Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
39:01
Greetings
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
39:08
I am not able to hear he Audio
Julie Bisland
39:19
To correct welcome message: Welcome all to the New gTLDS Subsequent Procedures Working Group call on Monday, 15 July 2019 at 15:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Steve Chan
39:34
Link, as mentioned: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Julie Bisland
40:18
@vaibhav: select call me or computer audio, if you don’t see these options, could you try dropping off and rejoining?
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
40:47
ok
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
40:50
one moment
PMcGrady
42:00
@Jeff, apologies, but I missed the last call which was at off hours here in the States. Can you provide some background about at what stage this issue would be being considered and by whom?
Vaibhav Aggarwal, iN
42:30
@Julie There is only Options - Phone Call & Call Me
Vaibhav Aggarwal, iN
42:37
Computer Audio is not an Option
Vaibhav Aggarwal, iN
42:41
Suggest
Julie Bisland
44:09
I will chat you privately, Vaibhav
Vaibhav Aggarwal, iN
44:15
thnks
Donna Austin, Neustar
44:18
Does Freedom of Expression in this context only relate to the 'string'?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
44:54
and of course different desires for any 'expression' will often exist as well opposition is likely to exist
Jim Prendergast
45:45
@Donna's question is a good one. any have a sense?
Julie Bisland
46:05
@all: someone has joined under the name iPhone, for attendance purposes, could you identify yourself?
PMcGrady
46:47
@Jeff, apologies, but I missed the last call which was at off hours here in the States. Can you provide some background about at what stage this issue would be being considered and by whom?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
47:03
Well noted @Greg and that does go to @Donnas question as well I believe
Steve Chan
48:48
@All, changing the screen share, be back in a moment
Greg Shatan
49:38
Agreeing that we need consistent rules doesn’t get us very far if we can’t decide whether we are playing football or chess.
PMcGrady
50:52
@Jeff, thanks for that. So when we are discussion "panelists" or the like we really don't have a "hook" yet for this in the process.
PMcGrady
53:36
Congrats Kathy!!
Jeff Neuman
53:41
@Kathy - Congrats
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
53:49
Congratulations on the appointment @Kathy
PMcGrady
55:59
for example, if someone applied for .dumptruck and someone else applied for .dumptrump and they ended up in a contention set, that would be a fine time to consider the freedom of expression issue.
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
56:56
@Kathy Many Congratulations :-)
Donna Austin, Neustar
57:06
@Paul, I'm not sure I understand how freedom of expression would be part of a contention set evaluation
Kathy Kleiman
57:27
@Jeff, can you provide a link?
Greg Shatan
58:30
@Paul, I think we have other issues if those two applications end up in a contention set. I also share Donna’s puzzlement that FoE rights would be part of evaluating this (or just about any other) contention set.
Greg Shatan
59:01
Yes
Kathy Kleiman
59:11
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2008-10-29-en
Kathy Kleiman
59:23
Public Comment: Morality and Public Order Memorandum
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:44
Even better
Kathy Kleiman
01:00:46
https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-draft-29oct08-en.pdf
PMcGrady
01:01:28
@Greg, this is the problem with trying to find a hypothetical example in ICANNland to discuss the underlying issue. People use the example to sidestep the issue. Let's discuss the substantive issue. If you can come up with a better hypothetical than I did, I would welcome that.
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
01:01:48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelganger_domain
PMcGrady
01:02:38
@Jeff and @Kathy, is freedom of expression and morality/public order the same thing for purposes of this discussion, or are they 2 concepts (seems to me they are), both deserving of their own discussion.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:02:49
echo/reflection or clone of name less [the dot]
Kathy Kleiman
01:03:19
we're recreating the wheel here
PMcGrady
01:03:48
@Jeff, thanks.
Greg Shatan
01:05:07
@Paul, I’m trying to find understand the issue in the context of contention sets. I don’t have a specific issue with the example vs any other example.
PMcGrady
01:05:59
@Kathy - can you provide more information about what group put that repor together?
Kathy Kleiman
01:07:48
Then we must expressly reference the Morality and Public Order findings and standards in referencing the new Applicant Freedom of Expression.
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:20
I don't see material reference anywhere in our materials here.
Kathy Kleiman
01:08:23
It all has to be balanced
Kathy Kleiman
01:12:25
@Paul: "Consultation with well-recognized experts in cases involving issues closely related to this in order to understand how the rules found in the legal research could be incorporated into a workable standard. These consultations were conducted with: highly regarded dispute resolution providers, jurists who have heard cases in international tribunals, and attorneys with experience prosecuting and defending cases involving public policy and/or human rights under treaties."
Kathy Kleiman
01:13:19
Tx Donna!
Jeff Neuman
01:13:30
And Kathy - the results of that were already incorporated into the Guidebook. To not reinvent the wheel, we do not need to review all those materials
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:15:29
@Jeff: I agree that it should be based on the most up to date information for 2012, so AGB seems most appropriate.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:16:15
noted @Donna
Jim Prendergast
01:16:55
Generally speaking and not specific on this topic just because its in the guidebook doesnt necissarily mean it was right - thats the entire reason for the Sub Pro work.
Kathy Kleiman
01:19:01
While agreeing to protect other rights...
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:05
type up some exxample text @Kathy?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:19:34
so we can see what might be considered for inclusion
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:19:55
@Jeff, did identify the section previously
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:01
thanks @Kathy ... a;wat\ys helpful to have text to play with IMO
Kathy Kleiman
01:21:21
second bullet point -- while agreeing to protect earlier agreements on fairness, balance, and others... [not specific wording -- general second level high level agreement]
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:21:39
ok...
Greg Shatan
01:21:54
I do agree with the general concept that to the extent there is an applicant freedom of expression right, it needs to be balanced against other rights, etc.
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:22:22
Whenever we have the Objections, the legal community will always look at it “With Reasonable Restrictions” around the world.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:22:23
thx, noited @Greg
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:22:48
So when we draft our comments, we will need to take that into account
Kathy Kleiman
01:23:08
@SteveChan - can you put a comment in the high level agreement that we will be working on some words to reflect fairness and balance?
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:24:58
Whenever we have the Objections, the legal community will always look at it “With Reasonable Restrictions” around the world.
Paul McGrady
01:25:23
@Jeff, I think it was made tougher by mixing in the public morality/order issue. I rteally think we need to wall these two things off.
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:25:30
I can put together a List of Case Studies “Primarily around Freedom of Expression - with reasonable restrictions.
Vaibhav Aggarwal, IN
01:25:36
For the group
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:26:51
ICANN org's comment before the start of 2.3.4. suggests that some of the assumptions about evaluation were incorrect and criteria was applied. do we know what the criteria was that was applied?
Steve Chan
01:28:32
@Donna, I believe they are just referencing the criteria in the Applicant Guidebook.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:29:45
thanks Steve
Jeff Neuman
01:30:07
@CLO - I should have stated that better, but you are right and said it better than I did :)
Justine Chew
01:30:36
Apologies, I have drop off now. Will catch up via call recording.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:30:41
Several actually
Paul McGrady
01:33:14
@Christopher -not every second level TLD was as good idea, so forcing registrars to carry them seems a bit overbearing
Susan Payne
01:34:13
I don';t beieve there is a much of a connection between UA and VI. UA is not about "must carry"
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:34:24
Agree Susan
Steve Chan
01:35:55
Section 1.2.4 of the AGB talks about ”Notice concerning Technical Acceptance Issues wit New gTLDs”
Jeff Neuman
01:36:08
Thanks Stevev
Kathy Kleiman
01:39:05
Did we hear from any of the universal acceptance groups?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:39:44
Registering domain names in IDNs is fine. It's the other systems (email, websites, etc) that Rys/Rrs don't control that make it hard for end users to use the IDNs they purchased.
Steve Chan
01:40:04
@Kathy, as Jeff, mentioned, the leadership of the UASG presented and answered questions with Work Track 4
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:40:52
and some commenters *such as the ALAC* are regularly updated by and work with UASG
Jim Prendergast
01:42:43
it would be good to see what sort of progress has been made on UA since 2012. ICANN, and the community to some extent, need to be more upfront about the problems IDN users are facing. And do as much as possible to fix them.
Jim Prendergast
01:43:35
^before the launch of another round
christopher wilkinson
01:44:08
@Paul So, ICANN should TELL the applicant if their gTLD will not be supported .
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:44:42
Noting of course @Jim tht UA is not soley an IDN issue
Jamie Baxter | dotgay
01:44:53
+1 Jim
Jeff Neuman
01:45:34
@Kathy - noted....we just copied the language from the INitial report
Jeff Neuman
01:45:41
we do need to reword
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:45:50
+1 Jim
christopher wilkinson
01:47:08
+1 @Kathy UASG “affirmative”
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:21
More support for UASG recommendations?
Kathy Kleiman
01:48:44
that makes sense
Greg Shatan
01:49:59
Outreach to UASG is a good idea. They should be participating here in some fashion on an ongoing basis.
Jeff Neuman
01:50:39
@Jim - (personal comment/not chair comment) - there is only so much ICANN can control. Denying or delaying a future round based on third party inaction I am not sure is the solution. In addition, having more avaiability of IDNs may stimulate further work by third parties.
Jim Prendergast
01:50:46
updating is good - but what demonstrable progess has been made is what I'm after. without significant progress in solving the problem, i fear were lauching another round with the same problems that were evident in 2012
Jeff Neuman
01:51:46
@Jim - How wold the update impact our work in this PDP?
Jim Prendergast
01:52:50
would this group recommend laucnhing anouther round without know problems with IDNS not being sufficently addressed?
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:53:06
@Jim, I think there's a balance that we need to find here. How do you define signficant progress?
Jim Prendergast
01:53:30
id leave that to the UA experts.
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:54:08
I completely agree with Jeff.
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:34
@Jeff - there seem to be unaddressed problems in 2012 IDNs.
Kathy Kleiman
01:54:51
@Jeff - how do we urge their solution and resolution as quickly as possible?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:55:20
Yes, Jeff!
Kathy Kleiman
01:57:13
@Jeff- I support the affirmative statement you just said. I think it should replace the second bullet point of high level agreement
Greg Shatan
01:57:18
Delay is the last resort if it is a resort at all. But the change in shape of the DNS environment is ICANN’s project — can’t just leave it to third parties to get their act together.
Jim Prendergast
01:58:02
so maybe one solution is stronger language from ICANN elaborating on the potential problems IDN applicants could face with usage of their domains. Clearly ICANN knows its a problem. Thy have spent millions on UASG efforts. But the last communication was not good for new applicants and players in the gTLD space.
Jim Prendergast
01:58:54
yu
Jim Prendergast
01:58:57
yup
Donna Austin, Neustar
01:59:03
Do we have any information from IDN ccTLDs that might be helpful on this topic?
Jim Prendergast
01:59:58
thats a good question -
Julie Bisland
02:00:21
next meeting: Thursday, 18 July 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
02:00:44
Good progress again today people ... Thanks everyone! bye for now...
Paul McGrady
02:00:49
THanks Jeff
Flip Petillion
02:00:53
Thanks