Maxim Alzoba
29:58
Currently it is only iBM
Maxim Alzoba
30:09
from the Technological side
Kathy Kleiman
30:43
Is it possible that IBM is not getting what it needs from Deloitte?
Kathy Kleiman
31:11
"black box"
Maxim Alzoba
31:41
We can not distinguish between Deloitte and IBM
Maxim Alzoba
32:00
Registries have only one interface
Justine Chew
32:21
Implementation as to SLA?
Mary Wong
32:33
Yes there are SLAs
Mary Wong
33:08
The TMCH Specs explain how registries and registrars interface with the TMDB, including uploading LORDN files
Susan Payne
33:22
Definitely a valid concern
Maxim Alzoba
33:28
It would be great
Justine Chew
33:35
So a review of the SLA might be in order instead?
Maxim Alzoba
33:40
but more formal language will be a good idea
Mary Wong
34:30
There is a SOW with IBM that (I believe) speaks to downtime etc.
Justine Chew
35:18
@Maxim, you referred to improved redundancy and availability - those are SLA issues.
Maxim Alzoba
35:19
@Mary, could you follow up with the suggestions?
Mary Wong
35:33
@Maxim, we will follow up with you offline, yes. Thanks!
Justine Chew
35:38
Design is a different question. Cheers.
Maxim Alzoba
35:39
@Justine, we do not know SLA - might be a week offline is 100% fine
Maxim Alzoba
35:50
@Mary, thanks
Martin Silva Valent
36:53
He was going to try join us later
Martin Silva Valent
36:54
So yes
Justine Chew
37:26
@Maxim, I was reacting to Mary's confirmation of existence of SLAs. I'm sure you can sort it out with staff.
Mary Wong
37:38
@Justine, all - you can find information about the SOW with IBM (and for that matter the SLAs with Deloitte) on this Working Group wiki page, under TMCH Contracting: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=61606864
Justine Chew
37:55
Thanks! @Maxim, @Mary.
Ariel Liang
38:15
correct
julie.hedlund
38:34
Sorry delay to get off double mute
Claudio DiGangi (zoom room)
38:40
all, sorry I joined the call a little late. I busy sending a note to the list after I saw the agenda got posted. I researched the ICANN meeting transcripts, and found a specific discussion, which took place at the very end of the process as the final AGB was being finalized; there were comments on 3.2.4 to clarify the intended meaning of this provision, because the language was unclear (as Greg noted on our last call). The confusion has been caused by imprecise drafting on 3.2.4; this provision which was always intended to include other forms of IP for registry-specific voluntary RPMs. This was identified in comments by community members during the meeting, and the status of 3.2.4 was confirmed by ICANN's General Counsel, Amy, that it is intended to cover other forms of IP. So I have posted a revised 3.2.4 to the list as that was one of the open/lingering issues we still needed to resolve, and I hope this helps us put the issue to bed for a long happy dream.
Maxim Alzoba
38:57
@Justine , SLAs are between contracted parties, and it is ICANN and Deloitte&IBM&ICANN itself (we are not party to that)
Claudio DiGangi (zoom room)
39:10
can you read it out?
Justine Chew
40:44
@Maxim, your last comment is unclear, but let's sort that out with staff offline.
Ariel Liang
40:46
Staff hand up
Kathy Kleiman
40:49
I think any proposals will have to come back to us...
Kathy Kleiman
41:14
Agree with Julie.
Mary Wong
41:40
These questions were also discussed, and no proposals received, back in 2017.
Paul Tattersfield
42:55
The question is clear, balanced and self explanatory
Claudio DiGangi (zoom room)
43:06
correct phil
Susan Payne
43:24
I would also say this was part of the lengthy discussion on Sunrise and Claims
Claudio DiGangi (zoom room)
43:31
if Julie wants to take it on herself that is fine with me
Kathy Kleiman
43:46
Tx Claudio
Julie Hedlund
44:18
Thanks Claudio and we do appreciate your and other’s input!
Maxim Alzoba
44:31
@Justine, I meant that Registries can not call IBM to senses, we are not party to the agreement with ICANN. There is no transparency, no history of TCMH failures available, if TMCH is offline during the particular TLD Sunrise - IBM is not liable for that
Claudio DiGangi (zoom room)
44:48
I know you guys have a heavy lift, so thank YOU julie and team
Julie Hedlund
46:55
Question 2 has a proposal from Martin
Justine Chew
49:55
@Maxim, thanks for the clarification. I understand it is for ICANN as contracting party with TMCH provider (services vs platform provider) to enforce requirements which should include SLAs, and registries want ICANN to insist on/enforce acceptable SLAs et al. Cheers.
Maxim Alzoba
56:59
@Susan, do you think all bits of RPMs should have at lest references to where to look for additional info ?
Lori Schulman
57:31
Agree that education is not solely Deloitte's responsibility.
Susan Payne
58:47
@Maxim, for sure I think people should be able to find the information
Maxim Alzoba
59:44
@Susan, at least in broad sense (like there are things relevant to this - please look at URS here, UDRP there, e.t.c)
Mary Wong
59:49
@Jason, I believe ICANN Org has clarified previously that we don’t have a role in marketing gTLDs.
Marie Pattullo
59:51
Can we not have agreed text and then links on relevant sites (including that of Deloitte) to that text?
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:55
or at least reference to RPMs page somewhere on ICANN
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:22
that TMCH is a part of it
Susan Payne
01:02:11
I agree with you Maxim.I'm all for openness of info and links to assist people to find it
Claudio DiGangi
01:02:12
@Jason, this is part of the broader program, no? The program includes the TMCH, which is something that registries will need to understand and adopt into their systems. Also, some brand owners know to record their marks in the TMCH, but SME need more exposure to what ICANN is doing in terms of applying and/or using the TMCH. this would seem to help all parties
Greg Shatan
01:03:08
We also need to clarify what is meant by “education.” Is this essentially “awareness” or is something more contemplated?
Michael R. Graham
01:03:44
Sorry to have arrived late --
Claudio DiGangi
01:05:03
welcome Michael
Lori Schulman
01:06:52
@Greg-agree that more clarity is required across the board when it comes to this report and the the pro proposals.
Mary Wong
01:07:05
ICANN Org does not manage the TMCH website, or direct how Deloitte and IBM market their services.
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:16
Does Staff know the answer to Martin's question?
Greg Shatan
01:07:36
Martin, I think you misunderstood the distinction I was trying to make...
Jason Schaeffer
01:07:44
@Claudio I'm entirely for outreach and education. My point was why not have Deloitte handle and manage the costs? Deloitte is the one handling the TMCH so the burden is theirs with clear guidance. The more education the better. The broader program has struggled from a lack of awareness across the board. I was not suggesting ICANN need to pick up the cost for promoting individual Registries (that ship has sailed), however, broader education of the DNS and the opportunities presented to the consuming public is essential.
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:16
there is a need of design/logical data-flow picture in order to understand what happens where
Martin Silva Valent
01:08:55
“ICANN Org does not manage the TMCH website, or direct how Deloitte and IBM market their services.
”
Martin Silva Valent
01:08:56
This
Martin Silva Valent
01:09:00
If that’s the case
Martin Silva Valent
01:09:15
Then yes, providers do communication, marketing and must include education
Claudio DiGangi
01:09:29
Martin, I think its a great idea, but I think the issue is Deloitte doesn't have any contractual obligations to market it services; that's why I mentioned ICANN could support the marketing aspect (since it has revenue allocated to raising awareness)
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:33
I think we need to refer to it as TMCH , without going deeper
Paul Tattersfield
01:09:51
Susan +1
Mary Wong
01:09:54
Thanks @Martin (@Phil, I’ve taken my hand down as Martin has seen the staff answer to his question)
Martin Silva Valent
01:09:56
@Maxim, year, that was my first approach here
Claudio DiGangi
01:10:00
@Jason, I think we are on the same exact page, but as Susan is saying now, its a contract issue
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:16
+1 Susan, we need to call it TMCH
Martin Silva Valent
01:10:26
As I said, I have no desire to pin this to delloite itslef
Martin Silva Valent
01:10:39
But to make it part of the TMCH operational needs
Mary Wong
01:10:47
It’s an initial 5 year term
Martin Silva Valent
01:10:54
I hear anyone that knows best on how to do that last mile of the proposal
Jason Schaeffer
01:10:56
Understood. We need to know the details.
Mary Wong
01:11:03
Followed by consecutive 1-year renewal terms unless there’s a 180 day notice of termination
Jason Schaeffer
01:11:46
In the end we need much more in terms of education. As Phil just noted, if its not in the current contract then its worth considering in future discussion.
Martin Silva Valent
01:12:34
I just answer a question in the hope it becomes a proposal of a recommendation with support
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:44
Mary next?
Justine Chew
01:13:21
So a general recommendation that the TMCH services should include <desired obligations>?
Justine Chew
01:14:10
No ability to amend contract?
Greg Shatan
01:14:40
The parties always have the ability to amend a contract. But we’re not a party...
Susan Payne
01:15:03
5yr fromfirst RA would already have been reached
Justine Chew
01:15:34
@Greg, who is "we"?
Mary Wong
01:16:10
@Susan, yes
Zak Muscovitch
01:19:58
Well put Claudio
Philip Corwin
01:20:51
I am back
Susan Payne
01:21:45
Rebecca's intervention would support the lack of necessity for this recommendation, surely. There's a lot of talk about what should be done - but no-one identifying anything actually glaringly missing
Greg Shatan
01:22:26
Maybe it’s more of an outreach question, if the education already exists.
Claudio DiGangi
01:23:58
old hand
Greg Shatan
01:24:13
But I agree with Susan, we should be identifying what’s not being done. Otherwise, we’re just endorsing education conceptually, or providing a generic roadmap for what could be done that will include many things that are already being done.
Justine Chew
01:24:44
+1 @Susan, @Greg
Susan Payne
01:27:16
@Jason - you mean for the future review team?
Paul Tattersfield
01:28:51
subgroup?
Julie Hedlund
01:32:46
Per the timeline, we are expected to complete discussion of the TMCH questions by next week.
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:40
So this is a different idea/proposal?
Greg Shatan
01:34:07
We have two proposals being discussed simultaneously...
Michael Karanicolas
01:34:10
Yes. If this is a new proposal, it sounds like a good idea. But not as a replacement for my proposal.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:34:17
possibly, but let community speak
Mary Wong
01:34:44
Question - is there a way for the WG to reach agreement on how to ensure there is some kind o specific, limited access to the data in the TMDB for oversight purposes only (including future reviews)?
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:02
@Mary, I think this is a second and new proposal.
Greg Shatan
01:37:17
There’s a big difference between outside consultant access and community access (even to a subgroup of the community, such as this).
Marie Pattullo
01:37:59
+1 Greg. Following Susan's point about expectation of confidentiality, in good faith we would need to inform TM owners if any community access were to happen, and give them the right to remove their marks before any third party had access.
Lori Schulman
01:39:08
Agree with Marie. If the TMCH info were to be accessed then TM owners should be informed prior to the disclosure
Greg Shatan
01:39:23
GIven that there’s only one proposal on an open/closed TMDB, I’ll be very interested to see how the report lays out both sides of the issue (and the points in between).
Paul Tattersfield
01:39:50
Greg +1
Mary Wong
01:42:18
Please note, however, that for those that filled in the survey to “try it out”, the answers are not determinative (i.e. they don’t “count” as the survey hasn’t actually been agreed or launched).
Ariel Liang
01:42:22
Disclaimer: On the staff side, we can see the names of the survey respondents, but just to verify whether they are WG members or not. The original plan is not to publish the names, but staff have the record of who completed the survey
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:42:50
I continue to like the idea of the survey as a sensible way forward.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:43:08
And if we do this I trust the survey can be saved in part if not done all at once
Paul Tattersfield
01:43:20
we had problems with anonymous survey in the other place
Ariel Liang
01:43:25
@David - correct. Survey progress can be saved
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:43:37
Thanks Ariel
Julie Hedlund
01:43:37
@David: Yes, the survey allows you to save as you go and come back to it.
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:43:44
and Julie
Julie Hedlund
01:43:53
Ariel was quicker LOL
Susan Payne
01:43:56
@Paul - what other place?
Michael Karanicolas
01:44:11
This whole process is completely contrary to consensus based decision making and the multistakeholder process
Paul Tattersfield
01:44:14
IGO/INGO WG
Susan Payne
01:44:22
thx
Julie Hedlund
01:45:31
@Michael: There is no consensus call associated with deciding what is included in the Initial Report
Martin Silva Valent
01:45:34
I have to agree on Michael, I think even when the intention could make sense, it does bring some shady process and I don’t see we really gain that much
Zak Muscovitch
01:45:34
I'd like to hear what kind of results would be required to omit something or include something in the public comments. Zero votes for a proposal omits a proposal? 3 Votes for a proposal? 15? Does it matter who the survey taker represent or which consitutency they are part of?
Jason Schaeffer
01:45:52
+1 Zak
Maxim Alzoba
01:45:52
bye all , have to drop
David McAuley (Verisign)
01:46:14
Good bye all
Justine Chew
01:46:15
Thanks all
Kathy Kleiman
01:46:22
tx Phil.
Martin Silva Valent
01:46:23
I know this is not a consensus call, but still is re opening an issues we already settle and we are re doing a process ad hoc
Martin Silva Valent
01:46:29
Bye all!!