00:48:56 Satish Babu (APRALO): Good day, everyone!
00:49:14 Herb Waye Ombuds: Greetings from the ICANN Office of the Ombuds. Our virtual Office is open for drop-in visits during ICANN71. Details are posted in the Conversation forum on the main ICANN71 page. Anyone wishing to speak with the Ombuds team of Herb & Barb can also reach us at ombudsman@icann.org
Stay safe and be kind.
00:53:57 Lucien Castex: Bonjour à toutes et à tous
00:55:56 Claudia Ruiz: Hello, my name is Claudia Ruiz and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Please note that I will read aloud comments/questions submitted in English within the time set by the Chair of this session.
When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please start with a <QUESTION> and end with a “</QUESTION>” or <COMMENT> </COMMENT>. Text outside these quotes will be considered as part of “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone.
00:56:06 Claudia Ruiz: To listen to the interpretation, please click on the interpretation icon in the Zoom toolbar and select the language you will listen to and/or speak during this session.
To view the real time transcription, click on the “closed caption” button in the Zoom toolbar.
Please note that chat sessions are being archived and follow the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/expected-standards.
01:11:22 David McAuley (Verisign): Is a link available to this UDRP decision?
01:11:45 Greg Shatan: David, this is not a UDRP decision.
01:12:15 David McAuley (Verisign): Thanks, Greg - I misheard
01:12:17 Greg Shatan: It's from an Indian DRP apparently modeled on the UDRP.
01:18:13 alberto soto: Sorry, my internet connection is very unstable. I'll watch the recording later. Best regards and thank you very much
01:20:03 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: "hand up" is in "reactions" tab
01:20:04 Greg Shatan: Raise Hand has been moved under "Reactions"
01:20:17 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: one of Zoom's less clever "improvements"
01:21:32 Heidi Ullrich: WTO Geographical Names site: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_e.htm
01:21:56 Heidi Ullrich: Geographical indications, that is.
01:22:58 Greg Shatan: The key to the room is via the PDP.
01:23:39 Lucien Castex: Indeed not the best change in the interface ;-)
01:23:43 Greg Shatan: Apologies for casual use of acronyms!
01:26:49 Giovanni Seppia: Dear All, I need to leave for my next meeting. Should you have any question, contact me at giovanni.seppia@eurid.eu
01:29:49 Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to GNSO Council: Thanks @Giovanni
01:31:20 Marita Moll: Few roads through this forest -- you got that right @Greg
01:33:38 Greg Shatan: "Expedited" = "with all deliberate speed"
01:33:57 Greg Shatan: Of course, a "regular" PDP seems to last 5 years..
01:34:19 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: @Christopher: we are going through exceptional circumstances so it is understandable that PDPs are delayed
01:35:20 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: in yesterday's multistakeholder plenary discussion, Jovan Kurbalija suggested the word of the day for Geneva today, that he suggested for ICANN: Compromise
01:35:51 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: The problem with PDPs that have no F2F meetings is that nobody appears to be willing or able to reach a mutually beneficial compromise
01:37:04 Greg Shatan: PDP reform is probably out of scope here, but this is a good example of why it is (still) needed.
01:37:14 Susan Payne: slightly facetious comment but isn't reflecting the concerns of end users what the At Large is here for?
01:37:54 Sébastien Bachollet: Yes Susan but the Policy with big P is only in the GNSO
01:38:03 Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to GNSO Council: Indeed @Marita
01:38:30 Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to GNSO Council: Indeed it is @Susan
01:38:32 Sébastien Bachollet: At-Large, ALAC is not inside the GNSO except with a (very good) liaison
01:38:32 Lucien Castex: Clearly the lack of F2F meeting is an issue
01:38:55 Greg Shatan: Susan, Yes, which is why it is so frustrating when At Large gets only a minimal number of seats in e.g., the EPDP.
01:39:32 Susan Payne: Sebastien that is not entirely true. The ALAC often even co-holds the chair - for SubPro, Work Track 5 on Geo names for example. many at large members have participated in work efforts like SubPro, RPMs, EPDP on registration data
01:40:23 Sébastien Bachollet: Yes Susan but at the end the minority is not taken into account
01:40:48 Roberto: @Susan - but the GNSO Council has the last word
01:42:05 Greg Shatan: Susan, I think part of Sebastien's point is that ALAC is literally not a GNSO structure -- not that there is no participation from At Large. Of course, there is no At Large vote at the Council table, so no representation of end users at Council.
01:43:50 Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Liaison to GNSO Council: Also @Susan with Sub Pro it was a pre PDP 3.0 structure and one that the Leadership ( yes biased obviously) did their best to ensure optimal balance of interests in as much as possible BUT in the post 3.0 PDP models world all to often there is a more fortress and less open process etc., and Yes I concur with @Greg's point above...
01:44:22 Roberto: @Francis - now you need to find the “Lower Hand” button
01:44:22 Martin Sutton: Francis - have you tried to approach/join the Intellectual Property Constituency to raise the concerns and issues you have? Seems like this is a channel to explore which gives you direct access into the GNSO
01:44:58 Bill Jouris: <QUESTION>If we are making a list of reserved terms, will we set up a procedure to simultaneously block registration of names which differ from those reserved terms only by the use of the Variants which have been identified?</QUESTION>
01:45:11 Francis Fay: @Olivier 'money to be made' ... but hopefully not from bad faith behaviour
01:45:40 Greg Shatan: @Roberto, you are being tricky, there is no separate "Lower Hand" button -- just the same button differently labeled.
01:45:55 Martin Sutton: To Olivier’s point regarding abuse, the majority of abuse remains in legacy and ccTLD environments
01:46:00 Martin Sutton: not New gTLDs
01:46:12 Susan Payne: @Olivier - indeed, there is significant interest from dotBrands, and some very interesting usage by the first round dotBrads - which they do not always trumpet in ICANN, but quietly get on with using
01:46:28 Roberto: I am already approaching the Social Event mood…. @Greg
01:46:32 Martin Sutton: Many of the new gTLDs have greater controls that prevent/mitigate abuse, scams and fraud
01:48:30 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Some new gTLDs are down to around a few hundred new registrations per month. Others, typically the heavily discounted ones, have higher new registrations per month but the retention on those is poor. Some of the heavily discounted new gTLD zones have 70% or more domain name replacement in the space of a year.
01:49:06 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: @Martin - some new gTLDs tried marketing $1 domains to grow their registration numbers and ended up with real problems in their registrations
01:49:33 Latha: that is an excellent question
01:49:46 Lucien Castex: It’ quite fine Christopher. We can hear you fine.
01:50:06 Susan Payne: @Christopher, I don't believe there would be anything to stop a GI applying for a TLD - Champagne, for example. Nothing in the rules prevents this so far as I know
01:50:52 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: The Trademark Clearing House approach might be a possible solution if the politics can be resolved.
01:52:54 Roberto: @Martin - just curious, when you say “the majority” you mean in absolute numbers or in percentage by registrations?
01:53:15 Martin Sutton: Roberto - absolute numbers
01:53:38 Roberto: Thanks @Martin
01:53:42 Martin Sutton: And absolute numbers are important when considering impact on end users
01:54:13 Roberto: sure
01:54:14 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: A lot of abusive activity moved to the heavily discounted new gTLDs from the legacy gTLDs and some ccTLDs.
01:57:28 Olivier Crépin-Leblond: @John: exactly
01:58:53 Martin Sutton: @John you would expect abuse to move around and I did not suggest the new gTLDs are free from abuse. Many are, where tighter restrictions and better controls have been applied - which is positive for end users.
01:58:56 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Olivier @Martin There was a good study as part of the CCT by SIDN on the shift. Basically, the low cost regs made some forms of abusive regs far more economically viable than they had been in higher cost legacy gTLDs
02:00:00 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Martin I was running periodic web usage surveys of all the new gTLDs and the shift was apparent. One of the NGTs had about 1.2 million regs but only a few hundred actively developed websites.
02:00:51 Martin Sutton: Thx John - but that does not change what I originally said
02:04:00 Susan Payne: I put hand down
02:04:02 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Martin The .COM has the most registrations but the discounted NGTs made some newer forms of abuse far more economically viable.
02:06:33 Martin Sutton: That is not surprising John, same things happened with .cn many yrs back. And compliance could do more to track these issues at ICANN
02:07:14 Francis Fay: @Marita: 'first in time' or take account of later-in-time? If it concerns an intellectual property right - essential to take accout of the later-in-time...
02:07:51 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: ICAN compliance tends to be slow to react on this but most of the discounted regs do not renew. Some of these discounted reg TLDs have a first renewal rate of 5% or so.
02:08:36 Francis Fay: Didn't WT-5 rather miss distinction btw 'geo name' and 'GI' - (not IPR and IPR)
02:08:40 Martin Sutton: The tracking and reporting of abuse continue to improve for monitoring (and hopefully taking action against) actors in the DNS space. But for many of the new gTLDs there is zero abuse.
02:09:17 Marita Moll: Indeed Susan -- it was a difficult resolution
02:09:39 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Martin Discounting happens in most TLDs and used well ,and sparingly, it can grow the TLD. But heavy discounting destroys the credibility of a TLD and attracts bad activity.
02:09:42 Yrjo Lansipuro: A good case in point is Nokia, that grew up from a small paper mill in the municipality of Nokia. There was never a dispute which one would have .nokia
02:10:30 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: One of the reasons for the lack of abuse in some new gTLDs is because the reg fee is a multiple of that of .COM. That limits some kinds of abuse.
02:10:55 Francis Fay: @Greg - thanks, very clear
02:12:18 Roberto: @John - the case of .se supports what you say - when they raised the price the volumes went up
02:13:18 Marita Moll: Thanks Latha -- that kind of put it on a case by case basis. The city (town) in Germany is called Meissen -- which has a famous porcelain industry
02:13:19 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Martin Have also been tracking .SE stats (as well as the gTLDs and some other ccTLDs) The ccTLDs tend to have their own dynamics.
02:14:17 Martin Sutton: All good work John and I am sure there will be some fluidity as bad actors find what suits them best (price, uptime, access to networks, etc)
02:18:02 Heidi Ullrich, ICANN org: Many thanks to the organisers, presenters and participants.
02:18:57 Chokri Ben Romdhane: Félicitations luciens exellent recap
02:19:02 Chokri Ben Romdhane: Merci
02:19:29 Dave Kissoondoyal - ALAC: Thanks and bye to all
02:19:36 Cheryl Langdon-Orr: Excellent session THANKS
02:19:36 Geo Van Langenhove: Merci, Lucien!
02:19:40 YingChu Chen: Really enjoy it. Thank you.
02:19:43 Francis Fay: Thanks to Lucien for exemplary sumary, and to Sandra, Chris and everone !!!
02:19:48 John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Thanks all/ Later
02:19:50 Marita Moll: Only 2 minutes overtime on the topic of geonames -- that's amazing
02:19:52 Lucien Castex: Great discussion
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
