[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2] Actions/Discussion Notes: Work Track 2 Sub Team Meeting 24 August

Thu Aug 24 22:05:07 UTC 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Please see below the action items and discussion notes captured by staff from the meeting on 24 August.  These high-level notes are designed to help Work Track Sub Team members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the chat room or the recording.   See the chat room and recording on the meetings pages at: https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Work+Track+2+Meetings. 

Please also see the attached slides and the excerpts from the chat room below. 

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Action Items/Discussion Notes 24 August – CC2 Responses on Registrant Protections

Notes/Action Items:

Action Items:

1. EBERO: Question: How much has ICANN paid EBERO providers since the program started?  Answer from ICANN staff: ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en. They include fees.

Notes:

Full comments are available here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tcWZt1bdoYH7vJl2Yi9G0jah7QzyhqU99tXnl3qV0rc/edit?usp=drive_web

Slide 3: Introduction

Slide 4: Discussion Recap: Where are we at now?

-- COI: Many complications and limitations identified with the COI.  Alternative methods have been proposed.

-- EBERO: little support for making changes at this time.  27 occurrences of going over the threshold and ICANN worked to resolve the issues without going to EBERO.

-- Background screening: Explored different requirements.  See: Program Implementation Review Report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/program-review-29jan16-en.pdf

Slide 5: CC2 Question 2.3.1: 

Slide 6: Comments -- Excerpts

-- ALAC: Current protections should remain.

-- Afilias: EBERO should be sufficient as defined.

Slide 7:  Jim Prendergast recommended re-examining the entire EBERO concept.

Slide 8:  John Poole stated that registrant protections should be expanded and no registries should be exempt.

Slides 9-11:  Demys, Nominet, BRG, Valideus, and RySG recommended adjusting registrant protections to provide exemptions for closed TLDs.

-- If everyone has the same WHOIS record how would we know if they have a trademark licensee using it?  If there was an exemption there would be other ways that we could put in agreements for enforcement purposes.

-- There are examples of generics being used as TLDs and not sure how you would measure what is a generic term.

-- There are huge numbers of trademarks that aren't made-up terms.  Most already exist in the language.  Trademark law gives those brands very robust protections. 

Slide 12:  Afilias  and RySG suggested that in cases where the Registry Operator is different from the Registry Service Provider, the RO is failing financially but the technology is working fine, it should be possible for customers to remain with the existing RSP.

-- Do we know if any downside if we say this is the rule?

-- What is really interesting and the weird thing about the EBERO concept is that it is designed around technical failures, not financial.  All of the triggers are technical.  Maybe there should be a financial failure continuity program instead of EBERO.

Slide 13:  RySG, ALAC, and Jannik Skou provided additional comments regarding a potential RSP Program.

Slide 14: CC2 Questions 2.3.2

Slide 15-17: Jannik Skou, Nominet, John Poole, RySG suggested alternatives to the COI model.

-- Need to do some research on alternatives.  There are options other than COI that were initially ruled out.  Figure out how much ICANN has paid EBERO providers since the program started.  Get an idea of the true costs.  Could say that a fund should be set up for this purpose and suggest potential alternatives for filling the fund.

Slides 18-19: RySG provided additional guidance for ICANN if the COI requirement remains in the future.

Start at 2.3.3 Slide 20 on the next call.

>From the chat:

Alexander Schubert: Great: So if it is cheaper and easier to apply for a .brand - then people will apply for generic term based gTLDs as .brand; "play" single registrant registry - then distribute the domains in the same way like CentralNic right now distributes third level domains under ll.com!

Alexander Schubert: We need to make sure that generic terms can NOT be applied for as brand TLD! 

Phil Buckingham: totally agree Alexander . So how do we do this  ?  so do we  differentate ? 

Jeff Neuman 2: a lot of brands are terms in the dictionary

Jeff Neuman 2: websters dictionary

Robert Burlingame: Whether something is "Generic" or not depends entirely on the type of products or services for which that term is used.

Alexander Schubert: Then we simply bury .brands! 

Jeff Neuman 2: many geographic terms are also dictionary terms....should we say that they should not qualify as geographic TLDs?

Robert Burlingame: "Apple" is not a "generic" term for anything other than apples.

Heather Forrest: It isn't ICANN's place to start treating different TMs differently

Alexander Schubert: Plus brands WILL allocate domains to clients.  ".facebook" might allow every user to have user.facebook! 

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): agreed Heather 

Greg Shatan: Alexander why is that a problem?

Greg Shatan: Assuming it is not "gaming."

Alexander Schubert: We can't say brand TLDs are in ANY way different from other TLDs. There might not be classical registrants at brand gTLDs - but there might be "users" - and when the .brand fails; those users lose their "domain"....

Gg Levine (NABP): @Alexander: Do you mean third-level domain registrants?

Alexander Schubert: Where does the need stem from to grant "brands" any special conditions and exceptions.....

Greg Shatan: Or do you just mean end-users?

Alexander Schubert: Example:    .twitter   and  the domain handle.twitter

Greg Shatan: What is the domain handle.twitter an example of?

Phil Buckingham: so the EBERO kicks in when the technical  back end fails  ?  

Phil Buckingham: +n 11111 Jeff

hil Buckingham: should be the other way around .

Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO): good point Jeff

Alexander Schubert: handle.twitter in a ".brand" gTLD would be subject to termination at any time - e.g. when the registry "fails". 

Jeff Neuman 2: but that would not trigger ebero

Alexander Schubert: hmmmmm

Gg Levine (NABP): @Alexander: yes, but the domain would still belong to the RO, yes?

Alexander Schubert: I think the consumer won't really understand the difference between a generic gTLD by a non-Brand (where the user is a registrant and enjoys many protections) and generic brand gTLD based domains.....

Phil Buckingham: Good answer  by Nominet .  Q for ICANN   How much are the current  three EBERO contracted parties  being paid per annum 

Jeff Neuman 2: @Phil - We should ask if the EBERO funding mechanism is public

Jeff Neuman 2: Can we put that as an action item

Jeff Neuman 2: I do know it is a two prong payment system  to EBEROs.  There is a guaranteed annual fee paid by ICANN for EBEROs to be on standby and then in the case of an EBERO event, there are additional fees paid to EBERO providers

Phil Buckingham: Everything is better than what we have at present .  Let put this in  a matrix  format  . Would it be based on registrations/ DUMs ? 

Trang Nguyen: ICANN agreements with EBERO providers are posted here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en

Trang Nguyen: They include fees

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170824/3b65daf5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 24 August 2017_WT2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 286038 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170824/3b65daf5/24August2017_WT2-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt2/attachments/20170824/3b65daf5/smime-0001.p7s>