Logo

Terri Agnew's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
julie.hedlund
30:27
@Jeff: We’ll add the timer once we go off of the agenda.
Steve Chan
30:28
We will have it when we switch to the substantive part of the agenda.
avri doria
33:42
ICANN Board is still trying, haven't given up.
avri doria
34:40
But doing it within context is the key.
Maxim Alzoba
35:08
different parts of Community might see it differently
Emily Barabas
35:14
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15rwviHM6AYtqDqyB6_5Yij2dTL6iuou8z7A32yzc7sE/edit#heading=h.j7jy935ryg4k
Maxim Alzoba
36:36
after GAC letter
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
36:50
indeed @Maxim
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
39:13
Thanks Avri- I assume Board work springs from Article 1.2(b) (ii) re Core Values that should guide Board decision-making. So it's not a topic that can just be set aside. It's a topic that binds the Board, correct?
Maxim Alzoba
40:45
Registries were perfectly aware of Spec 11 even before the Audit
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
40:50
@ Avri - sorry that was Human Rights, but isn't there a reference to global public interest in the ByLaws?
Maxim Alzoba
47:55
Local governments represent local public interest
avri doria
50:05
Ann, there are multiple references in the Articles and in the Bylaws.
avri doria
51:52
sorry Anne ,,,,
Justine Chew
53:59
I cannot see any reason to discriminate between any applications
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
54:49
Support Jamie's addition
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
58:08
Thanks Avri. Is there a timeline for the Board's Global Public Interest work in terms of developing definition or standards for evaluation of policy recommendations?
Maxim Alzoba
58:48
brand TLDs
Donna Austin, Neustar
58:52
It's a brand
Jim Prendergast
58:58
i think its a fancy way of saying .BRANDS
Robin Gross
59:00
Aren’t there some in existence now?
Susan Payne
59:02
dotBrands Christopher
Vanda Scartezini
59:07
yes, brands
Maxim Alzoba
59:20
which uses TLD for marketing and tech activities
Vanda Scartezini
59:22
banks for instance
Vivek Goyal - LDotR
59:40
.Amazon
avri doria
01:04:18
Anne, re timeline: there should be a discusssion paper later this year sometime after Marrakesh.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:04:44
Great - thanks Avri!
PMcGrady
01:05:03
The takeaway is that we need a settleed policy on this issue that we can insist the Board stick with. What that settled policy is is very much up to us and we are going to have to slog through it.
Heather Forrest
01:05:07
Trade mark rights are legally distinct from domain name registrations; there is no automatic protection in either direction (ie TM does not give exclusive right to DN, and vice versa).
PMcGrady
01:05:10
sorry for the typo
Annebeth
01:09:48
@Heather, I totally agree with your statement here. A DN does not give a right you don’t have before, and even if you have a TM, many can have the same TM in different categories of goods or geographic areas, so a TM right does not give a monopoly
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:09:57
@Jeff - could we define what we are talking about with "sensitive" strngs versus "regulated" strings versus "verified" strings? Are these the same or different? It would seem mandatory PICs could be of greater importance in relation to verified strings.
Maxim Alzoba
01:12:13
PDP WG might not be a proper vehicle for asking ICANN Board
Robin Gross
01:12:44
Agree with Martin. The idea is that concerns should be brought into the PDP process and worked out there. We should not be bypassing the PDP process and hoping to make policy via lobbying the board.
Maxim Alzoba
01:19:05
for example, TLD for residents of the extraterrestrial bodies (moon residents e.t.c.)
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:20:40
Voluntary PICS make sense, but should be subject to public comment. As to verified TLDs, there should be mandatory PICs related to eligibility. These are my personal views. I will check with IPC in Marrkech.
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:10
the PIC were added without asking Registries if they wanted it, so those were obligatory
Maxim Alzoba
01:21:59
1000 TLDs would require 1000 PDPs?
Robin Gross
01:23:52
I suspect if boundaries could be established, much of the concern for harm would be relieved.
Maxim Alzoba
01:24:22
the current Spec 11 is a mandatory item
Kathy Kleiman
01:25:23
business what purposes?
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:25:26
Support the codification of mandatory PICs. Again, will check with IPC in Marrakech.
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:27:05
+1 @ Donna
Susan Payne
01:27:32
agree Donna
Vanda Scartezini
01:28:39
good question Kathy
Kathy Kleiman
01:29:27
Agreement with boundaries...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:31:00
I'm a little confused...do people think ROs are lining up to put further restrictions into their contracts with PICs? I mean, most "voluntary" PICs are added because of some sort of outcry that restrictions are desired.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:31:18
Support Susan's intervention.
Kathy Kleiman
01:31:32
we saw worst case scenarios in 2012
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:32:16
@Kathy - what do you see as "worst case" from 2012?
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:32:33
It seems to me that banning certain business models is not appropriate for ICANN.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:33:16
Remember a Voluntary PIC is NOT eligibility criteria.
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:33:24
the agreement put limits on wghat you can do
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:33:46
and that limits your buisness model
Maxim Alzoba
01:33:57
Voluntary PIC is something put on the top of the Mandatory Spec 11 PICs
Kathy Kleiman
01:34:07
yes
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:36:52
@Kathy, nothing prevents a RO from putting content restrictions in its registration agreement. You don't need a PIC/contract amendment for that.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:37:01
I really am not following what the problem is.
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:12
it's a standard base registry agreement
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:19
this is the section for variations
Kathy Kleiman
01:37:47
nope, Voluntary PICs
Maxim Alzoba
01:38:00
@Kathy, RO can create policy preventing particular unwanted content (for example prohibition of profanity language)
Kathy Kleiman
01:38:01
Donuts and others went way beyond Mandartory
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:38:31
@Kathy, as I recall, Donut
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:38:40
Donut's PIC predated Spec 11 3(b)
Maxim Alzoba
01:39:09
not all ccTLD experience is applicable to GNSO (with TLDs)
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:39:11
I could be wrong. But I seem to recall that they were just trying to get their applications past the GAC advice. Then Spec 11 3(b) came along.
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair)
01:39:42
@Kristine ,,,,, GAC Advice and/or GAC Early Warnings to make sure they did not get GAC Advice
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:11
there is one - Spec 11 of the Registry Agreement
Maxim Alzoba
01:40:34
we should not replace policy work of Registries
Gg Levine (NABP)
01:40:41
Recall that community aps have Spec 12.
Kathy Kleiman
01:40:57
@Kristine, unfortunately a few ROs, and really big ones, went much farther...
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:41:52
@Kathy, went further than what?
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:41:57
They were starting from nothing.
Kristine Dorrain (Amazon Registry)
01:42:36
Everyone was doing their best to guess at what the community wanted to get their apps approved.
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:43:39
From previous FAQs published by ICANN: How will the change process work if an applicant changes its PIC Spec?Prior to signing the Registry Agreement, ICANN will accept a change request that is directed solely to a change to the PIC Specification unless there are indications that the change is being requested to manipulate the process. An example of a change that could be viewed as a manipulation of process is the change of a PIC Specification after the close of the objection period to remove commitments that appeared to be included to avoid the filing of an objection.If the change to a PIC Specification would also result in a change to the application, a change request to reflect the requested change in the application will also be required.Changes to PIC Specifications will be subject to a further 30-day public review period.
Maxim Alzoba
01:44:32
for reference, FaQs provided by ICANN are just clarification documents without any kind of binding power
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:45:51
Onto rest of the Agenda now isbest Yes @Jeff
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:46:59
So we will follow this point of debate in Marrakesh
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:47:02
right?
Kathy Kleiman
01:47:16
I think the section of comments that Jeff just read should reflect the NCSG's "divergence" Voluntary PICs (so it is captured in the summaries). tx!
Jeff Neuman (Co-Chair)
01:47:42
Kathy, that divergence is already noted where appropriate
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:48:26
@Jeff - I think Kathy is talking about the text of the Final Report - as opposed to the current Summary doc.
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:48:31
I think we cannot move forward and talking about how to implement this when we do not have agreement that we apribe this as a community, is a whole constituency plus other groups
Jim Prendergast
01:49:10
good to have that ahead of time. Thanks
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:49:13
i don't know whether Divergence or Minority Statement or other level is appropriate but I get the fact that the Summary Doc is not necessarily the same form as the draft Final Report. Or is it?
Maxim Alzoba
01:49:48
if there is no agreement on a topic , it is going to be status quo …
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:50:03
I want an agreemnt, but I don't see one yet
Martin Silva Valent 2
01:50:07
:-)}
Kathy Kleiman
01:50:19
@All - I was talking about the document we were reviewing...
Kathy Kleiman
01:51:09
We've had that process in other docs -- where divergence is shown in all appropriate places.
christopher wilkinson
01:51:22
@m
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:51:43
@martin - that would be weird because, for example, there is not consensus on the RSP pre-approval program but it doesn't make sense to just let it drop. We should document any divergence or Minority Statement, not let it drop.
Steve Chan
01:52:18
@Kathy, we can add the NCSG’s opposition to voluntary PICs into the summary document
Kathy Kleiman
01:52:33
Tx Steve!
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:52:37
Support Jim's request for materials prior to the meeting topics.
Jim Prendergast
01:52:50
thanks
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:53:08
What materials will be available for the document Trang referenced and when?
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:53:14
Indeed we are all keen to review this doc when we get it
trang.nguyen
01:54:38
@Anne, the materials that I talked about is a document that contains a set of planning assumptions that we’d like to discuss with the PDP Working Group.
Maxim Alzoba
01:54:39
bye all , have to drop
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:42
Room logistics always makes any remote particpation as a challenge we recognise if we so small group break outs
trang.nguyen
01:54:46
The document should be sent today.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:54:56
Thanks @Trang
Maxim Alzoba
01:55:59
double meetings might make participation bit less than we see now
Jim Prendergast
01:56:49
@maxim - for sure
christopher wilkinson
01:56:52
@Kathy +1
Kathy Kleiman
01:56:55
participation already low
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
01:57:42
Bye for now safe travels if your doing so
Anne Aikman-Scalese (IPC)
01:57:44
thansk jeff, cheryl staff et al
Annebeth
01:57:44
Thanks, Jeff, and goodbye
Maxim Alzoba
01:57:45
safe travels
Tracy Hackshaw
01:57:47
Bye all
Heather Forrest
01:57:48
thanks Jeff, safe travels all
Tracy Hackshaw
01:57:50
Safe travels