Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Julie Bisland
37:33
Welcome to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 19 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC
Jim Prendergast
38:38
is there a link to the work plan?
Jim Prendergast
39:16
ok - ill find it there - thanks
Vanda Scartezini
39:23
hi everyone
Steve Chan
39:50
@Jim, it’s here: https://community.icann.org/x/NAp1Aw
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
40:13
Thx @Steve
Jim Prendergast
45:25
be curious to hear from those who also particpate in the RPMs WG on the question of referral. or if its already been addressed?
Katrin Ohlmer
49:55
For geoTLDs it is important to be able to reserve names as Jeff mentioned independent from any limits. Most geoTLDs will reserve a reasonable amount of names just for city/administration purposes. However, every RO should continue to release reserved names via the registrar channel, and names should also go through claims service.
Maxim Alzoba
50:23
right of first refusal extend right beyond what TM owners have in real world
Susan Payne
50:53
@Maxim, nt really. That's exactly what a sunrise is
Susan Payne
51:03
not
Maxim Alzoba
51:18
@Susan, GEOs will not be able to deliver police.city to real police
Maxim Alzoba
51:44
and it would be against public interest
Jim Prendergast
51:50
thanks
Susan Payne
51:56
QLP Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
52:17
QLP is limited to 100 names
Maxim Alzoba
52:41
it is not enough for typical city of few hundred streets and lots of public services
Katrin Ohlmer
52:55
Giving TM owners during a second sunrise before the city/administration could register them does not make sense for geoTLDs. 100 names are not enough.
Maxim Alzoba
53:26
and ALP was not working at all
Katrin Ohlmer
53:45
AT least not for geoTLDs, based on our experience from 2014.
Susan Payne
53:47
Approved
Maxim Alzoba
54:00
the only city brave enough is .madrid
Maxim Alzoba
54:06
many years later
Katrin Ohlmer
54:28
And that took .madrid several years of negotiation with ICANN.
Susan Payne
54:43
QLP/ALP - This has been the subject of extensive discussion in RPMs
Susan Payne
56:03
I never referenced ALP Maxim, you did! But I would say we have spent a lot of time on this in RPMs
Maxim Alzoba
57:36
sorry, it was incorrect, ALP was referred by me
Susan Payne
57:44
Yep - just the interplay with Sunrise
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:16
Yup
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
58:45
should say Yup@Jeff
Maxim Alzoba
58:57
number of 100 is not much, but with
Maxim Alzoba
59:13
reserved names GEOs coulc cope with that in QLP
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
59:31
my apologizes for joining late
Maxim Alzoba
01:00:58
.ssac?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:01:15
welcome @Jamie
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:17
Yes... I believe so Jeff and what else should a Liaison do other than well ... Liase
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:04:50
Testing etc.,
Vanda Scartezini
01:04:59
the liaison of any technical internet group will be well informed of the process of each delegation…
Maxim Alzoba
01:05:01
if IETF wants to use it as a public TLD - there is a process for applications
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:05:20
yes not "public
Paul McGrady
01:06:04
Defer to Roger
Paul McGrady
01:06:39
@Roger, how is that different than the .onion?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:08:07
Is the intent that the special use name would never be available, or is it temporary?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:09:15
I think Paul might be onto something.
Paul McGrady
01:09:55
@Roger - thanks. Too bad for The Onion fake news site. :)
Roger Carney
01:12:57
@Jeff, I think that is common thought at IETF, except the leaders fourtunatly understand the conflict when raised
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:48
it should not be done with RFC only
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:57
there should be some kind of due process
Rubens Kuhl
01:14:02
.onion is killed for good. There is even instructions for DNS developers to not forward .onion queries if one comes along, so with software deployed killing it, it's dead as a DNS string.
Roger Carney
01:14:35
@Jeff, correct. Typically planned for long time use
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:14:59
Thanks @Roger
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:22
What seems sensible is that the IETF would not be looking to use a name that already exists as a TLD. Is that the way it works?
avri doria
01:15:36
i beleive it is.
Roger Carney
01:15:39
@Donna true
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:50
Okay, good.
Rubens Kuhl
01:16:24
Donna, an already existing name would automatically an interoperability problem, so indeed it's unlikely an already delegated TLD would be used for anything in non-hierarchical-DNS protocols.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:16:59
Thanks Rubens, I was just checking to make sure that's the case.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:17:25
Are there any stats about how often these requests come up?
Rubens Kuhl
01:19:01
Looks like a name collision waiting to happen...
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:42
Just joining - could someone post link to doc on screen. Tx!
Julie Hedlund
01:20:02
Link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6_DxsCvSA_3B7ArncO2U4tWNY3vH7Wi4nINrouR4AI/edit?usp=sharing
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:20:09
Sorry Jeff, I was still on the IETF issue.
avri doria
01:20:32
requests are rare and alwasy accompanied by a Internet Draft.
Sonigitu Ekpe
01:20:52
Thank you @Julie for sharing.
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:05
it should be ICANN not only IETF process
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:05
A draft would appear here, but most of them are not related to special-use domains:
Rubens Kuhl
01:21:06
https://tools.ietf.org/wg/dnsop/
avri doria
01:22:09
perenial request for .ext and the last major one i tracked was .home for homenet, but they ended up going with a second level name.
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:41
There was the .alt idea, but it didn't move forward:
Rubens Kuhl
01:22:42
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-wkumari-dnsop-alt-tld/
avri doria
01:23:02
yes .alt not .ext sorry
Paul McGrady
01:26:17
@Jeff, or a trademark licensee for Spec 13. Either way, potenmtial harms are internal, so EBERO not really needed
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:48
no audio.
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:54
What exceptions?
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:13
If they are added for registrant protections, what exceptions are supported?
Kathy Kleiman
01:27:36
Spec 9 and 13
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:37
can we make more specific in public comment summary?
Vanda Scartezini
01:30:56
I really do not remember about examples… will look after some
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:31:01
Ask Justine to follow up
Maxim Alzoba
01:32:08
why no budget, if they , for example can not afford it ?
Rubens Kuhl
01:32:43
I think the budget issue was address in financial evaluation.
Rubens Kuhl
01:33:12
I believe the TMCH connection comment is something only RPM WG could address.
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:16
there should be something proving that they can spend required amount (ISPs, ICANN fees e.t.c.)
Paul McGrady
01:33:23
That letter of credit was a pain in the bleep to get and was very silly thing to have to tell a company, whose revenues are many times those of ICANNs, that ICANN doesn't have the business savvy to determine high risks from low risks.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:33:38
@MAxim, what's the risk?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:33:46
If a brand can't pay, it shuts down, right?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:33:57
No registrants are harmed.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:34:11
+1 Paul
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:23
@Kristine, unnecessary workload (ICANN, IANA e.t.c)?
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:57
+ overall picture of the Internet with lots of dying TLDs is not very nice
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:35:10
painful
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:35:29
but it's not because companies can't afford it. They all passed.
Maxim Alzoba
01:36:21
then fine, I mean something saying that the current company design can afford it , to prevent situation of the registration with the sole idea of selling the ‘busyness ‘ and TLD
Maxim Alzoba
01:37:01
EBERO for brands is weird
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:43
new hand
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:20
We have to see the high level agreement here.
Jim Prendergast
01:39:51
we should just get rid of EBERO all together. There is no point in ICANN artifically keeping failing registries alive forever.
Vanda Scartezini
01:39:57
thanks kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:41:27
Can we relabel with whole section Registrant Protections re: EBERO?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:43:02
@Jim, I expect tthere are many reasons why a registry might be failing, it may not necessarily be financial so I think EBERO still has value, but perhaps a broader conversaion is warranted about how long EBERO should be in place.
Heather Forrest
01:43:09
Many banks outside of N America struggled to understand what the COI was/required
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:43:19
+1 Donna
Paul McGrady
01:43:53
Let's not call them sibgle registrants TLDs aniymore. It ledto extra confusion in 2012. Let's call them .brands or Spec 13's
Rubens Kuhl
01:44:14
Spec 9 + Spec 13. We have both.
Jim Prendergast
01:44:28
did wT4 adress the viability of EBERO post 5 years when all the registries get their cash or Letter of Credit returned? ICANN is still on the hook to pay EBERO providers but there is no designated funding for a TLD if it goes out of business. ex - how much longer is ICANN going to keep .WED alive? If Im not mistaken, Its been in EBERO for well over a year.
Rubens Kuhl
01:45:39
Jim, the topic of what happens when the COI runs out was not discussed in WT4, to the best of my memory.
Katrin Ohlmer
01:46:18
+1 Donna
Jim Prendergast
01:46:27
or if the registry fails after the COI is returned.
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:32
in RA COI is limited
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:14
is EBERO keeping TLDs alive until all money sucked ?
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:37
it would be cheaper to redirect it to .zombieTLD
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:51
there might be
Rubens Kuhl
01:51:08
rob.zombie
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:40
Tx!
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:19
it would be nice to ensure PI of directors is not lost like last time , that would constitute some issues with GDPR and potentially fines
Rubens Kuhl
01:56:42
Regarding the SSAC comment, I believe ICANN already limited the exemption in 2012 to really big stock exchanges.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:04
impass
Paul McGrady
01:57:09
Going to be hard to do background checks on all shareholders of a publicly traded company. Is there is % threshold?
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:22
5%?
Katrin Ohlmer
01:57:26
15%
Rubens Kuhl
01:57:29
There was a 10 or 20% threshold indeed.
Paul McGrady
01:57:35
Thanks!
Maxim Alzoba
01:59:03
it is a bad idea
Rubens Kuhl
01:59:06
Fine by me.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:59:20
Can we list the Pros and Cons
Maxim Alzoba
01:59:27
ICANN could be punished for surprise contracts with bad parties :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:59:39
right seems a little late
Katrin Ohlmer
01:59:49
Pro: Changes in Management are incorporated. Con: No predictability for applicants.
Rubens Kuhl
02:00:18
Perhaps doing one at first, and lumping all changes together at contracting ? So it would be maximum of 2.
Alan Greenberg
02:00:23
How often were there problems found in last round?
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:25
isn't all o fthis part of initial evaluation?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:01
Yes it is at this stage Kathy
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:19
proposal /question was should it be later or stay as is
Maxim Alzoba
02:03:30
we can not predict the future (including future directors)
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:03:52
As there WERE changes between early checks and when changes happened at the end with changes etc.,
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:07
Many Board shift a lot in 2-3 years
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:04:17
depends on refresch cycles
Julie Bisland
02:05:10
NEXT CALL: Thursday, 22 August 2019 at 03:00 UTC for 90 minutes
Paul McGrady
02:05:23
@Cheryl, yes, but maybe the problem is how slow the review process is, not who is listed initialy...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:05:27
Thanks everyone lots covered again today... More discussion online please... and do homework for the next call thi sweek
Vanda Scartezini
02:05:29
thanks to all !!!
Katrin Ohlmer
02:05:30
Thanks, Jeff!
Maxim Alzoba
02:05:39
bye all