Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room
Re SOI, i have been appointed as CSG voting rep to the Auction Proceeds CCWG - is that an SOI matter?
@Anne: We’ll capture it.
Link to the doc above
what would be the utility of testing pre-approved RSPs? do different TLDs react in different ways to the sane system?
same system (although hoping the system is sane)
its important to recall the info we learned from ICANN staff (I believe it was Kristine Willet) regarding PDT. There were lots of failures on initial testing. And she said it wasnt IDN tables. It was a variety of other aspects.
I dont think we want to eliminate any parts of PDT that discovered these issues prior to delegation
Good point @Jim
Donna Austin, Neustar
@Jim, did Kristine provide actual statistics?
But as to the point of timing, earlier testing can then be a boon
@Jim, I don't understand. wouldn' the pre-approval process essentially involve the pre-delegation testing? So it wouldn't need to be done time after time
I dont think so - it was at GDD Summitt. I think a lot of people were surprised by the info. At least I was.
Donna Austin, Neustar
@Jim, it it was the GDD Summit, I think we already requested the statistics but they weren't forthcoming.
Right - would be good to get an update on that request.
There would still be a need for pre-delegation testing lite—to make sure the name servers are correctly configured. But it would be so much less burdensome than the complete PDT from last time
Christine’s team shared anecdotal information about PDT testing with this WG. I believe they indicated that statistics are not tracked for PDT, but we will look at the email previously shared and/or check with them again.
Donna Austin, Neustar
One of the main challenges with the IDN tables is that the testing provider changes the requirements often without notification.
Thanks all for a great discussion/chat on that.
Alvin and the CHipmunks?
Oh dear, Mickey Mouse is back?
so it seems
Jonathan Robinson (RySG)
I find Jim difficult to understand
ill type it
Too much helium?
Alvin, Simon, Theodore.
That is the sound of more advanced beings, beyond our ability to comprehend.
They come in peace.
All your gTLD are belong to us.
Jeff , what is the definition of use ? does a TLD have to launch ?
Exactly, @Jeff. What could this group do to address ICANN Org's concerns?
Just joining -- could someone send the doc link?
will have to drop off briefly at takeoff but will Zoom back in at 10,000 feet. #pdpwgaddict
thanks Jeff - but we have something like 200 . brand with only 1 . Nic . whatever . they have no intention of launching anytime soon
.brands TLDs not launching is of less concern than non .brand TLDs
Particularly concerned about the political repercussions of warehousing of geo-names outside the corresponding jurisdiction
is that on 2nd level or top level?
Agreeing with Kathy
Is this a hypothetical, as regards geo-names?
If not, examples please.
Agreeing with Kathy, but this is not only for geonames. Warehousing was never intended.
What data do we have about warehousing to date? Literally, New gTLDs that have not rolled out?
but if we want to be creating a space for innovation then surely we have to allow time for innovation to occur.
If the city of Birmingham, Alabama registered .birmingham and did not use it, would this be an issue. Would this be
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
@Kathy, what do you consider "not rolled out"
If you ask ICANN to operate a gTLD - you got to operate it. nobody "buys" a gTLD; you apply at ICANN to be the custodian.
“outside the jurisdiction” where there is also Birmingham, England and Birmingham, Michigan?
To be clear, I think prevention of squatting/warehousing is still relevant reason to have a delegation deadline. I just think .brand TLDs not launching is a lesser concern than others TLDs.
and pushing all TLDs to start selling names within a certain period encourages multiple launches all at the same time - surely a RO ought to be able to roll out at the time they believe they will lead to the best business outcome
@ Kathy , same q as Jeff . I/ my company - have extensive stats on each TLD- which I could share
I think I am aligned with Justine’s position, but with the flexibility that Susan’s comment implies.
There are many factors that impact launch and use of TLDs, especially those that are not purely for commercial purposes. The last round was also hindered by many delays, which had a detrimental impact for many.
Please do @Phil.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
Didn’t all applications have to state their intended use? If that was to change, or not occur because roll out does not happen, is there not a procedure or penalty to address this?
If you don't make available domains to the community - then others should be granted the opportunity to steward that string. At the very latest once the first 10 years went by without measurable use (a few registered domains aren't sufficient). So no use = contract cancelation.
I agree with Justine here
What contractual obligations do the registry operators have in this regard?
@Martin - but how many? Tx!
Donna Austin, Neustar
Sorry all, I have to leave the call.
@Jeff - correct, public comment did not sway this towards any changes being required
Thx for joining @Donna
To address ICANN's concerns, minimum payments could be required for TLDs not yet launched within years after delegation and signed contract. This would have to be based on average costs.
Anne - there is a minimum payment already - $25k each year
This already has gone out to public comment.
How many New gTLDs are not in use?
what problem are we trying to resolve here? And this has already gone to public comment to the community
@Susan - I meant a minimum payment that correlates with ICANN's cost data. I assume this is more than $25,000 or they would not have commented publicly but they did not say.
maybe we could insert/ add that a .Brand application - being closed - doesn’t need to use/launch a TLD
@Phil - I would be very interested in seeing the stats -- could you share them with me/All?
Again, I think was discussed in depth within the WG.
Prior to Initial/supplemental reports
What do we mean with “use”? This is a problem also with second level domains, and I do not think that has been solved.
@Phil - do you have a rough number to share now?
Insider Trading? This usually means trading on non-public knowledge.
@Justine wrote: To be clear, I think prevention of squatting/warehousing is still relevant reason to have a delegation deadline.
@Anne - well $25k for 1200 TLDs is $30m per year. I'd be astonished if that doesn't cover ICANN's costs related to new gTLDs - bearing in mind this is ongoing payments on top of the original application fee
@Justine and Jeff: how do we prevent squatting?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude)
How do you define squatting?
That concept would apply to a lot of other sections...
Lets not forget we purposely set a fee floor to try and counteract warehousing and gaming
@ Kathy - this info is also on ntldstats & Namestat
I was quoting Justine :-)
Alexander wrote above: If you don't make available domains to the community - then others should be granted the opportunity to steward that string. At the very latest once the first 10 years went by without measurable use (a few registered domains aren't sufficient). So no use = contract cancelation.
Jeff: it seems the record should reflect that there is deep concern from many in Non-Registry Community on this call.
No polls Jeff.
Unless you identify your SG
could you repeat that?
I am marking "no" as best i would understand IPC comments
No, I think this is an impossible task
I'll mark 'yes' noting that GAC has not had detailed conversation on this topic
I have problems finding the x and the v in the zoom
Shatan rhymes with Manhattan...
Hi Annebeth, you can find the check and x marks at the bottom of the participants window
I found it, I had covered it with the chat box
Polling is specifically permitted by the GNSO Working Group guidelines as long as it is not treated as a "Vote" (with a capital V)
@Martin - not hypothetical. Expectation always: apply, delegate, run.
In particular, I'll note that for the GAC, it wouldn't have been readily apparent that this issue relates to the broader questions (including what the problem is, if there is one, etc.) that the GAC needs more substantive conversation on
Without clear definition of "squatting" or "use", I would suggest looking at reasonable timeline to launch for registration. Especially if the RO had prevailed in a contention set or objection. Timeline to be proposed by RO themselves. This is my personal opinion.
@Martin - Noyer le poisson? CW
@Kathy, If this is not hypothetical, what are some examples?
@ Jusstine, good suggestion
@Justine: definitely something to build on.
Drowning the fish?
With the exception being .brands
Re: "noyer le poisson", it seems public comment on this issue is appropriate based on the polling that was done. In addition, this group has to remember the role of Minority Statements.
Agreed Alex - we must distinguish between an open TLD and a Closed / Brand one
but Anne we already conducted a public comment on this
we can't endlessly just keep throwing things out for repeated comment
"noyer le poisson" + minimizing a individual contribution or causing the speaker to be diverted from his/her point.
Use will mean different things for “pure gTLDs” and .brands, which will not have registrants in the usual way
Once you open the string for registration - it's open and people can register.
And Spec 13 registries should be viewed dufferently.
@Susan - I don't think the word "endlessly" applies given the format of the Initial Report, which occurred without discussion of the issues by the Full Working Group. Again, we were promised that discussion when we all agreed to put out the Initial Report based solely on Work Track "general agreement". This approach of now rejecting the full public comment is just going to get us a bottleneck at the Board level.
Link to the doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYhtbK_sEKWzdUjwg7zURL2HnKYTYCJeItX-h66XgEw/edit?usp=sharing
Is it within this group's scope to consider or review the thresholds used for meeting compliance and triggering sanctions? If not, then whose job would that be?
What can be done about it would not be a question of regulating pricing - need a different remedy because the RA prohibits ICANN from regulating pricing - as far as I know.
Tuesday at 20:00 UTC
Sorry, Thursday :)
Thanks for a good lot of progress today, more later in the week of course... Thursdays call at 2000 UTC Bye for now