Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw> https://community.icann.org/x/Z2jwAw MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12jul17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=1ac87b02e9bd1147 de0e9f48df70165362dd3aaef16709dc4c1621aa6a9addbb> https://participate.icann.org/p7pwl0mzymq/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 July 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 12 July 2017 at 16:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Z 2jwAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Z2jwAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVW E&s=DHDP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=_Ms6W-fk8dN52UxwqPh90e7MlRUIHZFUisB5d4YJVWE&s=DH DP8pShcMr1jxv0PwV6XdbcokEAtnid75aJFlLpujo&e= George Kirikos:Hi folks. I'm trying out the iPad app today. Michael R. Graham:Morning. Mary/Amr-- apologies that I'm still under the weather -- but I will try to address/assist on the Claims Questions. Amr Elsadr:Get well soon, Michael. We should be starting with Sunrise Registrations, and then let's see where we can go from there. Kathy Kleiman:Sure! Paul Tattersfield:Hi everyone Michael R. Graham:@Amr -- Sounds good. Philip Corwin:Good day to all Kathy Kleiman:Terri, have you resent the call instructions around for the WG? Kathy Kleiman:Great, tx Rebecca L Tushnet:Question: what's the best way to update a statement of interest? George Kirikos:Summertime attendance might be expected to be lower... Rebecca L Tushnet:I'm searching the wiki but doing it ineffectively so far Lori Schulman:hi Lori Schulman:just connecting to audio Mary Wong:@Rebecca, if you send an email request to the GNSO Secretariat at gnso-secs@icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> , they should be able to assist you. Louise Marie Hurel:Hi everyone Terri Agnew:@Rebecca, I will send you directions to update your GNSO SOI Lori Schulman:Please send them to me too Terri. Rebecca L Tushnet:Thanks! George Kirikos:Rebecca: I think you need to log in to the wiki to be able to edit your SOI. Lori Schulman:I tried to update mine and found it confusing on the wiki George Kirikos:iPad app doesn't support colour, so apologies for the boring font. :-( Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I will have to drop on the top of the hour - my train Amr Elsadr:@George: That's no good at all. Hopefully, colors will be available with updates. :-) Terri Agnew:@Lori, will send you directions as well Lori Schulman:thanks, my pdp's need to be updated Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I added "New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP" tomy SOI Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late! Paul McGrady:Sorry for being late. Adobe had a new plug in that it took a few minutes to get through. Also, sorry for leaving early. I scheduled to give a webinar to the Iowa State Bar Association on domain names prior to adding this call to my calendar. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, I am still working on the letter about non-exact matches assesment (via using historical data and machine readable language sintax) Michael R. Graham:@JScott -- I'll do my best-- though I'm pretty sure no one will want to listen to my hacking. Amr Elsadr:Thanks Maxim. Appreciate that. Georges Nahitchevansky:Sorry for being late Amr Elsadr:@Lori: Your audio is not coming through very clearly. Do you have a mic you can connect? Susan Payne:someone is banging about - can you mute please Rebecca L Tushnet:I agree with Amr. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the Comments field added - it allows to understand the reasons for suggested changes Terri Agnew:we are hearing a lot of background noise, please remember to mute when not speaking George Kirikos:Sounds like someone cooking in the background with pots/pans clanking. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , it sounds like Wok Michael R. Graham:I would appreciate a breakfast burrito. Thanks. Lori Schulman: still waiting for dial out Lori Schulman:i have a new headset. it must not be working Terri Agnew:the op is dialing out now Terri Agnew:Lori is on the telephone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):COMMENT: we should be aware that some TLD's usual pricing might be well higher than other's premium pricing, so it is relevant to a particular TLD only Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so we are not talking about USD pricing, more about difference between generic price of doamins in a particular TLD and premium prices for the same TLD Michael R. Graham:@Maxim: I think that is correct. The definition should therefore be more along the lines of Premium pricing is the practice of charging an increased price for domains in Sunrise or General registration that consist of trademarks or other desirable terms. Jon Nevett:should have been "unfairly" limits Brian Cimbolic:yep, I emailed that proposed change in as well Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- I would ask first if it has an effect and then, if so, if that effect is "unfair" -- problem is that "unfair" is a charged term -- Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in GEOs Police is in Reserved list, and not in premium (it is against the public interest) Jon Nevett:ok with that Michael -- the answer to the first part is clearly yes Mary Wong:@Maxim, we tried to capture your comment on reserve vs premium names in one of the comment boxes (see Q4) Jon Nevett:we had a change to 2 in the chat Brian Cimbolic:@Michael, not sure I agree unfairly is charged - that's the heart of the matter - limiting it by virtue of the fact that the price is higher doesn't necessarily make that practice unjustified Michael R. Graham:@Jon: So 1) Is there an effect (shown by empirical data), and 2) what is that effect ? Jon Nevett:this is an impact -- don't need data -- it is obvious Brian Cimbolic:does it "unfairly limit" participation is the real quest Brian Cimbolic:ion Mary Wong:@Brian, that is how we updated the previous question (as you'll see in this redline of Q4) Jon Nevett:we asked for the same change to #2 -- please don't lose it Brian Cimbolic:@Mary - thank you, as Jon notes, I think it belongs equally in #2 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):on the other hand most premium names lists constist of generic terms, and it is not fault of the registry that TM owners decided to register a mark with matches well used generic term Mary Wong:@Jon, we tried to capture that request in a comment box to Q2, we (staff) just did not believe we had the mandate to go ahead with an actual rephrasing of the text of the question. Hopefully this discussion will assist the WG in doing so. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please do not forget Name Collisions - one of the resons for lots of names to be in reserved names lists and not in sunrises Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and it was totally due to ICANN Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):one registry out of more than 1000 is less than 0.1% Michael R. Graham:@Paul: I think that's truly the question -- whether Premium pricing is Discriminatory against any particular types of domain names (e.g. trademark premium lists,geo, etc.) Jon Nevett:two sets of prices would go to the "unfairly" issue Brian Cimbolic:exactly Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we trying to justify that all prices - needs to be premium and to avoid the generic prices , so it is fair? Paul McGrady:Sorry Paul Tattersfield:There was also founder programs perhaps we should look at the interaction between these and sunrise Michael R. Graham:@Jon -- Agree. Question should be whether differential pricing has an adverse effect on 1) RPM of Sunrise, 2) Applicants, 3) others? Mary Wong:@Michael, @Jon - see Paul Tatterfield's suggestion for Q4 (in the comment box marked MW7) - does this more or less cover what you are saying? Paul McGrady:"Reserved Forever" v "Reserved to Be Released Later" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):a premium name can be reserved , please do not mix premium and reserved (it is not equal) Amr Elsadr:Yes. Captured. Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example 2 letters, when a registry is waiting for RSEP to release them ... 2 letters are premium, but can not be used until allowed Susan Payne:on Q3 this should be addressing both the designation as premium (and thus the pricing) and, potentially reserving the name because it is "premium" so that it is not available until after the sunrise. This latter issue should be picked up in the question 4 on reserved names Kathy Kleiman:many or some? Mary Wong:@Jon - would this rewordiing of the "Is there evidence ... " bullet point question in Q2 work - "Are registry operators' pricing practices unfairly limiting participation in Surnise by trademark owners?" Michael R. Graham:@Mary -- Yes, but I would say "usefulness of Sunrise Registration as an RPMapplications or registrations" Michael R. Graham:Sorry -- end after "RPM" --"usefulness of Sunrise Registration as an RPM" Mary Wong:@Michael, thank you and noted. Paul McGrady:Apologies all. I need to drop shortly. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we understand who decides the level of fair vs unfair pricing? How? In which economical situation (prices differ from market to market)? Jon Nevett:@mary ok with me Mary Wong:Q9 (which Lori is reading now) - the rewording in this column was suggested in Joburg. The additional comment was to add a consideration for geoTLDs. Michael R. Graham:Maxim: I believe "fair vs unfair" can only be understood contextually -- If all Sunrise Registrations/Early Registrations are priced the same, it is fair, if there is difference there may be unfairness -- unless explainable by economic factors. Terri Agnew:@Maxim, your line is cutting in and out Terri Agnew:please let me know if a dial out on the telephone would be helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok J. Scott:Maxim, an you put your comments in the chat. Your phone is cuttin out. Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: I tried to capture what you were saying in the notes pod. Please review, and let me know if I got it right. Thanks. Mary Wong:Label Generation Ruleset Amr Elsadr:LGR: Label Generation Rules Mary Wong:The LGR is a process to develop rules for each of the designated scripts relating to IDN variants. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):We should not forget that there is a thing called Picket Fence - basically it is a set of provisions in RA (Registry Agreements) & RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreements) - that Consensus Policies shoud not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so even if out output comes to the state where there is an idea of price regulation it will have no power, even if it comes into Policy state Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the same for Registrars : shall not "prescribe or limit the price ofRegistrar Services;" Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Amr, please add it to the notes Kathy Kleiman:We heard a lot about specialized gTLDs in the third hour of our F2F Kathy Kleiman:I would not recommend changing that Susan Payne:we heard from a couple of Geos Michael R. Graham:@Maxim -- I do not believe the consideration whether discriminatory premium pricing, etc. has an effect on theeffectiveness of RPMs crosses the Picket Fence since in the end the issue is not pricing as such, but discriminatory or predatory practices. Susan Payne:By specialised do you mean Geo? this is my point, we don't have that defined Susan Payne:and we don't need it - the language is fine without the highlighted bit Kathy Kleiman:Lori/Amr: where would we put the concerns that Maxim has now raised on audio and in chat Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, RA is between Registry and ICANN, and if we create non enforceble policy - it will not be followed , due to the contractual language Mary Wong:Does "specialized" = just geoTLDs, or broader? Should we avoid the use of the word "specialized" but find a way to specify that a geoTLD is a type of TLD (and there may be others) that may warrant a different rule (per Susan's comment)? Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Captured Maxim's note in the notes pod. Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Mary - it is Community, GEOs Jeff Neuman:I would say keep everything Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):mostly George Kirikos:I think it's better to just use the final ones. Jon Nevett:makes sense Lori -- let's move forward with the new questions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example community of pan owners, and to keed a domain you need to own a pan at all times ... Jeff Neuman:Either way, is it time to answer the questions :) Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, where might we capture them in the comments now in the document? Michael R. Graham:Use the final/updated questions for the discussion -- the Charter questions are clarified by these. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all, need to drop to be on time for my train . see you next time David McAuley:agree to using refined questions - believe the form of how we got here should be saved George Kirikos:This doc is that record. Kathy Kleiman:@Mary: I agree with Maxim - specialized gTLDs includes Community, Geos and perhaps others. Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: My understanding is that this is a consideration that needs to be taken into account, when answering the question, but will not result in refinement of the question itself. Is that right? Jeff Neuman:ok...what is the process to answer the questions :) Mary Wong:@Kathy, I'd asked upthread if Q12 can be rephrased to capture the concept of a specialized TLD without needing to use the word or create a definition, e.g. use community and geo TLDs as examples of gTLDs that may warrant a special/different rule. Philip Corwin:Agree that it is time to archive the original Charter questions and proceed with addressing the consolidated and clarfied versions. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):.mil and .gov looks to be special gTLDs too Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, I think the term "specialized gTLDs" in small letters opens the discussion. The word is important Brian Cimbolic:verified/validated is often how they're described among registries Brian Cimbolic:there's a verified TLD consortium - each containing eligibility requirements to register Kathy Kleiman:@Amr, I think we have now heard the issue of picket fence from many - in Jburg and now from Maxim. That would seem worthy of a comment in the appropriate questions to embody it... do you agree? Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Will take an action item to put it in the document. Thanks. Jeff Neuman:The "Picket Fence" issue is not something we as a group can (or should) try to define Mary Wong:@Kathy, as it is a more general concern we can perhaps add a sentence in the opening introductory text as a reminder/scope comment. Jeff Neuman:The Picket Fence issue only addresses whether ICANN can force registries to accept the recommendations, but does not control whether we can make any recommendations. If we go down that path, we will never get to addressing the issues George Kirikos:Sorry, got disconnected by phone.....will call back. Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, that's pages away from the question. Jeff Neuman:Wholesale Pricing or Retail pricing? Kathy Kleiman:It's been discussed in the subteam that anecdotal data may include some of the stories published by reporters - with their investigations and evidence Mary Wong:For the Claims document, the yellow highlights are the suggested actual edits to the questions from Joburg, the turquoise comments are additional suggestions that provide context or that offer additional input. Susan Payne:Yes agree - it is meant to be both parts of the claims service Mary Wong:@Jon, it was captured for Q2 but we can add it to Q1 as well. Jon Nevett:Thanks Amr Jon Nevett:and Thanks Mary! Jon Nevett:it doesn't Greg Shatan:There's no definition or common meaning to "widely used". Griffin Barnett:"widely used" seems pretty vague to me Griffin Barnett:agree Greg - seems like it would be really problematic to try and define what that might mean Mary Wong:@George, @Michael - perhaps instead of wrangling over whether to say "dictionary" or "widely used" etc., the WG can just agree on a set of words/terms to be tested? Kathy Kleiman:how about Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms" Jeff Neuman:what is the specific information we are trying to solicit here? J. Scott:HOw about stating something lke terms/acronyms that also have non-tradeamrk significance Jeff Neuman:That is more important than the label Susan Payne:what are we trying to do here? Kathy Kleiman:"dictionary terms and other widely used terms" Jeff Neuman:We should not be discussing trademark law here or the different levels of distinctiveness Griffin Barnett:+1 jeff Susan Payne:too right Jeff Susan Payne:Lowered hand as Greg is saying it Jeff Neuman:Before asking about "unintended consequences", what are the "intended consequences"? Lori Schulman:Agree that we need to focus on intentions first. George Kirikos:We're t ruin George Kirikos:We're trying to infer that, by having that more granular data. Mary Wong:@Kathy, we know - we are just wondering how to gather the granular data and from where. Who decides what is dictionary and what is distinctive for the purpose of collecting the data (assuming we know where to get it)? Greg Shatan:"Dictionary terms" is a class of words. -- agree we should not try to identify the class beforehand. Mary Wong:@George, we (ICANN) do not - that is my point :( Kathy Kleiman:@Mary, if we ask the question as phrased, registries will respond. They've already started, e.g., Bret Fausett at an early outreach session... Susan Payne:can you speak up george. Greg Shatan:We should just collect the data without trying to characterize it on the way in. Jeff Neuman:I think we need to take a step back and be honest with ourselves. We are not going to get data from supposed applicants (other than perhaps injustry insiders) on whether they dropped applications or now. We will not get that data from registrars, registries or the TMCH (as that is confidential customer data - assuming it was even collected). As far as newspaper stories, that is biased as well as they are seeking the controversial Greg Shatan:I'm also having trouble hearing George. Seems very quiet. Kathy Kleiman::-) Amr, I think the note is that -- Reporters and the articles would be a one source of data for 1b. George Kirikos:Sorry, am on a cordless today....waiting for courier deliveries. Lori Schulman:John Crittenden comes to mind. He is an excellent litigator that I am sure has handled these cases. He is in SFO area. Another idea would be contact Anne Lalonde. Jeff Neuman:The only way we can get data is in the future if we get registrars to survey consumers as to why they didnt go through (or did go through) with a registration Lori Schulman:Sorry. Please disregard chat. Greg Shatan:Whether they are a source of "valid" data is another question.... See Jeff Neuman's notes. George Kirikos:We already asked for too 500. But if we had the ratio for each one? David McAuley:I think Jeff is making a fair point about getting data that has not been formally gather heretofore Mary Wong:@Jeff, that is the staff concern as well - whether we can get adequate data at all, realistically. George Kirikos:top 500 Greg Shatan:I don't believe we can infer anything about WHY applications are dropped by collecting or analyzing data solely on WHICH strings were dropped. Lori Schulman:Agree with Jeff's points and Greg. Amr Elsadr:To Jeff's point, the WG could recommend that certain data be collected in the future to assist with future reviews. John McElwaine:+1 @Jeff Susan Payne:too right and we are spending far too much time talking about this Lori Schulman:Agree but much of what we need is based on individual experiences. How do we get around that? Susan Payne:speak up george please Greg Shatan:Agree with Jeff, the amount of "man bites dog" stories, blog posts, etc. on domain name matters is truly amazing. Jeff Neuman:@George - I disagree; That does not tell you anything Mary Wong:@George, ICANN cannot "force" registrars to do anything that is not part of the RAA (contractual commitment). Susan Payne:we've asked it alread Susan Payne:already Greg Shatan:Why do you assume that these are "people"? Jeff Neuman:@Kathy - I expected it based on the very high percentage of people not going through with registrations in .biz in 2001 George Kirikos:One can draw inferences, Jeff. Amr Elsadr:@George: To be clear, the AG was not able to confirm that the Claims service data downloaded did indeed represent attempted registrations, so their data, in its entirety, would still not be absolutely useful in this context. Jeff Neuman:Look at the Summit Strategies Report in 2004 or 2005 John McElwaine:Have we received the Analysis Group's answers to our questions yet? Kathy Kleiman:It was not in the scope o fthe Analysis Group work Jeff Neuman:Registrars did not collect the information as to why people proceeded or not Jeff Neuman:Registries dont have access to that information Jeff Neuman:I just think we need to be realistic here Mary Wong:@John, we are following up John McElwaine:@Mary Thanks! Greg Shatan:One can draw baseless and prejudicial inferences.... Drawing valid inferences is harder. Calling the first "inferences" is probably too kind.... Jeff Neuman:My belief is that we have a huge rate of people abandoning is because (i) registrars were mining the system, (ii) registrants were mining the system to see what was valuable, and to a lesser extent as a result of the claim (either legitimiate or not) Jeff Neuman:But I cant prove any of those theories Kathy Kleiman:@Jeff: we have gathered evidence already from registries; there is probably more Jeff Neuman:There just is no way to do so on a backwards basis Susan Payne:thanks Mary Steve Levy:Bye all! Lori Schulman:Thank you JScott for good moderating George Kirikos:It's funny folks criticize the inferences that haven't even been made yet. Denise Michel:Thanks. Byes George Kirikos:Bye folks. khouloud Dawahi:bye Jeff Neuman:@George - people came in to this proces with inherent inferences