without the data supporting this - it is overgeneralization

@David: Susan is an apology for today.

The text regarding the registry concerns are captured in Q3(c), but we will reflect the opposing opinion in the update

it should be updated prior to discussion

@Maxim: It will be captured. Thank you.

it is important - given the last actions of the Board, each items should be wholistic

*item

in EPDP Phase 1, some discussed items were removed (so saying that it might be in another question - will not help us)

Question for Phil: do we have time to revisit the TM-PDDRP?

could we have the discussed language on the screen?

Maxim you mean the TM-PDDRP language?

It's a really interesting idea.

for the purposed language for this item

Agree that there is no consensus on this recommendation based on the discussion I have heard over these weeks...

Maxim - this version of status check document is dated 24 May. We will update the language and circulate a new version after

our comments should not be lost

thanks David, understood on the proposals

It won’t be lost, Maxim. We will update the language based on the chats and transcripts

@Ariel, thanks

no problem

John, Zoom is not allowing me to unmute your line

I think Q3a and b have a joint proposed recommendation.

@Kristine, I thought this was the first time we are measuring the level of support?

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).

to be clear "premium" is not a designation. Regisrtires can have dozens of pricing tiers.

new hand

@Phil - I was wondering about the same issue.

@Phil, I agree. Just trying to cover all my bases.

TM-PDDRP, if adopted, would address larger, really systemic issues. So no individual challenge mechanism.

@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

"Premium" is like "Luxury" -- a term so overused in divergent ways as to be essentially meaningless ;-)

exactly, Phil.

@John, under contractual obligation Registries and Registrars do not have freedom of non 100% true answers

Premium =/= Reserved.

please do not conflate: Reserved - is not available, Premium is - higher price

"solutions" to address "systemic" problems will inadvertently snare the 90% of ROs who are good actors.

@David, should people who disagree with the current phrasing of the Proposed Answer be suggesting specific revisions?

I was trying to address the conflation, which is a Bad Thing and sinks any attempt at a proposal in my personal opinion.

if the mechanism created - it should be 100% of cases

we're at point where proposed alternate language ought to be provided IMO

Is this a new idea?

@John, define "premium"....if a RO has 20 pricing tiers, at which pricing tier would you consider "premium"

Have we talked about transparency before?

registrants are not customers of Registries, they need to talk to Registrars

@Kristine, I would hope that any well-crafted solution for systemic bad acts would come nowhere close to allowing challenges to normal business practices....

@Greg, that's my goal....

Kumbaya!

A premium name, is by definition, not reserved. It's available for sale at a "higher" price. It would not be blocked.

@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.

@John, that's a slippery slope. Would you insist that your clients explain why they arrive at their pricing?

WHOIS could not be used to convey information about an unregistered domain name.....

@John, wouldn't that be a trade secret?

@greg...good point

@Claudio, YOU'RE talking about that. You are not the only ones who will use this tool.

it will have to be accompanied with the safeguard that the TM owner uses the domain for the claimed reason (and not for resale)

Access to confidential Registry business information can't be limited to 3Ps who only have famous marks...

I mean, the rest of the community will flip out.

Do we want to open the door to discussing “regulation” of the resale market?

@Greg. No

What Claudio mentioned (his contribution to the discussion threads) is captured in Q4 and Q5(a) in the current status check doc, FYI

@Claudio, if there are isolated cases, then this is a huge hammer for a tiny nail.

@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

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.”

@Kristine, any thoughts on how to make the hammer smaller?

@David, if we are moving on, how does the langauge change to reflect the current discussion?

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.

How about a.tack hammer?

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.

No tack hammer.

@Kathy, the situation, where the notes added by the members of the PDP is not nice at least

*where the notes are missing again and again

Q4 a answer is old, right?

@Kristine, I have some hope we could deal with forms of registrant abuse (where the group can agree that “x” constitutes abuse).

I feel like we discussed this and moved away from this language.

@Maxim - it's a question we are having in TM Subteam too -- how to capture the full range of views in the Answer

This is a 24 May document.

Do we have a current document on the screen???

@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.

@Greg, are you willing to then also deal with the other sides' claim of TMCH abuse?

@kristine, I don't see that ensuring the adopted policies are honored as changing the overall balance.

could we see d?

@Claudio, the polices are being complied with. We wouldn't be in this discussion if they weren't...

you're asking to change them.

if we have an OLD document, how can we work with it?

@kristine, right but when the RPMs are circumvented there should be a way to address it correct?

@Kristine, yes — with the caveat that we have agreements and disagreements about what constitutes “abuse.”

@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.

it looks like a fork in the document versions

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

Tx David -- then how do we focus?

Agreed - I'm not hearing wide support either.

SUGGESTION: could we relabel "preliminary recommendation" with "discussion"

@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.

I like Kristine's suggestion!

@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.

multiple bits of notes from the previous discussions are missing

@Maxim: The are in the summary table. Not everything is in this high-level document that we are viewing now.

@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.

about

(So tired!

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

@Julie, is it a suggestion that we look through the transcripts during our meetings?

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

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

We are working on sections that correspond to c, d, and e.

can we see?

we would have no TLDs by now (some TLDs have not been launched yet)

Hands: Maxim, Kathy, Claudio

small registrars don't typically have brand owner clients so it doesn't make sense for them to join during sunrise.

Registry can not work before the start of Sunrise at all, but have to pay all the fees (Including ICANN fee)

information about TLD launch phases were and are available via the ICANN website

@Claudio, your propose extends the time BEFORE money is collected.

it is more than 2 of weeks

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods

But even TM owners seem to buy their domain names in the General Availability period.

That's what the Analysis Group found...

I'm strongly opposed to a variable start based on # of TLDs launching.

that is totally unpredictable for ROS

the website was available since the very beginning of the 2012 new gTLD

strong objection

So extending the time before launch/General Availability impacts everyone.

Tx Greg - valuable background!

"test for traction"

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

@kristine, the timeframe would be set at the TLDs launch date

@Claudio, it is set

and available

Claudio good hand management. :)

Thanks for clarifying

:)

Did we do 5(b)?

5(b) is not on the agenda today

for clarity use of EXAMPLE.TLD is forbidden by Registry Agreement

I strongly object to forcing all Registries to follow the part of the policy of the particular Registry

new hand

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. :)

Staff believe the orange text no.5 on the screen is what Kathy suggested

Could we require the requestor to show that they have a TM registration for the mark in question?

@Kathy, I didn't get that at first....

@Kathy that could not occur in the SDRP

@Kathy, I don't think we'd be able to prevent gaming then. Someone would literally ping every generic word.

And it would be cruel to put that on the TMCH...determining who gets in and out.

ICANN would never hear the end of that.

why then demanding the same kind of sensitive info from Registries? (Premiums)

+1 Maxim

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)

"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."

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]

Kathy, what do you think about requiring a TM registration for the same string?

in order to make the request?

@Greg, noncommercial organizations share the same names and acronyms

@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.

how protect both

agree with John that its useful to know which system we want to address - TMCH or Sunrise registration.

@Kathy - that is good to hear. I still think it requires an identical match, no?

@John - would you be willing to work with me offline?

@kathy - yes, I would be happy to

@Kathy, no commercial organizations can own trademarks, too.

Great!!

I guess it depends on what the basis for the claim would be....

Tx David, tx All!

non-commercial not no commercial!

Bye all!

bye all