Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Jim Prendergast
31:01
Did Julie's audio fade out a tad there?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude for Citi)
31:04
Yes
Julie Hedlund
31:06
yes
Jim Prendergast
31:07
or is it me
Robin Gross
31:28
I can hear you, Jeff.
Annebeth Lange
31:30
Hear you clearly
Jim Prendergast
31:30
you sound fine now
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:31
Yes loud and clear
Julie Hedlund
31:34
We can hear you Jef
Julie Hedlund
31:38
Jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
31:38
indeed CW
Julie Bisland
31:44
So sorry! It’s me! I saw my connection was weak
Paul McGrady
32:25
Hello all from the INTA Leadership Meeting in Austin.
Paul McGrady
32:46
Jeff: Will update SOI to reflect that I am no longer on Cuoncil
Paul McGrady
33:06
Yay!!
Annebeth Lange
34:05
Is it possible to make the font larger? Difficult to read
Annebeth Lange
34:37
Thanks
Steve Chan
35:25
Document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eYhtbK_sEKWzdUjwg7zURL2HnKYTYCJeItX-h66XgEw/edit#
Paul McGrady
41:24
What's the harm in doing something about it? If the new gTLD registries are sure that nothing untoward is going on, then they won't mind making it clear that premium domain names can only be listed after Sunrise is done.
Steve Chan
44:14
We will look for it...
Donna Austin, Neustar
44:32
@Paul, what's the benefit?
christopher wilkinson
44:32
@ Alan, +1, but which comments contradictory?
Julie Hedlund
44:57
INTA Study link is in the doc in the comment from Emily: https://community.icann.org/displ ay/CCT/Studies%2C+Research %2C+and+Background+Material s?preview=/56135378/64949779 /INTA%20Cost%20Impact%20R eport%20revised%204-13- 17%20v2.1.pdf
Elaine Pruis
45:19
The TMCH has every single ascii letter and number. TM holders gamed the TMCH. And the argument over what’s a brand and what’s generic isn’t for registries to decide
Paul McGrady
47:34
@Donna - much more legitimacy for ICANN's new gTLD program. It suffers from the perception that it was based primarily on the hope that brand owners would show up and financially support it. The premium domain names that corresponded to brands and were not available in Sunrise just appeared predatory and the ICANN's Board's unwillingness to do anything about it just made them look complicit. ICANN needs all the legitimacy it can borrow right now.
Greg Shatan
50:16
+1, Christopher
Donna Austin, Neustar
54:00
It is a business decision by the brands to register their name in a TLD, and weren't there other mechanisms put in place such as the URS to allow TM owners a quick way to address illegitimate registration?
Greg Shatan
54:47
@Elaine, Legitimate TM holders did not game the TMCH. Domain speculators gamed trademark offices and the TMCH. If registries aren’t supposed to be determining what a trademark is, then registries should stop premium pricing for trademarks. In some cases, it’s been quite obvious where registries are targeting trademarks and trademark owners.
Paul McGrady
55:57
@Elaine - not sure I understand/agree with the alleged gaming of the TMCH, but do agree that what’s a brand and what’s generic isn’t for registries to decide. That has already been addressed by having the TMCH and Sunrise in place.
Greg Shatan
56:02
PDDRP might work here but only if there was an avalanche of activity by a single registry.
Elaine Pruis
57:42
@Greg, legitimate registries didn’t extort legitimate trademark holders.
Jim Prendergast
58:07
but isnt regilating pricing on sunrise names exactly what they are asking for? Forbid the pricing to prevent circumvention is a form of regulation.
Greg Shatan
58:14
@Elaine, I agree 100%.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude for Citi)
01:04:08
Whether we like what is in the TMCH or not, that is not our issues. That is for the RPM group
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude for Citi)
01:04:38
Our issue is whether efforts to circumvent the RPMs should be addressed
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:04:51
Thanks Greg. Have not been following that group but glad it is being considered.
Elaine Pruis
01:06:16
+1 Ann
Paul McGrady
01:07:05
+1 Ann. This is not a pricing issue and I agree ICANN needs to stay out of that. I think the real concern here is that the entire RPM process is observed.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude for Citi)
01:08:47
Remember, our group is not dealing with what is in the TMCH or what is required to show to get your mark in there
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude for Citi)
01:09:02
We are only dealing with the limited issue of circumvention of the RPMs
Elaine Pruis
01:09:26
There is a sunrise dispute resolution mechanism.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:09:56
Noted @Elaine
Greg Shatan
01:10:24
For use in Sunrise, use must be proven to the TMCH. The great majority of trademarks in TMCH have submitted proof of use in order to participate in Sunrise. Only a few chose not to, and they only participate in Claims, which doesn’t block.
Paul McGrady
01:11:13
@Elaine, +1. That is the mechanism to challenge any gaming in the TMCH
Greg Shatan
01:12:00
Sunrise DRP only has limited causes of action. TMCH issues will be challenged through the TMCH DRP not the Sunrise DRP.
Elaine Pruis
01:12:04
Jeff I think the terms of use of the TMCH limit access to the list solely for claims notification and verification of the name in the TMCH. Check that first
Jim Prendergast
01:12:15
Is the sunrise dispute resolution mechanism something the RPMS group is looking at? dont want duplicate work
Paul McGrady
01:13:36
@Jim, no. I do not think the RPM group is taking a deep dive into that. We can ask their c0o-chairs to confirm one way or another
Jim Prendergast
01:14:10
we have the right guy!
Paul McGrady
01:14:33
@Greg - shows what I know. Thanks!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:37
Thanks @Greg noted...
Paul McGrady
01:15:50
From a decision:
Paul McGrady
01:15:52
Applicable Disputes A registered domain name in the TLD will be subject to anadministrative proceeding upon submission of a complaint that the Sunrise Registration wasimproper under one or more of the following criteria.a. Improper Sunrise Registration-Trademarks1A complaint under this section shall be required to show by reasonable evidence that aregistered domain name in the TLD does not comply with the provisions of the Registry’sSunrise Program. The complaint must prove one or more of the following elements:i. at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold atrademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had notbeen court-validated or protected by statute or treaty.ii. the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based itsSunrise registration;2iii. the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is notof national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been c
Paul McGrady
01:16:09
https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/xn--ngbc5azd/xn--ngbc5azd-sdrp-naf-31oct13-en.pdf
Jim Prendergast
01:17:28
which TLD was that Paul? Im not fluent in Arabic...
Julie Bisland
01:20:07
@all: we need to identify who joined from phone number 1847****621, please could an announcement be made? (When there’s a proper pause in conversation)
Jim Prendergast
01:20:24
Found it - was .shabaka (ARI now Neustar)
Elaine Pruis
01:20:48
TMCH terms of use
Jim Prendergast
01:21:29
might eb Paul - its a chicago area code
christopher wilkinson
01:21:38
@Jeff’s conclusion. So far so good, OK. CW
Steve Chan
01:23:19
link to the doc is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PGV5_nMafLWtSHyCGdr-b8eqoJj9B8YKBSheVJQcvHg/edit#gid=0
karen.lentz
01:24:12
Comment period on implementation plana for accepted CCT recs is complete - these comments now being analyzed
Paul McGrady
01:25:04
Correction, all. It was from a policy for that TLD, which I *think* is the Arabic equivalent of .network. In any event, the point is that the policy is just for kicking marks out of the TMCH and not for complaining about an alleged circumvention of the Sunrise. I do wonder if this entire discussion shouldn't be punted back to RPMs Phase 1.
Greg Shatan
01:25:58
@Jim,, it doesn’t match any of Paul’s numbers, and it’s a north of Chicago area code (Paul doesn’t live in that direction).
Paul McGrady
01:26:52
And, I'm on Zoom, not phone. :)
Greg Shatan
01:28:51
Maybe RPMs and Sub Pro should form a JCWGST (Joint Cross Working Group Small Team).
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:19
O...K @Greg
Julie Bisland
01:30:22
We still do not know who has joined from phone number ending in -621 (phone only, not zoom, so they cannot see this chat). We will need to verbally ask: 847****621. Sorry all for the interruption!
Greg Shatan
01:30:35
Definitely need a better acronym.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:33:13
it is a ravelled knot issue IMO
Greg Shatan
01:33:20
Or maybe some brands are fatter targets and react defensively as a result
Paul McGrady
01:35:12
Not all brands are uniformly dependent on Internet traffic and not all TLDs are as inherently "scary" as the next. .Sneakers would be much "scarier" to NIKE than .birthdaycake
Elaine Pruis
01:35:17
Several registries offer a domain mark protection list so that a mark holder can pay a small amount for blocking registration of their brand across many TLDs
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:54
it was not me @Jeff ;-)
Greg Shatan
01:37:15
@Cheryl, extra points for the (proper) use of ravelled. Very Shakespearean of you!
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:37:33
I try @Greg
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:39:51
Perhaps we can recommend a "best efforts 'by ICANN.org to establish this data set might help
Paul McGrady
01:40:10
Forcing discounts is also a form of price control and ICANN should steer clear. If registries want to offer blocking services in order to keep down the need for defensive registrations, great, but that should be the product of the free market.
Greg Shatan
01:40:26
<Banter> Please put all banter between <Banter></Banter> to avoid Jeff reading banter.</Banter>
Jim Prendergast
01:42:02
Banter bracket
Paul McGrady
01:43:23
You had me until you suggested ICANN collect pricing data. Why?
Elaine Pruis
01:44:00
+1 Paul
Christa Taylor
01:44:25
My guess - renewal rates impacted by the renewal price
Paul McGrady
01:45:42
Would be nice to know what the incentives and disincentives are...
Paul McGrady
01:47:10
Why would ICANN want to go down this road?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:48:20
propose possabilities if we have them for IT to work with...
Elaine Pruis
01:51:53
Since verified TLDs are naturally going to have fewer registrations, incentives in the form of removing barriers like lower ICANN fees seems reasonable
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:52:15
+1 Elaine
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:52:49
Well said, Allen
Annebeth Lange
01:55:21
Good idea, Gg
Alan Greenberg (ALAC)
01:55:31
Great idea!
Elaine Pruis
01:55:41
I’m afraid that is o easy to game everyone would say they’re verifying
Paul McGrady
01:56:14
Lots of interesting ideas on this one. Can we carry it forwatf to the next call?
Annebeth Lange
01:56:31
Really good discussion
Paul McGrady
01:56:33
forward
Elaine Pruis
01:56:38
+1 Christa, lower ICANN fees for registrars
Jim Prendergast
01:56:46
agree with Paul - even though it will be 4am my time
Julie Bisland
01:56:55
NEXT CALL: Tuesday, 26 November 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:42
Good call thanks everyone... Bye for now then more next Tue then...
Annebeth Lange
01:57:43
BYe
Greg Shatan
01:57:52
Bye all!