Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Ariel Liang
06:35
You are welcome to download the file and scroll through on your own
David McAuley
06:50
None here
Maxim Alzoba
07:05
Hello all
claudio digangi
07:43
greetings Maxim
claudio digangi
12:21
Great summary David!
mary.wong
14:43
As noted on the Claims Sub Team call, to see where this group is in your review of the Charter questions and proposals, where you see suggested answers and draft recommendations in the summary table is basically where the Sub Team is on that topic.
Maxim Alzoba
15:29
what is the URL for the document?
Maxim Alzoba
15:44
We need to scroll
Ariel Liang
16:01
Maxim, the document has been sent to the chat and you can download directly
Maxim Alzoba
16:04
we had some lengthy discussions about it in the past
Maxim Alzoba
16:27
please resend to the chat
Ariel Liang
16:43
Here is the URL if needed: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624000&api=v2
Kathy Kleiman
17:13
could someone remind us of the data?
Maxim Alzoba
17:15
Also some games will be gamed by TM owners if 4d is granted
Kathy Kleiman
17:24
for misuse of reserved names (of which there are 100, right?)
julie.hedlund
17:54
@Maxim: Staff have summarized previous discussions from the chat rooms and transcripts.
Susan Payne
17:54
@Kathy -no. ROs can reserve an unlimited number of names. some had thousands
Maxim Alzoba
18:29
for example POLICE.CITY METRO.CITY
Susan Payne
18:33
100 names was a specific subset
J Schaeffer
18:43
Where is the evidence/data that this is a widespread problem?
Maxim Alzoba
18:47
what is the reason for TM owners to have it? is it for public interest?\
Maxim Alzoba
19:06
generic city terms were wanted by mayors offices
claudio digangi
19:32
Maxim, there can be a pre-registration period for those names
Susan Payne
19:38
@Jason, I included some in my proposal. INTA survey was also informative on this, as was the AG survey of brand owners
Kristine Dorrain
20:25
@Claudio, only if you get an ALP, which only one RO has been able to navigate yet.
Susan Payne
20:48
@Kristine - QLP also applies
Kristine Dorrain
21:00
@Susan, yes, thank you!
claudio digangi
21:17
@kristine, to the extent that is a issue, let’s fix it!
J Schaeffer
21:36
@Susan, yes there is some evidence, but I don't see this as a widespread issue. For example, John mentioned in many cases it involved a dictionary word in addition to to a TM. In others there could be, and likely were justifications for the treatment.
Petter Rindforth
22:09
Fruits - like Apple
Maxim Alzoba
22:26
and pineapple too
Kathy Kleiman
23:08
@All -- did we agree to a new "uniform mechanism" that "allows trad3emark owners to challenge a detrmination by a Registry Operator" of a premium name or reserved name?
Kathy Kleiman
23:19
I thought we agreed to a more informal mechanism?
Kathy Kleiman
23:46
That's what's in Question 3 now...
Maxim Alzoba
23:51
I must remind the WG that for GEOs ALP did not work at all (in realistic terms), and only combination of Reserved lists, QLP and special periods allowed to deliver what local governments wanted (mayor’s offices and alike)
Maxim Alzoba
25:17
Is there a reason to believe that a panel will better understand a mission of a TLD than a REgistry?
John McElwaine
25:19
@Susan - I agree that is a PIC is a good idea to help determine what is "unfair"
julie.hedlund
25:44
@Kathy: At the beginning of the call Greg asked if the Sub Team wanted to revisit Question 3, and the decision was to move instead to Question 4. However, staff will be introducing a thread on Question 3 and the answers/preliminary recommendations so there is an option for continued discussion.
julie.hedlund
26:33
@Kathy: Also note that the summary table has been updated to reflect the discussions thus far on Question 3 as captured from the transcripts and recording.
Maxim Alzoba
26:53
I believe there should be some kind of balance for TMCH entries owners, some analogue of PIC, to prevent bad actors from abusing the system (bad actors, who pretend to be TM owners)
Kristine Dorrain
27:26
@Susan and @John, I can see that point, but I caution that this is going to get super murky and potentially expensive and uncertain for ROs. It's going to drag RO business practices through some sort of administrative process again and again.
claudio digangi
27:30
@Maxim, we can enhance the SDRP policy
Maxim Alzoba
27:45
it is per TLD policy , not wide one
claudio digangi
28:41
@Kristine, perhaps one way to address that concern is to require a prima facie case to trigger the mechanism
Zak Muscovitch
28:55
Greg, what about language similar to that provision you mentioned from the Reg Agreements a while back? I believe it mentioned discriminatory pricing, and wouldnt appear to breach the picket fence.
Maxim Alzoba
30:10
and to alter policies of TLDs is a new idea, which is not going to be well perceived , and will not pass voting
Susan Payne
32:00
in my proposal I suggested the registry is not to act in a manner calculated to circumvent the RPMs, including not to set its pricing at a level, compared to general availability pricing, which has the effect of undermining brand owner access to the sunrise. but Zak's discriminatory pricing language would work too; ie
Kristine Dorrain
32:02
I think Kathy brings up an interesting point: Premium names are different from Reserved. Premium goes to cost. Reserved means unavailable for registration.
Kristine Dorrain
32:21
We can't challenge an RO's right to hold domains back from registration for business reasons.
Maxim Alzoba
32:24
If actions of the WG lead to situation where all premium names are going to be challenged to GA basic layer -> prices will go up for all domains (registries have costs, and without recuperation it is the way to go out of business for small and medium TLDs)
Susan Payne
32:44
the registry is not to act in a manner calculated to circumvent the RPMs, includingh by means of discriminatory pricing
Susan Payne
33:31
@Maxim, no one is suggesting that
Maxim Alzoba
33:32
@Susan, even 5USD vs 3USD can be seen as discriminatory
Ariel Liang
33:49
Staff is re-sending the document in case folks want to scroll through on your own
Kathy Kleiman
34:51
When is pricing announced? More specifically, if we are in Sunrise, and there are various Landrush periods to come, will the price of a domain name for General Availability be known?
Zak Muscovitch
35:16
Discriminatatory pricing would be generally pretty tough to prove except in the clearest of cases involving a highly distinctive/unique mark
Kristine Dorrain
35:19
Prices aren't announced.
Maxim Alzoba
35:34
someone who sent a 3d printed prototype , sent it to the neighbor via mail after being paid, is a valid party for TMCH (after registering a TM)
John McElwaine
35:36
@Claudio - good point that we should look at the Sunrise Challenge mechanisms
Kristine Dorrain
35:39
A RO sets the price for Rrs and then the Rr can mark it up and sell it.
Kathy Kleiman
36:33
Tx for responses! Looks like it would be hard to challenge Sunrise based on price...
Kristine Dorrain
37:05
Also, a RO can put domain names in pricing tiers. A premium name can be sold at any point.
julie.hedlund
37:06
@Jason: We can hear you.
Maxim Alzoba
37:32
could we remove upper video tab? nobody is using a cam
Maxim Alzoba
38:53
we should be realistic, how are we going to deal with thousands entries of reserved lists?
Kristine Dorrain
38:56
Agree with Jason, we cannot talk about Premium together with Reserved. They're not the same thing.
Maxim Alzoba
40:30
small business is not capable of bear costs of TLD business
Susan Payne
41:22
Perhps we could try to divide the discussion up so we don'tn have one person talking about reserved names, someone else talking about discriminatory pricing and it all gets mixed up together and we come to no conclusion. I realise this keeps happening because of how the CQs are structured, but we all know they are flawed
Maxim Alzoba
42:20
@Susan, the issue is that experience about Reserved lists limited to Registries and to some degree to Registrars
David McAuley
42:31
exactly right, Greg
Maxim Alzoba
42:34
from technical and operational perspective
julie.hedlund
42:51
@All: To confirm what Greg just said, staff will be starting email discussion threads on question 3 and question 4 (separate threads) to help advance the discussion.
David McAuley
43:05
That's not so handy
Kathy Kleiman
45:21
what type of PICs
Kathy Kleiman
45:37
I think we discussed this earlier -- a mandatory PIC?
Kristine Dorrain
46:03
@Staff, the PIC (proposal 11) doesn't relate to Q4. It's related to Premium Pricing, which is Q3.
Ariel Liang
46:42
Thanks Kristine. We will note that in the next version of summary table
Kathy Kleiman
46:49
So back to 1.3.3?
Maxim Alzoba
47:50
Also we need to prevent scenario , when a bad actor challenging all TLDs the same time, wasting money of ICANN community and Registries
Kathy Kleiman
51:28
4b)?
mary.wong
51:33
In terms of the mechanics, rather than focus on a PIC (specifically), isn’t Susan’s proposal basically asking that a contractual obligation be added to the Registry Agreement? (assuming the Sub Team agrees what the “problem” is and that it is a problem that should be addressed in some way)?
David McAuley
52:26
I cannot get out of zoom to pull it up - Kathy put on list last week
Kathy Kleiman
52:55
I did, but I didn't pull it up. Could Staff grab it?
Ariel Liang
53:06
We are checking
John McElwaine
53:17
https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-global-amendment-31jul17-en.html
Kristine Dorrain
53:40
Just a reminder that the RA cannot be unilaterally amended.
John McElwaine
54:13
https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.html
John McElwaine
54:35
.3.3 reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); and
mary.wong
55:45
Apologies, staff had tried to share the language on screen (but clearly didn’t work, sorry). It’s now captured in the Notes on the screen. Thank you John!
Kathy Kleiman
56:48
sounds like 1.3.3 might already include useful language.
Maxim Alzoba
57:27
it is about CONSENSUS POLICIES AND TEMPORARY POLICIES SPECIFICATION
John McElwaine
58:41
The key is that Section 2.2 of the RA requires Registries to comply with Consensus Policies
John McElwaine
58:55
and then References Specification 1
David McAuley
59:50
good point IMO from Maxim, personal opinion
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:14
please scroll to the beginning of spec 1
mary.wong
01:00:43
Hand raised from staff
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:32
So perhaps ansewr to Q4(b) is No?
Kathy Kleiman
01:02:55
Q4(c)?
mary.wong
01:03:06
The Bylaws that reflect the scope of the Consensus Policies spelled out in Spec 1 are in Annex G-1 & G-2: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexG1
Susan Payne
01:03:59
@Greg - exactly
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:38
1.4.4 prevents that
Maxim Alzoba
01:04:49
from the same Spec 1
Kristine Dorrain
01:04:58
+1 Mary
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:40
formally it fits
Susan Payne
01:05:48
@Maxim, I don'tthink we've had any suggestion to change that 1.4.4
David McAuley
01:05:59
I agree with Greg here
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:18
sorry, there is a clause about material changes
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:42
asked and ansswered?
John McElwaine
01:07:02
I definatively support publication. It would have saved lots of problems for my clients
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:12
about Special Amendment
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:50
7.6 Amendments and Waivers.
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:56
about the process
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:34
I thought Maxim said publication would raise legal problems for some registries?
John McElwaine
01:09:31
It did very from TLD to TLD and I never could figure out why'
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:09
right!
Kathy Kleiman
01:10:27
I think it was jason's idea last week...
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:55
in our jurisdiction publishing of swear words is a pubishable offence
John McElwaine
01:11:09
The RA already allows ICANN to request a list of reserved names. Section 3.3 of Spec 5: Upon ICANN’s request, Registry Operator shall provide a listing of all names withheld or allocated to Registry Operator pursuant to Section 2.6 of the Agreement. Registry Operator may self-allocate and renew such names without use of an ICANN accredited registrar, which will not be considered Transactions for purposes of Section 6.1 of the Agreement.
Kristine Dorrain
01:11:33
@John. different list.
Kathy Kleiman
01:11:57
@Kristine -- are there two different reserved lists?
Maxim Alzoba
01:11:59
@John, yes, we would attach Confidential Information to the list
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:22
@Kathy, it is up to the software logic of very different platforms
John McElwaine
01:12:50
None of this is Confidential
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:55
it could be a list, the set of lists and it is database entries, not a static thing
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:39
it can change 100 times a minute
David McAuley
01:14:24
Thanks Kristine
John McElwaine
01:14:33
@Kristine - I was not referring to a list varying. The notice that you get was in my experience never clear
Kathy Kleiman
01:14:49
This is confusing. When we drafted (2009), Reserved names was the 100 names.
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:04
-- reserved for technical + operational purposes.
Kristine Dorrain
01:15:09
@Kathy. ot
Kristine Dorrain
01:15:23
it's bad terminology
Kathy Kleiman
01:15:28
Should we come up with clearly names, Kristine, for the two different types of Reserved Names List?
Kristine Dorrain
01:15:33
there are 100 Reserved Names (capital R)
mary.wong
01:15:52
In Spec 5, Section 3.2 speaks to the 100 names; Section 3.3 to the ones withheld pursuant to Section 2.6 of the main agreement.
Kristine Dorrain
01:15:54
But the RO doesn't need to sell it's entire inventory all at once.
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:11
also - ICANN required reserved names ( for example - string example, red cross, olympic things, country names) … also some SSAC concerns like WPAD
John McElwaine
01:16:30
@Mary - your right.
John McElwaine
01:16:38
I stil think they should be published
Kristine Dorrain
01:16:44
+1 Maxim, and those are spelled out in a Specification.
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:45
@Kristine, where is the unlimited reservation of domain name allowance in the Registry agreement? I ask because perhaps we can name the two reserved names list after the two contract provisions?
Kristine Dorrain
01:17:08
@Kathy, it's the inverse. there is no requirement to sell every domain name.
mary.wong
01:17:25
And the Sunrise Charter Questions Sub Team’s proposed definition of Reserved Name referred expressly to those withheld under Section 2.6.
Kristine Dorrain
01:17:27
We don't need any new contract terms, it adds additional limitations on the business.
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:51
could I speak?
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:32
so two registered names lists -- the 100 Reserved Names and the ability of a registry to withhold any number of domain names from registration...
Kristine Dorrain
01:20:02
@John, it might not be about your client.
Kristine Dorrain
01:20:18
and RO's shouldn't have to explain their business strategy about why they won't sell a name.
Kristine Dorrain
01:21:01
@Kathy, that's correct.
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:29
Tx!
Susan Payne
01:21:48
Link to RA for those who want to refresh their memory: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.docx
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:16
@Kristine, but perhaps ROs should be able to share information to help a trademark owner from going in circles -- informational support?
Kathy Kleiman
01:22:34
just a thought.
Kristine Dorrain
01:22:59
they can, if they want. Requiring confidential business disclosures is different though.
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:32
makes sense
claudio digangi
01:23:42
@Kristine, does the publication of reserved names go to the reason of WHY they are reserved?
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:46
@Kathy, TM owner is a pure third party to all Registry agreements (if the business model does not offer some other , non registry services to TM owners)
Kristine Dorrain
01:24:02
No, but recall theh argument of brand owners as to why the TMCH shouldn't be open.
Kristine Dorrain
01:24:13
a lot can be learned about strategy from lists.
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:23
4(d) seems linked to all of our conversation today...
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:27
@Claudio, are we expecting registries to publish thousands of entries with detailed explanation?
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:40
I think we've answerd this one.
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:50
with the questions we are asking about possible mechanisms...
claudio digangi
01:24:52
@Maxim, I meant the opposite, e.g. no reason required
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:29
4d should be split , for example notice and opportunity to register are quite different
claudio digangi
01:25:44
@maxim, I thought TLDs are public resources, even when privately licensed to ROs
julie.hedlund
01:25:53
@Greg: Discussion on Q4 can continue on the list with the thread.
Kristine Dorrain
01:26:07
claims applies.
julie.hedlund
01:26:17
Staff hand up
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:07
providing notice is not harmful, but opportunity is the ability to provide benefits to only one part of the community during the whole life of all TLDs
Maxim Alzoba
01:28:10
@Terri , is it possible to remove the upper video tab next meeting?
Christopher Wilkinson
01:28:32
Hello. I think I have joined he wrong call. I am joining the PDP call at 20.00 UTC. (At lest this confirms that Zoom can me made to work!! ) CW
Susan Payne
01:29:04
hey Christopher - 30 mins to go before WT5 call. This is RPMs
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:11
first two weeks of may is GDD Summit for Registries and REgistrars
mary.wong
01:29:13
Not from me thanks Ariel
Kristine Dorrain
01:29:33
thanks all, dropping now for another meeting!
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:40
@Ariel, please remove upper video tab next meeting
Ariel Liang
01:30:02
Maxim, we will check with the SOAC Team colleagues on this
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:31
@Ariel, thanks, I had meetings without it (or I think so :)
Maxim Alzoba
01:30:49
time to use coffee icons