Logo

Nathalie Peregrine's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Kathy Kleiman
10:53
Is Maxim on the call today?
Kathy Kleiman
11:01
Some GDD participants are still in transit.
julie.hedlund
11:10
yes he is
Susan Payne
11:31
GDD finished last week. today is wednesday. I doubt GDD attendees are still in transit
Maxim Alzoba
11:36
I’m here
Kathy Kleiman
11:58
Great!
David McAuley
12:14
Link to transcript for May 8 meeting (roughly on charter questions 8 and 9): https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/transcript/transcript-rpm-sunrise-data-08may19-en.pdf
Kathy Kleiman
12:17
Question 8 was skipped as we waited for you...
Philip Corwin
12:21
Ariel-Are we ahead of schedule for finishing before ICANN 65 or at the end of it. We want to finish prior if at all possible.
Maxim Alzoba
12:29
people , who were participating in DNS OARC might be in transit (industry)
Ariel Liang
12:44
@Phil - we are currently ahead of schedule for finishing, and hopefully before ICANN65
Ariel Liang
12:56
Based on staff’s tracking of the Sub Team progress so far
Maxim Alzoba
13:09
by the ICANN65 .madrid might have acutal info on how the only ALP worked
Maxim Alzoba
13:18
(it should be finished by then)
Maxim Alzoba
13:32
I had a chance to talk to Amadeu about it
Maxim Alzoba
14:59
from CORE
Ariel Liang
16:23
Kindly note that staff corrected the factual issues with ALP, QLP, LRP in the “Summary of Discussions/Individual Comments” section after reviewing the data noted in the table. The updated Summary Table, along with the proposed answers/preliminary recommendations, will be shared with the Sub Team at the end of the Sub Team deliberation
Ariel Liang
16:59
We are referring to Sunrise Q8
Kathy Kleiman
17:00
@Ariel, we made no recommendations on Q8 -- as David noted, we were waiting for the REgistries
Kathy Kleiman
17:17
Q8
Ariel Liang
17:31
Yes, we have not captured any preliminary recommendations or proposed answer for Q8 yet
Ariel Liang
17:41
We will share the update at the end of the deliberations
Kathy Kleiman
17:46
Could someone refresh our recollection on Claudio's proposal, its number and its substance?
Maxim Alzoba
18:24
please note, that the answer from RySG (or geoTLDs) is not the same as info from particular Registries
julie.hedlund
18:31
@All: Just to note that Question 8 is on the agenda, first under item #3.
David McAuley
18:33
Claudio's was proposal #9 as I recall
Maxim Alzoba
18:45
could we scroll to the text?
julie.hedlund
18:51
@David: Correct and there is an open discussion thread on it.
David McAuley
19:02
good point, thanks Julie
Maxim Alzoba
19:57
according to the evidence provided by CORE (Amadeu), ALP is in need of review (but not at cost of stopping the next round)
David McAuley
20:53
Claudio's proposal was on span-the-dot - as was Google Registry's that jeff Neuman sent over to us from the Sub Pro PDP
Kathy Kleiman
21:04
@Maxim,do you have some specific recommendations?
David McAuley
21:04
Jeff
Ariel Liang
21:20
Please refer to discussion thread for Q1 — discussion of Proposal #9 is included in that thread
David McAuley
21:42
thanks for that Ariel, good clarification
Maxim Alzoba
22:01
@Kathy, ALP implementation should allow applicants to use it (no endless cycles of asking the same questions from ICANN)
Ariel Liang
22:01
This is the open message: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000278.html
David McAuley
22:07
and Greg is making a good point about using threads
julie.hedlund
22:34
On the agenda is Question 8 next.
Kathy Kleiman
23:27
could someone remind us of the differences?
Ariel Liang
23:43
Q8 starts on page 34
Maxim Alzoba
23:45
could we return to the #9
julie.hedlund
24:44
@Maxim: We are on Question 8.
julie.hedlund
25:25
@Maxim: The document on the screen is on Question 8.
Philip Corwin
25:32
I note that Q8 does not propose any modification of the LRP, ALP, and QLP, just asks whether they should be reviewed? Where are we going with this question in terms of possible recommendations?
David McAuley
25:55
#9 does makes reference to ALP
julie.hedlund
26:00
@Maxim: That is being discussed in a thread on the list and is on Question 1.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
26:04
Proposal 9
julie.hedlund
26:35
@Maxim: Could you contribute that comment to the thread at: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000278.html
Susan Payne
26:50
Section 4.5.2 of the TMCH Requirements provides that Registry Operators may, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN to conduct an "Approved Launch Program" not otherwise permitted by the TMCH Requirements. An Approved Launch Program may allow the Registry Operator to register certain domain names prior to the completion of the Sunrise Period for the TLD. A Registry Operator may submit an application to conduct an Approved Launch Program for its TLD (a "Launch Application") in accordance with the Approved Launch Program Application Process
Maxim Alzoba
26:55
please add this to the notes of the meeting
David McAuley
27:22
Thanks Maxim, noted comment that use of ALP is mistaken here
Maxim Alzoba
27:31
“Approved Launch Plan for the Uniregistry“ is not ALP
Greg Shatan
27:37
A launch plan approved by ICANN is not the same as an Approved Launch Program, afaik
Ariel Liang
27:45
Noted Maxim. Thanks for the clarification
Maxim Alzoba
28:18
the only registry who had approved ALP is .madrid
Maxim Alzoba
28:27
and we had report of Amadeu about it
Susan Payne
28:48
@Maxim, yes, although some others did apply so they aren't the only ones who can comment
David McAuley
28:48
thank you Kristine for a specific recommendation like that
Kathy Kleiman
28:55
+1 Support Kristine's idea -- especially if we can give a "shot" at defining ALP, QLP, LRP. We do have a sense that a few Registry operators had a lot of problems.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
29:10
Yes, only a few ROs even tried!
Maxim Alzoba
29:18
and by ICANN65 .madrid is going to have some info on how it worked by then
Susan Payne
29:18
we don't need to give a shot to define them. they are defined
Griffin Barnett
29:20
ALP, QLP, and LRP are all defined terms
Maxim Alzoba
29:29
+1 Griffin
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
29:42
Right, we dont' need a definition, we need, esssentially, an issues report.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
29:49
for this one question.
Kathy Kleiman
30:10
@Griffin, I've looked up the definitions a million times (and shared them with the Subteam) and still don't understand these programs :-) and their problems...
Maxim Alzoba
30:11
new hand
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
30:17
I want to be clear, we need more than data about the problem...we need suggested solutions.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
30:34
We need to expressly ask for that. Those of us who have tried these things have concrete suggestions.
Kathy Kleiman
30:48
+1 Kristine
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
31:04
thats loud...
Greg Shatan
31:22
What was loud?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
31:53
there was a phone ringing on a open line.
Griffin Barnett
31:57
@Kathy, the definition of an ALP, at least, is intentionally broad to allow ROs to seek approval for different kinds of programs, but the purpose is all ultimately the same: programs for allocating domains that precede or are otherwise exempted from the Sunrise process
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
32:08
+1 griffin.
julie.hedlund
32:14
@Kristine: Do you have some questions to suggest that the Sub Team could recommend being included for public comment?
Susan Payne
32:23
QLP delivers POLICE.newyork
Maxim Alzoba
32:47
if TM owners would be able to challenge reserved names - then QLP will not help
Maxim Alzoba
33:13
cities do not make fast procurement procedures , it takes at least 1 year
Griffin Barnett
33:19
The definition of QLP is similar, but more constraied insofar as it relates specifically to the ability to allocate up to 100 domains in a TLD to third parties prior to or during the SunrisePeriod for the purposes of promoting the TLD
julie.hedlund
33:24
@Kristine: Thanks :-) Didn’t mean right this moment!
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
33:40
@Julie. great. I am not a good fast thinker....
Griffin Barnett
34:25
Finally, a Limited Registration Period is a period between Sunrise and GA: Registry Operator MAY establish additional periods during which itwill accept domain name registrations following the Sunrise Periodbut prior to General Registration (a “Limited Registration Period”).
Griffin Barnett
35:09
These are all pretty well defined (if broadly defined) in the Trademark Claims Requirements document: (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-14may14-en.pdf), which is incorporated by reference into Spec 7 of the Registry Agreement
Maxim Alzoba
35:30
QLP is not enough for cities with more than 100 monuments+streets+wholly owned subsidiaries of the cities, agencies e.t.c.
Kathy Kleiman
35:31
Tx Griffin.
Kathy Kleiman
35:34
+1 Susan
Maxim Alzoba
35:36
without reserved lists
Griffin Barnett
35:46
As Susan is saying, we still may need info from ROs as to why these programs were challenging to conduct
Griffin Barnett
35:58
But it doesn't seem to me to be a problem with their definitions
Griffin Barnett
36:18
Seems perhaps more of an implementation issue/question as between ROs and ICANN
Maxim Alzoba
36:29
the only set of TLDs aware of the issues - GEO TLDs (getTLDs association and individual GEO registries)
julie.hedlund
36:38
@All: Note also that a discussion thread was opened last week on Question 8 so if you have further comments (or questions to suggest for public comment) please feel free to provide these on the thread.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
36:39
It's related to sunrise because some of these period do/should precede Sunrise.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
37:00
It means that Sunrise takes SECOND place to other periods.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
37:27
It's setting policy for who gets in before brand owners. I have to imagine brand owners care about this.
Griffin Barnett
38:03
@Kristine - brand owners definitely care...there were many comments put in about the ALP/QLP when they were being developed, and again on individual requests for ALPs
Griffin Barnett
38:07
If I recall correctly
Kathy Kleiman
38:28
And Amadeu shared problems with trying to reserve city sections -- named segments - greater than 100 in number.
Greg Shatan
38:40
Kristine, all good points.
Griffin Barnett
39:12
Having said that, we understand there may be legitimate reasons for using these programs to reserve or pre-allocate certain names in the context of, in particular, geoTLDs to ensure their use by local authorities/for municipal reasons even where certain terms are also protected TMs
Griffin Barnett
39:44
It's about achieving the proper balance and avoid possible misuse of these mechanisms
Maxim Alzoba
39:55
I mean combined QLP+LRP+Reserved list worked together (as a replacement for non working ALP)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
40:12
+1 Maxim.
Griffin Barnett
40:29
@maxim - so do we still need the ALP, or are the existing other types of programs adequate?
Griffin Barnett
40:43
To achieve the same goal?
Maxim Alzoba
40:45
we need workable ALP, but not at the cost of stopping next round
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
41:11
+1 Maxim.
Susan Payne
41:31
Yes, agreed Maxim
Kathy Kleiman
41:36
@Maxim, I don't think anyone is trying to stop the next round.
Kathy Kleiman
41:54
Perhaps Kristine can work with Maxim on questions?
Maxim Alzoba
42:24
my conversation with Sebastien Ducos (geoTLDs) - he told me that 100 was not enough, but there is no desire to extend it to bigger number if it stops the round (if QLP, LRPs and reserved lists do not change )
Griffin Barnett
42:25
I'd like to see a more concrete summary of the problems with using ALP from the 2012 round
Griffin Barnett
42:51
I don't know that we have great data from our data collection effort on this question; I'll need to double check the data on this question
julie.hedlund
43:06
@All: Note that the structure of the Initial Report allows for specific questions to be asked for public comment. So, if you have suggestions for questions for the Sub Team to recommend, you can provide them in the discussion thread.
Maxim Alzoba
43:17
idea of ALP was good, the implementation is horrible (going in circles where the same questions was asked again and again)
Maxim Alzoba
43:23
was horrible
Susan Payne
43:24
@Griffin, no the data is pretty minimal
David McAuley
43:35
Kristine's idea is a request for more data, as Greg suggests, at least as I see it
Kathy Kleiman
44:07
+100
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
44:14
I'm sure we can work on something together, right Maxim?
julie.hedlund
44:16
@David: But via questions included in the initial report for public comment, I think.
David McAuley
44:30
yes, that is what I mean, thanks
Griffin Barnett
44:38
It seems like where we are heading is that ALP is in need of review (Q8(a) but perhaps not the QLP or LRPs?
Maxim Alzoba
44:42
we could try , but we will need help of geoTLDs
Ariel Liang
44:45
Please note the discussion thread for Q8 has been open (till 22 May): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000293.html
David McAuley
44:51
that is how I understand Kristine's suggestion
Kathy Kleiman
45:44
"It is implied that the ALP and QLP periods are in need of review." ==> our summary table
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
46:10
I think it's worth gathering relevant information, but at this point, I agree with Maxim.
Kathy Kleiman
47:39
OK, now I understand, tx!
Maxim Alzoba
48:49
the request for info from geoTLDs
Maxim Alzoba
49:10
should be fast (around 2 weeks)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
49:53
Thanks Greg.
julie.hedlund
50:00
Q8 thread: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000293.html
David McAuley
50:03
agree with Greg - off to use the thread
David McAuley
50:14
#10
julie.hedlund
50:47
Agenda: Question 10, then 11, then 12 if time permits.
David McAuley
50:50
it's an exhortation
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
51:01
LMAO David
David McAuley
51:18
and a thread on 9
Maxim Alzoba
51:39
as I remember it was about example: a person making 3d printed prototype, shipping to the neighbour, after being paid by the same person, and using it as a proof
Ariel Liang
52:44
Please note Q9 thread has been open till 22 May: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000294.html
Maxim Alzoba
52:44
use = content of the website (for example) and content is out of scope of ICANN
Ariel Liang
53:06
Please provide further comment/input via the discussion thread for Q9
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
53:49
All, I have to jump at the top of the hour.
julie.hedlund
54:28
@Kristine: Noted and thanks for joining!
David McAuley
55:25
comments. concerns
Griffin Barnett
55:30
It's kind of an odd phrasing
Griffin Barnett
55:40
it doesn't really ask us to do anything in particular
Philip Corwin
55:49
To echo my prior remark, what potential recommendations could this question lead to?
Griffin Barnett
55:52
Other than say.. OK, we know what the proof of use requirements for Sunrise are
David McAuley
57:25
Kristine hand up then PHil
Philip Corwin
57:28
My hand is up
Susan Payne
57:34
Greg - hands from Kristine and Phil
David McAuley
58:07
That's my recollection as well
Griffin Barnett
58:39
Good point Kristine
David McAuley
58:41
Thanks Kristine
Griffin Barnett
59:39
The way I read this question, it seems to be getting at whether there were problems in purchasing domain in Sunrise because of proof of use issues; this really seems more of an issue relating to the TMCH rather than SUnrise specifically, in case there are concerns about current POU requirements
Griffin Barnett
01:00:22
I'm not aware of problems where someone sought to register a name in Sunrise but was denied bc of a lack of POU (where they had an SMD file or otherwise sholdve been eligible through properly submitting POU to TMCH)
Philip Corwin
01:01:57
Grifin, I agree that this seems more like a TMCH Q thana Sunrise Q
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:00
two items: use of domain - outside of ICANN’s remit (if it is not in the policies of the TLD, like of .cat - language to be used Catalan (in a year)) and another item : proof of use (to be eligible for TMCH sunrise)
Griffin Barnett
01:02:04
Kathy - I don't think it's correct to say that bc 96% of marks in the TMCH have POU it means Deloitte is approving POU 96% of the time...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:02:10
Parting shot before I bail... we may wish to pull the notes from the original group's discusson on this question rather than guessing.
Griffin Barnett
01:02:51
So the purported token use issue is, as Phil suggested, a TMCH issue not a Sunrise issue per se
Griffin Barnett
01:03:00
(even though it is obviously relevant to Surise)
Susan Payne
01:03:32
What Griffing said about the 96% assumption. Re @Kathgy suggestion that then it should be 100% -= that's aquestion we have discussed in Claims - don't re-op[en it
John McElwaine
01:03:32
Proof of use is required for Sunrise
John McElwaine
01:04:18
The alleged 4% are people that decided only to take advantage of Claims Notices which did not require proof of use.
Griffin Barnett
01:04:27
Not sure I understand Kathy's point about getting marks in the TMCH with POU to 100% ... it's a decision for the TM owner about submitting POU as to whether they want to take advantage of Sunrise, or just record in TMCH for Claims purposes
John McElwaine
01:04:45
@Griffin +1
Griffin Barnett
01:04:54
Plus many jurisdictions don't require POU at the time a registration is made, so again doesn't necessary address the purpored gaming issue based on token use
Kathy Kleiman
01:06:05
Based on experience shared by Greg some time ago, TMCH rquires a real showing of proof of use.
David McAuley
01:06:07
Thanks Greg -
David McAuley
01:06:14
gravel in hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:24
bye , Greg
Griffin Barnett
01:07:33
+1 Susan
Michael Karanicolas
01:08:59
Why is Trademark Claims the appropriate venue rather than here? Why should the folks in this group not get to address it?
julie.hedlund
01:10:03
There were gremlins in the Zoom room!
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:20
@Maxim, what do you recommend?
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:41
Does Amazon have IDNs? Should we circle back when Kristine joins us again?
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:51
new hand
Griffin Barnett
01:13:13
@Michael, I think there was agreement to continue the discussion of Q10 on list in this sub-tea, so maybe your concern is addressed?
Griffin Barnett
01:13:18
*sub-team
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:24
it was additional info from CORE about European languages with letters hyphen e.t.c.
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:34
new
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:37
i'll wait
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:39
for Maxim
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:32
the same as ALP conversation
Maxim Alzoba
01:14:36
for Amadeu
Griffin Barnett
01:14:49
Q11 strikes me as potentially relating to matching rules for Sunrise, insofar as certain characters in non-English/Latin language/script may be faced with trouble being accepted into the TMCH or obtaining Sunrise registrations because of the special IDN characters
Michael Karanicolas
01:15:20
@Griffin - Yes - no need to specifically come back to this, just so long as this sub-team gets a chance to engage on this issue.
Maxim Alzoba
01:15:31
and for transliteration - I am not sure that this goes well with the TM rights practice
Susan Payne
01:15:59
correct Kathy, same issue
Maxim Alzoba
01:16:24
Q12 and Q8 have common grounds
Kathy Kleiman
01:16:35
Combine Q12 and 8?
Griffin Barnett
01:16:46
Agree re the relationship b/w Q8 and Q12
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:28
@Phil, same problem - 100 Reserved unlikely to be enough... Q8 discussion
Griffin Barnett
01:17:37
I would suggest that the "different rule for some registries" is an alterantive to the current system of having exceptions/opt-outs to Sunrise via ALP and QLP
Griffin Barnett
01:17:56
In effect, this allows the ROs who want to take advantage of these exceptions to seek them out
Kathy Kleiman
01:18:04
@David and All: Q11 ask about non-English language participation in Sunrise in Initial report?
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:04
I am not sure that AGB had ‘specialized’ word at all (2 references - one to UN agencies , another is about process
Griffin Barnett
01:18:10
(again, noting the apaprent implementation struggles with these programs, which is a separate issue)
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:20
but extension of 100 should not come at cost of stopping the next round
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:29
for QLPs
julie.hedlund
01:19:43
@All: There is already a thread on Q8.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:09
@julie, to join 12 to 8 it might need to be changed
julie.hedlund
01:20:16
Not sure how we can join an open thread with a new thread.
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:53
threads is a tool, if it does not serve the cause (delivery of PDP results), it might be in need of change
julie.hedlund
01:21:06
@All: Note also that we cannot alter the agreed charter questions. We can’t rewrite them.
Ariel Liang
01:21:07
We will discuss with the Co-Chairs for the approach, as they are just email threads not as chat groups, not sure how “merge” looks like but we will discuss with ST Co-Chairs
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:32
it is not about changing the Charter questions, it was about seen them together
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:47
Merging discussions of overlapping questions...
Michael Karanicolas
01:21:59
The Q’s can’t be changed…. But they can be discussed together, right?
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:04
without changing the questions itself
David McAuley
01:22:10
Agree with Maxim - maybe that was what I was getting to - need to preserve charter Q's but look for efficiencies
Griffin Barnett
01:22:28
Q12(a) is a bit confusing to me because it seems to assume that SUnrise do not currently have priority over other registrations, which they do, absent an exception via ALP or QLP
Maxim Alzoba
01:22:59
so we do not discuss the same thing few times in different threads
Griffin Barnett
01:23:00
Which seems appropriate given the purpose of Sunrise
Maxim Alzoba
01:23:46
@Griffin, a period comes first, but it does not give exclusive rights
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:21
outside of it’s timeframe
Maxim Alzoba
01:25:40
I will try to participate in all meetings at ICANN65 if it does not overlap with Council or RySG ExCom duties
Philip Corwin
01:25:42
Yes, Day 2 and 4 in Marrakech as of now
Griffin Barnett
01:26:04
@Maxim - not sure I understand; if a registration is a Sunrise Registration (i.e. made during Sunrise by an eligible rights holder), then it has priority over other registrations in the TLD, by current ICANN rules, unless where the same name is reserved/previously allocated during an ALP or QLP
Griffin Barnett
01:26:10
Is that not correct?
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:25
only during the Sunrise period
Griffin Barnett
01:26:41
That's what makes it a Sunrise Registration....
Griffin Barnett
01:26:45
By definition...
Maxim Alzoba
01:26:49
not before (QLP) or after (LRPs or GA)
Maxim Alzoba
01:27:40
+ claims for 90 days following (or if a Registry decides to extend claims)
julie.hedlund
01:28:50
Good clarification David.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:23
Tx David and All!
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:27
And Greg!
Philip Corwin
01:29:28
Bye all. Good meeting
Griffin Barnett
01:29:28
Thanks all
David McAuley
01:29:32
Thanks all
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:32
bye all
julie.hedlund
01:29:34
Thanks everyone — bye!