Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Maxim Alzoba
16:55
without the data supporting this - it is overgeneralization
julie.hedlund
17:34
@David: Susan is an apology for today.
Ariel Liang
19:53
The text regarding the registry concerns are captured in Q3(c), but we will reflect the opposing opinion in the update
Maxim Alzoba
20:23
it should be updated prior to discussion
julie.hedlund
20:47
@Maxim: It will be captured. Thank you.
Maxim Alzoba
21:29
it is important - given the last actions of the Board, each items should be wholistic
Maxim Alzoba
21:35
*item
Maxim Alzoba
22:35
in EPDP Phase 1, some discussed items were removed (so saying that it might be in another question - will not help us)
Kathy Kleiman
22:49
Question for Phil: do we have time to revisit the TM-PDDRP?
Maxim Alzoba
23:24
could we have the discussed language on the screen?
Ariel Liang
24:13
Maxim you mean the TM-PDDRP language?
Kathy Kleiman
24:14
It's a really interesting idea.
Maxim Alzoba
24:32
for the purposed language for this item
Kathy Kleiman
24:41
Agree that there is no consensus on this recommendation based on the discussion I have heard over these weeks...
Ariel Liang
25:55
Maxim - this version of status check document is dated 24 May. We will update the language and circulate a new version after
Maxim Alzoba
26:02
our comments should not be lost
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
26:07
thanks David, understood on the proposals
Ariel Liang
26:26
It won’t be lost, Maxim. We will update the language based on the chats and transcripts
Maxim Alzoba
26:40
@Ariel, thanks
Ariel Liang
26:48
no problem
Julie Bisland
27:12
John, Zoom is not allowing me to unmute your line
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
27:38
I think Q3a and b have a joint proposed recommendation.
Claudio DiGangi
28:14
@Kristine, I thought this was the first time we are measuring the level of support?
Philip Corwin
28:34
If we don't have wide support for a challenge mechanism then there is no point of a release mechanism (other than for reserved names that are subsequently released on a voluntary basis).
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
28:44
to be clear "premium" is not a designation. Regisrtires can have dozens of pricing tiers.
Maxim Alzoba
28:48
new hand
Kathy Kleiman
28:51
@Phil - I was wondering about the same issue.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
29:24
@Phil, I agree. Just trying to cover all my bases.
Kathy Kleiman
29:36
TM-PDDRP, if adopted, would address larger, really systemic issues. So no individual challenge mechanism.
John McElwaine
30:50
@Maxim - I'm not asking for 100% certainty. What I'm saying is that if a registry reserves a name, the public ought to know
Philip Corwin
31:00
"Premium" is like "Luxury" -- a term so overused in divergent ways as to be essentially meaningless ;-)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
31:41
exactly, Phil.
Maxim Alzoba
31:57
@John, under contractual obligation Registries and Registrars do not have freedom of non 100% true answers
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
32:40
Premium =/= Reserved.
Maxim Alzoba
32:59
please do not conflate: Reserved - is not available, Premium is - higher price
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:24
"solutions" to address "systemic" problems will inadvertently snare the 90% of ROs who are good actors.
Kathy Kleiman
36:01
@David, should people who disagree with the current phrasing of the Proposed Answer be suggesting specific revisions?
Greg Shatan
36:11
I was trying to address the conflation, which is a Bad Thing and sinks any attempt at a proposal in my personal opinion.
Maxim Alzoba
36:19
if the mechanism created - it should be 100% of cases
David McAuley
36:30
we're at point where proposed alternate language ought to be provided IMO
Kathy Kleiman
36:43
Is this a new idea?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
36:50
@John, define "premium"....if a RO has 20 pricing tiers, at which pricing tier would you consider "premium"
Kathy Kleiman
36:56
Have we talked about transparency before?
Maxim Alzoba
37:04
registrants are not customers of Registries, they need to talk to Registrars
Greg Shatan
37:59
@Kristine, I would hope that any well-crafted solution for systemic bad acts would come nowhere close to allowing challenges to normal business practices....
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
38:19
@Greg, that's my goal....
Greg Shatan
38:30
Kumbaya!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
38:36
A premium name, is by definition, not reserved. It's available for sale at a "higher" price. It would not be blocked.
John McElwaine
38:39
@Kristine - I think that the RA require transparency in pricing. So there should be some way for a consumer to understand why they are being charged a certain price for a domain name. That is not aloways the clearly the case.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
39:05
@John, that's a slippery slope. Would you insist that your clients explain why they arrive at their pricing?
Greg Shatan
39:13
WHOIS could not be used to convey information about an unregistered domain name.....
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
39:58
@John, wouldn't that be a trade secret?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:06
@greg...good point
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:41
@Claudio, YOU'RE talking about that. You are not the only ones who will use this tool.
Maxim Alzoba
40:41
it will have to be accompanied with the safeguard that the TM owner uses the domain for the claimed reason (and not for resale)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:26
Access to confidential Registry business information can't be limited to 3Ps who only have famous marks...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:37
I mean, the rest of the community will flip out.
Greg Shatan
41:37
Do we want to open the door to discussing “regulation” of the resale market?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:42
@Greg. No
Ariel Liang
42:45
What Claudio mentioned (his contribution to the discussion threads) is captured in Q4 and Q5(a) in the current status check doc, FYI
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
43:16
@Claudio, if there are isolated cases, then this is a huge hammer for a tiny nail.
John McElwaine
43:24
@Krisitne - yes, if they were contractual obligated to do so. I think that Dot Feedback stands for the proposition that there should be "transparency in relation to the applicable fees." This would allow brand-owners to figure out whether they are being target in an effort to circumvent the RPMs
Greg Shatan
44:30
It’s probably not a useful “ask” for the reason why a premium is premium, because the answer would simply be “In our business judgment, this domain has additional value over the base price for domains in this TLD.”
Greg Shatan
45:00
@Kristine, any thoughts on how to make the hammer smaller?
Kathy Kleiman
45:36
@David, if we are moving on, how does the langauge change to reflect the current discussion?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:34
I'm of the opinion that this is a tack. And a hammer is unnecessary. Sunrise is a huge preventative benefit that TM owners get. Some registrants have abused that. We live with it. Some ROs maybe gouged some TM owners. But most didn't. We live with that. Any changes, IMO upset the balance.
Greg Shatan
47:00
How about a.tack hammer?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
47:21
I believe the balance includes the facts that people are being screwed on both sides but the harm to both is not so great that we need to add more weight to one side.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
47:28
No tack hammer.
Maxim Alzoba
47:31
@Kathy, the situation, where the notes added by the members of the PDP is not nice at least
Maxim Alzoba
47:57
*where the notes are missing again and again
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
48:59
Q4 a answer is old, right?
Greg Shatan
49:07
@Kristine, I have some hope we could deal with forms of registrant abuse (where the group can agree that “x” constitutes abuse).
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:09
I feel like we discussed this and moved away from this language.
Kathy Kleiman
49:25
@Maxim - it's a question we are having in TM Subteam too -- how to capture the full range of views in the Answer
Greg Shatan
49:27
This is a 24 May document.
Maxim Alzoba
49:30
Do we have a current document on the screen???
Julie Hedlund
49:31
@Maxim: Staff would like to clarify that staff has captured the discussion from the transcript and recording. This document is only up to date to 24 May as we are contained by when the transcripts are available.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:34
@Greg, are you willing to then also deal with the other sides' claim of TMCH abuse?
Claudio DiGangi
49:36
@kristine, I don't see that ensuring the adopted policies are honored as changing the overall balance.
Kathy Kleiman
50:05
could we see d?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
50:20
@Claudio, the polices are being complied with. We wouldn't be in this discussion if they weren't...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
50:26
you're asking to change them.
Maxim Alzoba
50:41
if we have an OLD document, how can we work with it?
Claudio DiGangi
50:48
@kristine, right but when the RPMs are circumvented there should be a way to address it correct?
Greg Shatan
50:53
@Kristine, yes — with the caveat that we have agreements and disagreements about what constitutes “abuse.”
Julie Hedlund
50:56
@Maxim: Further to clarify that notes are not missing, but the table does not reflect the discussion from the last meeting. Nonetheless, if there are discussions missing please point us to the applicable place in the transcript.
Maxim Alzoba
50:56
it looks like a fork in the document versions
Ariel Liang
51:20
Maxim - staff are unable to live capture the discussions and turn them into proposed answers/recommendations real time. But we will circulate an update after the discussion
Kathy Kleiman
51:28
Tx David -- then how do we focus?
Kathy Kleiman
51:41
Agreed - I'm not hearing wide support either.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
51:47
SUGGESTION: could we relabel "preliminary recommendation" with "discussion"
Julie Hedlund
51:59
@Kathy: To your point, the final version of this document will just have the answers to the questions, recommendations, questions — as agreed in TM Claims.
Kathy Kleiman
52:03
I like Kristine's suggestion!
Julie Hedlund
52:38
@Kristine: The point is that we would not include the discussion here, but just the recommendation. The discussion is here just now only for context. It will be deleted.
Maxim Alzoba
53:03
multiple bits of notes from the previous discussions are missing
Julie Hedlund
53:34
@Maxim: The are in the summary table. Not everything is in this high-level document that we are viewing now.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:36
@Julie, I get that, but we get wrapped around the axle and i'm trying to figure out how to be clear about what we're talking with.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:50
about
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:56
(So tired!
Ariel Liang
56:17
Please note that the status check document is to reflect the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations in a clear and concise language. The other details and context will be included in the summary table and the deliberation portion of the initial report
Maxim Alzoba
57:07
@Julie, is it a suggestion that we look through the transcripts during our meetings?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:38
I encourage everyone to look at the format of the SubPro report. https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/subsequent-procedures-initial-overarching-issues-work-tracks-1-4-03jul18-en.pdf
Ariel Liang
57:41
The orange text you see in the preliminary recommendation column are tentative, as we haven’t heard a concrete recommendation yet but discussions. Once the Sub Team come to agreement on any recommendation, they will replace the orange text
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
57:58
We are working on sections that correspond to c, d, and e.
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:43
can we see?
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:33
we would have no TLDs by now (some TLDs have not been launched yet)
Julie Hedlund
01:02:28
Hands: Maxim, Kathy, Claudio
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:02:45
small registrars don't typically have brand owner clients so it doesn't make sense for them to join during sunrise.
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:03
Registry can not work before the start of Sunrise at all, but have to pay all the fees (Including ICANN fee)
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:36
information about TLD launch phases were and are available via the ICANN website
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:06:03
@Claudio, your propose extends the time BEFORE money is collected.
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:14
it is more than 2 of weeks
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:19
https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:38
But even TM owners seem to buy their domain names in the General Availability period.
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:45
That's what the Analysis Group found...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:06:47
I'm strongly opposed to a variable start based on # of TLDs launching.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:06:55
that is totally unpredictable for ROS
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:01
the website was available since the very beginning of the 2012 new gTLD
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:12
strong objection
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:25
So extending the time before launch/General Availability impacts everyone.
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:38
Tx Greg - valuable background!
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:59
"test for traction"
Maxim Alzoba
01:08:09
it is a situation where for the benefit of one part of the community all others have to either pay, or not be able to use TLDs
Claudio DiGangi
01:09:43
@kristine, the timeframe would be set at the TLDs launch date
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:59
@Claudio, it is set
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:11
and available
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:11:12
Claudio good hand management. :)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:11:49
Thanks for clarifying
Claudio DiGangi
01:12:38
:)
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:18
Did we do 5(b)?
Ariel Liang
01:13:29
5(b) is not on the agenda today
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:57
for clarity use of EXAMPLE.TLD is forbidden by Registry Agreement
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:42
I strongly object to forcing all Registries to follow the part of the policy of the particular Registry
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:13
new hand
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:21:24
thanks, Kathy, we can look at this more on the list maybe. Perhaps I missed a proposal....I admit I'm struggling to keep up. :)
Ariel Liang
01:21:27
Staff believe the orange text no.5 on the screen is what Kathy suggested
Greg Shatan
01:21:40
Could we require the requestor to show that they have a TM registration for the mark in question?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:22:44
@Kathy, I didn't get that at first....
John McElwaine
01:22:53
@Kathy that could not occur in the SDRP
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:23:22
@Kathy, I don't think we'd be able to prevent gaming then. Someone would literally ping every generic word.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:23:52
And it would be cruel to put that on the TMCH...determining who gets in and out.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:23:59
ICANN would never hear the end of that.
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:34
why then demanding the same kind of sensitive info from Registries? (Premiums)
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:53
+1 Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:15
most current domains registration pass through the check at the time of registration and not checked real-time-till-expiration (only highly regulated TLDs might d that)
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:20
"A party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or a similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period."
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:11
I also thought we might allow "an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name" [e.g., CTIA, INTA, etc]
Greg Shatan
01:30:16
Kathy, what do you think about requiring a TM registration for the same string?
Greg Shatan
01:30:34
in order to make the request?
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:11
@Greg, noncommercial organizations share the same names and acronyms
John McElwaine
01:31:21
@Kathy - I think to be consistent with Sunrise Policies the business name must be an identical match. One could never have standing if it werent iddential.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:22
how protect both
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:31:24
agree with John that its useful to know which system we want to address - TMCH or Sunrise registration.
John McElwaine
01:32:01
@Kathy - that is good to hear. I still think it requires an identical match, no?
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:25
@John - would you be willing to work with me offline?
John McElwaine
01:32:39
@kathy - yes, I would be happy to
Greg Shatan
01:32:43
@Kathy, no commercial organizations can own trademarks, too.
Kathy Kleiman
01:32:45
Great!!
Greg Shatan
01:33:05
I guess it depends on what the basis for the claim would be....
Kathy Kleiman
01:33:12
Tx David, tx All!
Greg Shatan
01:33:22
non-commercial not no commercial!
Greg Shatan
01:33:35
Bye all!
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:35
bye all