Page History

SESSION 3 ACTION ITEMS

Leadership will review the notes and transcript to best determine how to address Charter Question D5

SESSION 3 NOTES

• Roll Call and SOI Updates 
• Welcome and Chair Updates 
  • The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and handed the mic over to GNSO Chair Sebastian Ducos for some remarks
    • The GNSO Chair congratulated the EPDP team on achieving full consensus for the Phase 1 Final Report
    • The EPDP Chair thanked the GNSO chair and congratulated the team as well
• Continued Discussion of Source Domain: D4 
  • Staff then introduced the topics for the day, including the continued discussion regarding the source domain.
    • Staff asked if there was any comment or question from the team, but there was no objection for the rationale updates for Preliminary Rec 5
• Identifying the Same Registrant: C3, C3a 
  • Staff described the updates to developing responses to the charter questions C3 and C3a. 
    • This received approval in chat from multiple team members
• Variant Domain Transaction Fees: D5 
  • Staff described the preliminary recommendation to capture the agreement about mandatory annual fees for registration, renewal, or transfer for each REGISTERED variant domain name. Activated variant domain names would not be charged the annual fee.
    • One team member commented that this might not be necessary. If a variant is not registered, then it doesn't get charged. They are not sure why it would have to be 

• The chair replied that they would like to view the language in the registrar and registry agreements regarding this as it might not matter if it is in or not in a variant domain set. “A domain name is a domain name is a domain name”

• A team member commented in chat with the following excerpt from the registry agreement “The registry-level transaction fee will be equal to the number of annual increments of an initial or renewal domain name registration (at one or more levels, and including renewals associated with transfers from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another, each a “Transaction”), during the applicable calendar quarter multiplied by US$0.25”
  • Taken from Article 6, 6.1 Registry-Level Fees: https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/nrw/nrw-agmt-html-21nov13-en.htm
• Another team member commented “situation where some registries are to pay for each variant in the set and some not - is going to be a huge issue” 
  • They spoke about the possibility of angering regulators and tax agencies about this.
    • The chair mentioned they would like to get to an understanding where it doesn't matter if the registered domain is being used as part of a variant set or not. It should be treated equally
• A different team member questioned legal distinction between registration and activation
  • The chair replied that registration is a specific process and that garners a fee being charged.
    • There is a need to clear up language regarding this
• The vice chair discussed the meaning of registration.
  • “If the domain name is used, will it trigger fees”
• The vice chair continued,  what are the use cases of activating but not registering?
  • One team member discussed the process of reserved domain names  
    • If you change the property of a reserved variant, it should not incur a fee, they suggested.
  • The GNSO Chair discussed that Reserved Names are set aside for future registrations. If the name applied for is on this list of set asides, then the application fails.

• They are not sure how this applies to this question.

• A team member posted: “if the result of activation is indistinguishable from the results of the activation - there is an issue in courts around the globe. it sounds pretty much like an allocation without the registration. I think registered domains without NS records are still used , at least as a proof in UDRP or courts. fees are not applicable to reserved names. reserved might be different from allocation or can mean the same depends on the implementation. fees are for registered domains”
  • They continued by talking about the process including escrow and accounting. For the reasons of potentially 

• Another team member described the two labels that can be applied for registrars regarding this process in EPP: Escrow and Not a Domain Name (NADN)
• The chair mentioned that this depends on the registry policy
  • A team member from the RySG mentioned that if the registry policy says that a variant domain name is the same as a regular domain name, then it goes through the regular reporting and billing process.
  • If variant domain names are qualified in a different way, then they won't trigger the billing process. 
• The same entity principal enforcement is also going to be key, per a different team member. 
• The chair mentioned that there is a fee associated with each domain name. Leadership will research appropriate language that will future proof for variant domains at the second level. It should not be convoluted and can probably be thought of as being straight forward. 
  • ACTION ITEM: Leadership will review the notes and transcript to best determine how to address Charter Question D5. 
• A team member asked whether or not ICANN receives a fee for every registered domain name. If yes, they believe there should be a fee. Whether or not a registry charges for variants, they should have to pay for them. If they want to make it free, then it is a marketing expense.
• A member of staff asked if there are different ways for domains to come into the DNS and serve content, but some can be billable and some cannot. 
  • One way to instantiate a domain is to put an EPP create command in, which creates a billable transaction 
  • Another method is to activate a domain, it serves content, but it is not billable. 
    • There is not alignment on this, but this seems to be the general understanding
• The chair is not concerned with updating processes and lower-level information; they are concerned at the high level. 
• The GNSO chair delineated transaction vs domain names. ICANN will match the amount of domain names to what the registrars report. 
• AOB
  • The chair thanked Dennis Tan for his fantastic work and efforts for this group subject matter.
  • Staff provided an update on the final reporting process, pursuant to the final deadline of 7 November for delivery to the GNSO council.
  • The chair announced they would like to finish all charter questions by the time they leave the Kuala Lumpur Face-to-Face meeting.