Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Emily Barabas
32:48
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nf8qGP9Y7OYuT0ZvxIgM1fZtNa4Kj8DyhzpmPhEcNGM/edit?pli=1#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Paul McGrady
35:35
@MM, Alexander, and RrSG, when you guys say gaming, what do you mean? Gaming is only harmful if it is harmful. What would be the harm so long as it is limited only the Applicant's own portfolio.
Susan Payne
35:58
can someone explain how this would be gamed? if we assume transfer if only internal to the applicant
Emily Barabas
37:13
The ICANN Org comment points to a scenario in which it could create a secondary market for priority numbers, such as in the case where a consultant is the applying entity on behalf of multiple clients. They do not use the word “gaming” in their response.
Susan Payne
37:58
@Emily but if there is a consultant then they are not the applicant
Paul McGrady
38:17
@Emily, thanks. I understand Org's concern, but if the portfolio is by Applicant, that issue is addressed. What I don't understand is the general reference to "gaming."
Susan Payne
39:10
@Jeff, ok so you can't do this if your string is in contention
Paul McGrady
40:13
+1 Susan. That sounds sensible and there is broad support for this (only Registrars and 1 indivudual stated they were against it).
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
40:52
Does that mean priority numbers can be sold?
Paul McGrady
41:01
@Jeff, understood, but let's to extrapolate to kill the idea off either. We have to pick
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
41:14
Not on the phone - just a question in chat
Paul McGrady
41:27
let;'s not extrapolate to kill it. sorry for typo
Paul McGrady
41:48
@Anne - no, you can't sell them.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
41:59
Ok thanks Jeff. Does it say that?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
43:11
Priority numbers transferred with same owner should be fine. Should not be creating a secondary market in priority numbers.
Susan Payne
43:53
I'm still struggling to understand what the "gaming" would be? Seems a perfectly sensible suggestion
Paul McGrady
44:01
Let's keep it alive to at least explore it a bit
Paul McGrady
44:56
1. No inter-portfolio transfers; 2. can't do it if it is in a contention set
Christa Taylor
44:58
So I think somewhere in the discussions, there was concern on the sale of applicantions
Paul McGrady
45:03
I can fiddle with it
Christa Taylor
45:04
I'll do it
Christa Taylor
45:49
Got i
Maxim Alzoba
46:02
there can be only one
Paul McGrady
46:15
@Maxim - hahahah
Kathy Kleiman
48:07
What's the default?
Maxim Alzoba
48:08
idn communities might need help
Kathy Kleiman
48:15
I think it's IDNs - Round 1
Kathy Kleiman
48:21
were processed first.
Taiwo Peter Akinremi
48:39
Supported
Maxim Alzoba
48:41
last time it was IDNs first
Emily Barabas
50:10
@kathy, this was the order from the 2012 round:
Emily Barabas
50:11
Drawing 1: IDN applications for which a ticket had been purchased● Drawing 2: Non-IDN applications for which a ticket had been purchased● Drawing 3: IDN applications for which a ticket had NOT been purchased● Drawing 4: Non-IDN applications for which a ticket had NOT been purchased
Maxim Alzoba
50:51
i am not sure we agree to this idea
Paul McGrady
50:54
Did anyone suggest you could pay ICANN for a better processing spot? I'm not suggestnig that, but I am curious if it came up.
Maxim Alzoba
51:45
audio breaking for me, will reconnect from the notebook
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
53:30
Doesn't Community Evaluation apply whether or not there is contention?
Susan Payne
53:51
but didn't applications in contention all get moved up last time?
Paul McGrady
54:21
As we saw from the last round, so-called community applications are quite contraversial. I think AGB 2012 already gave them enough special rights
Christopher Wilkinson
54:31
@Jeff - note that I consider that portfolio applications undermine the basic commitment to enhancing competition and choice.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
54:38
@Susan - no, they all got moved down
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
54:39
It seems Jamie's point is that CE takes a long time.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
55:59
I personally support priority as per Jamie's suggestion.
Paul McGrady
56:08
Do not support - As we saw from the last round, so-called community applications are quite contraversial. I think AGB 2012 already gave them enough special rights
Emily Barabas
56:12
@Anne: From the Initial Report: “Applicants when applying could designate their application as community-based, one ofonly two application types available in the 2012 New gTLD Program round, with theother being standard. In the absence of string contention, claims to support a particularcommunity were simply accepted, as recommended in Implementation Guideline H.However, the community-based commitments the applicant made in their applicationwere captured as contractual requirements in Specification 12 of the Registry Agreement,regardless of whether any string contention resolution was needed."
Susan Payne
56:16
@Jeff, ok I misremembered.
Gg Levine (NABP)
56:18
That makes sense.
Taiwo Peter Akinremi
56:27
I will still support that IDN goes first
Maxim Alzoba
57:18
IDN communities combination is the one which might need support
Christa Taylor
57:19
There was also discussion on having Applicant Support Applicants going first...
Paul McGrady
57:33
Pulling my earlier comment forward: Do not support - As we saw from the last round, so-called community applications are quite contraversial. I think AGB 2012 already gave them enough special rights
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
58:24
Thanks Emily
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:01:15
It seems to me that if CPE occurs early and that application fails CPE, it may clear the way for other applicants for that string and they will get to market sooner. It makes sense for everyone and the marketplace in general to get to CPE as early as possible. (Sorry I cannot talk right now.)
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:39
all communities might need to go vie CPE
Maxim Alzoba
01:01:54
via
Christa Taylor
01:02:09
What about an Applicant Support applicant who needs time to raise funds if they are not eligible for AS funds?
Maxim Alzoba
01:02:54
@Christa, I think it means they ran out of both time and money … bad choice
Christa Taylor
01:03:36
No, we want to give them time to raise funds and the length of time was a concern in prior discussions
Paul McGrady
01:04:11
Only heard 2 individuals supporting the new special treatment for community applications. Is that enough to keep itu alive? Seems like we could put that one to rest.
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:04:56
Question: would standard applicants like the idea of getting a near full (if not full) refund without the need for an evaluation if a CPE could be decided before the initial evaluation of standards?
Paul McGrady
01:05:14
@Jeff, fair enough
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:06:19
@Jeff - sure
Maxim Alzoba
01:06:50
I think if there is not much of support for the community privileges … then it does not have support and … does not fly
Maxim Alzoba
01:07:52
Can we have a kind of letter from the person proposing the idea and kind of doodle poll to measure the temperature in the room about that?
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:01
it is up to a leadership I think
Maxim Alzoba
01:09:14
I lower the hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:01
some city in some language is interesting only to the locals
Maxim Alzoba
01:10:12
so there is not much harm in supporting those
Christopher Wilkinson
01:11:37
But it is increasingly clear that WT5 will NOT reach consensus and the PDP will have to take up where WT5 left off.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:12:04
COMMENT: 2012 applications are out of scope for this policy process - not in the PDP Charter. The other issue is that applications made in 2012 may or may not meet the policies adopted for the next round. In addition, a determination as to what is "confusingly similar' is a matter for the String Confusion Objection, not a matter for preventing an application from being made. We can't put a "chilling effect" on new applicants. COMMENT
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:24
I agree , we do not change past here (last round)
Susan Payne
01:13:03
this isnt a suggestion to change the past round@Maxim and Anne
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:13:21
Apologies for joining late.
Maxim Alzoba
01:13:31
@Susan, that is what I meant
Susan Payne
01:13:53
@Maxim,thanks!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:14:01
@Susan - the INTA comment goes to 2012, but thatis out of scope.
Susan Payne
01:14:21
@Anne,no iot does not
Paul McGrady
01:14:46
@Anne - kindly disagree. We still have applications from 2012 pending out there and we need to know how they will be dealt with
Paul McGrady
01:16:11
By the way, agree with the INTA proposal.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:16:16
What is meant by "Should also apply to applications from the 21012 round?"
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:58
nothimh for me to add on this @jeff
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:17:14
typos sorry
Kathy Kleiman
01:17:36
How many area still unresolved from 2012?
Maxim Alzoba
01:17:51
it’s being quite a while … I hope everything resolved before 10 years since the start
Emily Barabas
01:17:52
@Anne: From the Valideus comment: “Although it does not expressly say so, this recomemndation should also apply to any applications from the 2012 round which remain pending - it should not be possible in a later application phase to submit an identical or confusingly similar application which takes precedence over one submitted in an earlier application phase. “
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:18:25
COMMETN @ Paul et al - Knowing how to deal with those 2012 applications does not mean there should be a ban on new applications for that same string. You could say there would be no contention set but you can't say no one can apply for that string. It violates the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression. That's a long term policy issue for all Subsequent Rounds. COMMENT
Maxim Alzoba
01:18:31
I object, applicants are not responsible for processing done by ICANN
Greg Shatan
01:20:43
New hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:20:58
lowwring hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:30
raised again
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:22:25
COMMENT: Round 2 applicants can decide whether or not they want to take the risk of applying for the same string or not. COMMENT
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:23:10
COMMENT: If policies change, the first application could fail. COMMENT
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:39
I'm concerned that some newer, greener applicants would not know what's "mired" in prior application processes.
Susan Payne
01:24:08
@Kathy yes precisely
Kathy Kleiman
01:24:28
Definitely agreeing with you, Susan.
Christopher Wilkinson
01:24:32
I suppose that applicant 2020 would be well advised to avoid 2012 unresolved applications which they know are problematical.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:24:38
COMMETN @Kathy et al - we should alert an applicant re prior applications for the same string and offer a refund. COMMENT
Christa Taylor
01:25:12
Think we may need to add something along applicantions that are still floating out there as they haven't been withdrawn by the applicant for whatever reason
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:25
@Anne, the refund, though, is only for the application fee to ICANN. There is a lot of other costs involved in drafting these applciations. I am worried...
Susan Payne
01:25:41
@Anne - but it costs an applicant to make an application, well above the application fee alone. That can't be refunded
Greg Shatan
01:26:04
It should be at their own (hopefully informed) risk; you pay yer money and you take your chances.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:26:08
COMMENT No way should this WG adopt a policy that prohibits new applications for any string. It's advisable to just tell them there is a risk associated with applying. COMMENT
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:46
Is there a way to flag gTLDs strings applied for and not delegated --
Kathy Kleiman
01:26:52
published when then round opens?
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
01:27:36
@Kathy - it is possible to have a list (or a place to go to) to check if an application is still pending (at least we can recommend that)
Kathy Kleiman
01:28:24
Schrodinger's gTLD :-) - phrase of the day@
Emily Barabas
01:28:26
Application status is available here from the 2012 round applications: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/viewstatus
Christopher Wilkinson
01:28:26
@Maxim,
Christopher Wilkinson
01:28:52
ICANN is responsible for the proceures
Paul McGrady
01:28:59
Paul has his hand up
Emily Barabas
01:29:11
You can also sort
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:29:19
@ Emily - Please circulate the list of those still pending. It's way too much work for any one member to be looking up the status on each one.
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:32
@Anne - agreed!
Emily Barabas
01:29:34
Hi Anne, we will circulate this on list
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:35
@Christopher, I meant applicants are not responsible
Maxim Alzoba
01:29:45
for how ICANN processes their application
Susan Payne
01:30:08
+1 Paul
Emily Barabas
01:30:12
I was just sharing the link to show that this is also online, in response to Kathy’s suggestion to provide a list
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:30:30
At the time the application window is opened, there should be a list readily available that identifies strings that are in some kind of 'pending' status.
Susan Payne
01:30:32
Yay
Greg Shatan
01:30:33
I’ll take my compliments anywhere I can get them, @Paul....
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:31:57
Agree with Donna
Greg Shatan
01:32:06
I did leave the door open to bringing the application forward, but with no priority over later-filed applications. The gaming opportunities are absolutely shocking.
Trang Nguyen
01:32:09
Yes :)
Paul McGrady
01:32:50
@Greg - "heart" PS: hope all is well. Looking forward to you buying me a beer in Montreal to celebrate me being put out to the Pasture for old GNSO Councilors..
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:06
0.04AM …
Paul McGrady
01:33:24
@Maxim - you are a saint
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:43
I think change of employers is quite different from organizations changing hands
Maxim Alzoba
01:34:04
@Paul, hope not to , do not like suffering :)
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:07
@Paul -- welcome to the GNSO Council oldtimers club!
Paul McGrady
01:36:15
@Kathy - thanks! Can't wait! :)
Greg Shatan
01:36:33
@Jeff, “Playtime” — I know that one!
Paul McGrady
01:37:08
Jeff is very popular
Greg Shatan
01:37:33
At least you’r popular with you wife....
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:39
new hand
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:55
implementation cycle seems to be for ICANN org to decide … ‘policy v.s. implementation’ thing
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:09
can someone post the link here?
Emily Barabas
01:39:15
https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/active/new-gtld-subsequent-procedures/supplemental-report-01nov18-en.pdf
Paul McGrady
01:39:40
@Kathy - I see Kathy's point. Any way to modify that first bullet point to make it clear that Org should implement the criteria we agree to rather than it being at Org discretion
Trang Nguyen
01:39:59
The change request process and criteria are here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/global-support/change-requests
Emily Barabas
01:39:59
Explanation: Is a reasonable explanation provided?2. Evidence that original submission was in error: Are there indicia to support anassertion that the change merely corrects an error?3. Other third parties affected: Does the change affect other third partiesmaterially?4. Precedents: Is the change similar to others that have already been approved?Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect thirdparties or result in undesirable effects on the program?5. Fairness to applicants: Would allowing the change be construed as fair to thegeneral community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair?6. Materiality: Would the change affect the evaluation score or require reevaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect stringcontention or community priority?7. Timing: Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:41:31
@Susan - when drafting in relation to pending applications still outstanding from 2012, could you be sure to cover the issue of possible non-compliance of those applications with new policy adopted subsequent to 2012? (I previously suggested, as Christopher Wilkinson pointed out on this call) that ICANN Legal would need to be consulted.
Paul McGrady
01:41:41
Could we reference these 7 criteria in the first bullet point as a way of providing agreement?
Paul McGrady
01:42:13
That way it is ancored in something..
Kathy Kleiman
01:42:18
great -- it's good to reflect the full breadth of the High level agreement
Paul McGrady
01:42:31
Thanks Jeff
Susan Payne
01:43:27
@Anne - I'm not sure how that is appropriate - it seems to me that that is reopening the 2012 round, something you just objected to
Christopher Wilkinson
01:43:46
Isn’t this a minor issuer. Most of the financial and managerial changes would normally be approved. Changes to the actually STRING would not be allowed.
Kathy Kleiman
01:44:04
AGreed!
Paul McGrady
01:44:12
I like the JV idea as a means to get out of the expensive auctions which only help ICANN, not applicants
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:45:03
I object to 2012 applications still pending being the subject of policy-making in this PDP in any manner. It's out of scope for the Charter to state that no one can apply for a term applied for in 2012.
Susan Payne
01:46:21
@Anne - perhaps you should wait until I have drafted something and then comment because frankly I think you are attributing aims here that simply weren't proposed
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:42
Are we still discussing scope of comment change?
Paul McGrady
01:48:33
Which means that the contention analysis would have to be done before the change request is processed and the applicant get assurances that the change is OK?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:49:23
nor public confused in any way
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:53
ability to change the line of text gives lots of ‘opportunities’ for the party trying
Maxim Alzoba
01:50:42
it is almost wildcard (in technical terms)
Alexander Schubert
01:51:10
I understand brand names - what about GENERIC KEYWORDS?
Paul McGrady
01:51:30
Also, would rights protection complaints then get a second bite at the new string? BOILER (generic term, unless you went to Purdue) to OILER (sports team)
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:51:51
Good question Alexander
Alexander Schubert
01:52:48
Kathy: +1
Paul McGrady
01:53:19
I think this is a really good concept, but I agree with Kathy that this needs to be tightened up
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:22
changing to something similar will open door to the applications made with intentions of future changes … it is bad from the public being confused during the comments phase
Maxim Alzoba
01:53:33
we have 6 min left
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:43
good idea, Jeff and Jamie.
Alexander Schubert
01:53:49
So thre MUST be contention! It must be a non-generic term and a BRAND application! And only an ADDITION!
Kathy Kleiman
01:53:51
SAS example.
Paul McGrady
01:55:00
2 applications for .Merk become 1 for .MerckUS and .MerckEU
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:55:30
COMMENT: The issue re modification in the .brand realm is that the .brand applicant may not have trademark rights in the modified string. This would have to be put out for public comment. There could be other trademark holders who might object to the modified string as confusingly similar. COMMENT
Greg Shatan
01:56:05
I agree with the general idea that Kathy has put forward. I disagree with the idea that it should be limited to brands that are “non-generic terms.”
Maxim Alzoba
01:56:26
thanks everyone, have to drop 3 min early
Paul McGrady
01:56:59
@Greg - agree. Trademarks are inherently non-generic in their context, so the requirement is a non-sequitor
Greg Shatan
01:57:25
These revised string should still be subject to all the usual objection processes (not sure anyone said otherwise...).
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:57:29
Trang is underlying the problems associated with changing a string without delving back into String Confusion, Legal Rights Objection, etc
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:57:46
*underlining
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:57
good points
Paul McGrady
01:58:03
Who is going to put together the more narrow proposal? I would volunteer, but I already have something that Jeff voluntold me to do
Greg Shatan
01:58:12
I think applicants should be allowed to buy a vowel.
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:30
brand name + industry descriptor...
Kathy Kleiman
01:58:36
(?)
Emily Barabas
01:58:43
Note the ICANN Org comment submitted under the topic Mechanisms of Last Resort: It should be noted that the change request criteria from the 2012 round of the programto evaluate change requests were carefully developed to enable applicants to makenecessary changes to their applications while ensuring a fair and equitable process forall applicants. The criteria described “Materiality” as “Would the change affect theevaluation score or require re-evaluation of some or all of the application? Would thechange affect string contention or community priority consideration?”
Emily Barabas
01:58:51
The changerequest criteria did not prohibit “Material” change requests. Per the criteria, a changethat is determined to be material in and of itself will not cause a change request to berejected. However, it will cause other criteria to weigh more when considered inconjunction with each other. In the 2012 round, ICANN org received and approved alarge number of change requests to address issues that would have impacted scoring ofapplications, as well as change requests that required re-evaluations (i.e., change ofRSPs). Both of these types of changes fall under the description of “Material” change.
Alexander Schubert
01:59:00
Also of course the new string should NOT create string contention with one of the other applied for strings!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:59:24
@ Jeff - what about iBRAND? Is that closely related? What does Apple have to say about it? What about .McBrand. What implications are there for McDonalds, which enforces the McAnything worldwide?
Kathy Kleiman
02:00:03
@Jeff, can you draft?
Paul McGrady
02:00:27
iiphone :)
Alexander Schubert
02:00:35
String that is eligble to b changed shall NOT be a gerneric term - even if it is a brand!
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:00:38
Jeff, I don't support the proposal and share the concerns raised by Jamie and Trang. I don't believe this is as simple as you make it out to be.
Greg Shatan
02:00:50
iPot. an eCannabis TLD.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:01:24
A change to a different registered mark makes sense but you are definitely back into the issue of possible string confusion and LRO again.
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
02:01:28
Greg "i" alone is not a dscriptor term
Jeff Neuman (Com Laude Group)
02:01:34
descriptor term
Paul McGrady
02:01:36
@Donna, agree this is complex. I'd like to explore it to see if there is a way to get there, but I think you are right that we should not assume this will be simple.
Greg Shatan
02:01:41
Alexander, brands are, by definition, not generic.
Alexander Schubert
02:01:48
Apple?
Alexander Schubert
02:01:50
Orange?
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:55
delat
Kathy Kleiman
02:01:58
delta
Alexander Schubert
02:02:01
Mango, Delta, Sun?
Kathy Kleiman
02:02:08
nova
Julie Bisland
02:02:18
NEXT Subpro WG call: Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Alexander Schubert
02:02:19
There are MYRIADS of brands based on generic keywords!
Greg Shatan
02:02:26
@Alexander, not generic when used as a brand.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:02:27
thanks everyone lots done today... more to continue of course... bye for now
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:32
exact;u Alexander
Kathy Kleiman
02:02:34
Tx Jeff, Tx All
Emily Barabas
02:02:35
NEXT Subpro WG call: Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Alexander Schubert
02:02:35
GREG!
Donna Austin, Neustar
02:02:36
exactly
Julie Bisland
02:02:37
NEXT Subpro WG call: Monday, 12 August 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Paul McGrady
02:02:41
THanks Jeff! Great call
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
02:02:44
Coach lost in the 2012 round.