Zoom chat: 2020-09-23 Consolidated Policy Working Group Call

00:38:40 Lilian Ivette Deluque: you're welcome Glenn was a pleasure
00:39:27 Gisella Gruber: To follow along with the RTT: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN [streamtext.net]
00:40:16 hadia Elminiawi: Hello all
00:40:32 Herb Waye Ombuds: Hello everyone, hope you are all well
00:40:59 Gisella Gruber: Welcome Herb
00:43:45 Glenn McKnight: Bonjour Herb
00:46:50 Herb Waye Ombuds: Hi Glenn
00:47:58 Holly Raiche: I thought ALL PICs are mandatory.
00:48:27 Jonathan Zuck: @Holly, all theoretically enforced but some are voluntary at the outset
00:51:34 Marita Moll: I think there are 2 categories -- mandatory (now called something else) and voluntary (still called PICs)
00:51:44 Jonathan Zuck: @Holly, it's a bit like agreeing to do someone a favor. At the moment to which you agree it becomes an obligation and it's status as "a favor," ceases to be relevant.
00:53:59 Jonathan Zuck: Marita, it's the opposite. The mandatory ones are still called PICs. The voluntary ones are called Registry Voluntary Commitments
00:54:47 Marita Moll: Oh thanks -- changing these things leads to confusion for awhile
00:56:46 Jonathan Zuck: Indeed. It's further confused by the fact that many RVCs might be the result of GAC Public Interest objections but some RVCs are just about how they plan to operate and the NCSG would like to argue that something like streamlined IP enforcement is NOT in the public interest.
01:05:24 Vanda Scartezini: as always Justine makes all the points quite clear.
01:09:06 Jonathan Zuck: we did NOT plan this, by the way!
01:09:31 Marita Moll: Good idea, just the same
01:09:54 Jonathan Zuck: Yes! Funding and standing remain an issue for the At-Large
01:10:58 Holly Raiche: Is everyone very clear that all the PICDRP does is find facts. It does NOT enforce - that is done by Complliance
01:12:25 Jonathan Zuck: are they mutually exclusive?
01:14:28 Holly Raiche: If demonstrable harm is a ground, then simply being misleading does not ground standing
01:15:11 Holly Raiche: This is SSssooooo familiar
01:15:18 Holly Raiche: It doesn’t
01:16:59 Alan Greenberg: But if a DRP can only find for the complainant is if harm is done, it is not sufficient.
01:17:41 Holly Raiche: In legal terms, the issue is ‘standing’ to bring a complaint - and if there sin’t harm, you can’t demonstrate standing
01:18:19 Jonathan Zuck: @Holly, standing is only an issue for the DRP, not filing a complaint with CC
01:19:28 Jonathan Zuck: That's why we need the explicit prohibition in the contract
01:19:52 Jonathan Zuck: it's years before a new round, so NOT too late
01:20:21 Holly Raiche: Agreed JZ - but if you need harm at the fact finding level, how do you get to Compliance — or do you go directly to Compliance
01:20:53 Jonathan Zuck: go directly to compliance if you see someone operating out of bounds of the contract thats' still a contract violation and doesn't require a measure of harm
01:21:02 Herb Waye Ombuds: Have to drop off… have a great day everyone
01:21:04 Holly Raiche: @ Alan - I think it is still the morass as described
01:22:06 Roberto: Bye Herb
01:22:28 Holly Raiche: @ JZ - if the only ground for complaint is that it is misleading (no harm demonstrated) can I go to Compliance?
01:25:23 Jonathan Zuck: Yes, @Holly
01:25:38 Jonathan Zuck: Yes!
01:25:44 Marita Moll: I though we had already said in various fora that DNS abuse issues needed to be resolved BEFORE a new round
01:25:48 Jonathan Zuck: Yes, Justine, DATA!
01:27:46 Jonathan Zuck: Metrics?
01:28:42 Holly Raiche: 2
01:29:06 Jonathan Zuck: Yes, Jamie was on the CCT which led to a bunch of new data getting reported
01:29:27 Holly Raiche: @ JZ - weren’t you across some data as part of the CCT?
01:29:49 Jonathan Zuck: across?
01:30:14 Holly Raiche: aware of
01:32:25 Holly Raiche: Thus the CCT recommendation for Compliance to publish the bad apples - and therefore collect the data to be able to do that
01:33:08 Holly Raiche: This impacts on the DNS abuse recommendations
01:33:42 Jonathan Zuck: The definition of a "bad apple," is a VERY sensitive issue to CPs, as we learned during ICANN68. Thresholds are very important, as Alan is suggesting.
01:34:02 Holly Raiche: I”m agreeing with Alan
01:34:54 Marita Moll: Me too -- it makes sense -- although there will be considerable push back
01:40:24 Holly Raiche: And it was trust that the CCT report had difficulty measuring/establishing
01:44:56 Holly Raiche: But can you link lower DNS abuse with the possibility that consumers trust?
01:46:12 hadia Elminiawi: Ok now I see why you have it here
01:46:39 Roberto: It does make sense @JZ
01:46:50 Holly Raiche: YES
01:47:38 Holly Raiche: Won’t be easy to collect though - from all the consumer complaints agencies
01:50:03 Roberto: Should the introduction of IDN TLDs be one of the criteria for diversity?
01:50:37 Holly Raiche: @ Roberto - at least for ALAC, I thought it already was
01:51:31 Holly Raiche: And include more meaningful Complaint metrics
01:53:58 Holly Raiche: Yes Minister technique
01:57:16 Holly Raiche: I like starting with metrics
01:59:08 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: https://ithi.research.icann.org/
02:01:40 Justine Chew: Goals and targets
02:03:22 Satish Babu: Apologies...have to leave now for another meeting.
02:04:21 Marita Moll: cultural change is the hardest thing and requires continuous pressure
02:05:52 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: Sorry we will be losing transcription
02:08:54 Nadira AL-ARAJ: they can trade the string
02:09:40 Jonathan Zuck: I thought that Prendergast's suggested hybrid seemed sensible. It's hard to enforce altogether. I think making everyone make their big as part of their application would be the BEST thing to do.
02:10:56 Judith Hellerstein: Jim predergast suggested a modified vickery auction
02:12:49 Jonathan Zuck: Easy to create an implication for bad faith, HARD to create a definition or prove it.
02:14:16 Jonathan Zuck: Yes!
02:16:27 Nadira AL-ARAJ: it is good approach
02:16:51 Jonathan Zuck: Agree
02:27:02 Jonathan Zuck: We might just need to drop it, as you say.
02:29:09 Roberto: @JZ I see it quite difficult to happen
02:29:32 Roberto: Something should be done to curb scalping, but it is not that easy
02:30:09 Roberto: Exact @Alan
02:31:00 hadia Elminiawi: Interesting discussion. I shall need to leave now though
02:31:29 Roberto: Me too - hard stop in 5 minutes for me
02:32:00 Jonathan Zuck: Ultimately, do we care in general?
02:32:15 Marita Moll: Scalpers are hard to shut down but this a start
02:32:17 Vanda Scartezini: very interesting meeting but in 5 i have another meeting
02:33:05 Jonathan Zuck: We should always be refocusing on individual internet user interests.
02:33:14 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: any commodity will be speculated on
02:33:18 Yrjo Lansipuro: I have to leave the call
02:33:22 hadia Elminiawi: +1 Jonathan - Thank you all - bye for now
02:34:46 Jonathan Zuck: I think it's as good as it can be
02:35:25 Roberto: Sorry, must leave - bye
02:35:34 Michelle DeSmyter: Next meeting: Wednesday, 30 September at 19:00 UTC
02:35:39 Alan Greenberg: Need to leave now. Good meeting.
02:35:46 Nadira AL-ARAJ: community applicants could be among these parties
02:36:19 Evin Erdogdu: Thanks all
02:36:22 Marita Moll: Wow, Justine -- you are amazing
02:36:40 Nadira AL-ARAJ: an excellent meeting thank you Justine
02:36:52 Nadira AL-ARAJ: Justine 
02:36:52 Vanda Scartezini: love to hear form Justine.!
02:37:11 Vanda Scartezini: need to leave, thank you to all!! great meeting
02:37:20 Vanda Scartezini: have a nice week
02:37:23 Marita Moll: okay -- by all
02:37:28 Alfredo Calderon: Stay well and safe!