Page History

Mp3

AC Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

Apologies: Michael Flemming, Julie Hedlund (staff), Heath Dixon

Notes/ Action Items

Notes/Action Items:

1. Agenda review/SOIs

- No SOI updates

2. Discussion of Public Comments:

a. Continued - 2.8.1: Objections (starting with 2.8.1.e.16, line 195 in the Google Doc)

- 2.8.1.e.16 - ALAC, BRG, INTA, Neustar, RySG, Google, and IPC express support

- 2.8.1.e.17 -  support from NABP, ALAC, USPS, IPC with some caveats. Divergence from RrSG, RySG, and BRG.

Action Item: Change designation for INTA comment at line 211 - should be agreement. Check with INTA to confirm interpretation is correct.

- Doctrine of foreign equivalency - where a term is applied for as a trademark, and it is a translation of another trademark, confusing similarity rules apply. This INTA comment seems to support the notion of an objection based on foreign equivalency.

- Action Item: Follow up with the IPC on comment in response to 2.8.1.e.17 where it is labeled concerns. What do they mean by "limitations"? Regarding the sentence beginning "The grounds for objections . . ." -- does this mean that if an application sets forth safeguards that there should still be an objections process for the owner of the existing string?

From the chat:

Justine Chew: What does INTA's comment say in 2.7.4.c.1.1?

- In response to Justine's question -- "INTA supports the recommendation that singular and plural versions of the same word in the same language of the same type of string should be evaluated for string confusion, with the intent that where an applied for string is the singular/plural of an existing string the application will not proceed unless the applicant is also the registry operator (or an affiliate) of the prior blocking string. Further, where there are multiple applications for the same term and/or its singular/plural these should be placed into a single contention set. INTA has concerns that allowing further singulars and plurals of the same string to coexist at the top level will open the Internet community to potential abuse, consumer confusion, and the need for additional defensive registrations. Applicants may feel compelled to apply for additional strings, thereby unnecessarily increasing the cost for TLDs, complicating the launch process for Applicants, and crowding the root zone with largely unused or unwanted TLDs. We also support this applying to foreign equivalents. Where applicants are brands which co-exist in the real world, applying for a .Brand, it should not be assumed that one is a plural of another. The nature of the TLDs in this case should be taken into consideration in evaluating the string similarity. The mere addition of the letter “s” to an English word should not be assumed to indicate that it is a plural – it will depend on context. The word “news” is not the plural of “new”."

- 2.8.1.e.18 - Support from BRG, USPS, RySG. Divergence and new ideas from INTA and IPC.

- Suggestion: code all comments as supportive of the legal rights objection, and clarify that INTA and IPC suggest improvements to the LRO. Important to clarify that these groups do not oppose the LRO. Note: Resolved per staff comment below.

From the chat:

Justine Chew: @Jeff, good point

Susan Payne: the question is should the standard stay the same - so the divergence is that they say no, it needs to be improved

Steve Chan: Added an explanatory note in the notes column: Note, Divergence is in relation to the standard of proof rather (as asked), rather than opposition to the LRO itself.

- 2.8.1.e.19 - INTA and IPC support. Divergence from RySG.

- The proposal was put forward by Paul McGrady of the IPC. The group kept inviting Paul back to discuss the proposal, but it did not end up being possible to discuss the proposal further with him before publication of the Initial Report. It might be worth discussing further to make sure that everyone understands the proposal.

- Possible action item is to invite Paul or the IPC to further explain the proposal and answer questions to make sure that everyone understands what it entails.

From the chat:

Kathy Kleiman: Do we have any studies of the legal rights objections?

Kathy Kleiman: How they worked?

Steve Chan: @Kathy, there are statistics in the Initial Report on outcomes. However, whether the panels determined everything accurately is a more subjective matter.

Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - As steve said, the data is there.  It can be interprted in a number of subjective ways.  BUt it is worth noting for the record that no one opposed the notion of continuing with having Legal Rights Objection

- Question: If Paul pitches a new proposal to the WG, how does that go the community for further review?

- The details about the proposal have been put out for public comment already as part of the Initial Report. There may be a further opportunity for Paul to answer questions and provide clarification to the WG.

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - At this point there is only support from the IPC/INTA for the proposal.  It will be discussed by Full Working Group.  If the Full Group wants to consider adopting it, then there would have to public input into it

Kathy Kleiman: I like the idea of the public input!

Jeff Neuman: @Kathy - understood.  But if the working group does not agree on a proposal, then I am not sure there is a need for public input. 

- Section 2.8.1 “Other comments”:

- Several new ideas are presented -- to be shared with the full group.

- Line 227 - Council of Europe - this may make more sense under 2.8.1.e.18 – [text has been moved by staff in response to this discussion]

b. 2.8.2: Accountability Mechanisms

- 2.8.2.c.1 -

From the chat:

Jeff Neuman: I thikn the question should say action or INaction

Jeff Neuman: @CLO - you read it right, but the words used in the written question was wrong :)

- Support from ALAC, BRG, INTA, IPC, CCT-RT Report. In initial coding of the comments - Support/new idea/divergence from RySG and Valideus. Concerns from NCSG and ICANN Org.

- If the question said what is written in the review tool, RySG and Valideus comments shouldn’t be orange. They should be red for divergence -- these responses oppose having an appeals mechanisms to address if ICANN violated the Bylaws.

Action Item: for RySG and Valideus comments in response to 2.8.2.c.1 -- change concerns to divergence.

- NCSG comments on line 12 - the sentence "Bearing that in mind, developing accountability mechanisms and/or a reconsideration process that is specific to the needs and requirements of the NGTLD program would be a significant improvement" appears to be agreement with the recommendation [staff has made this change in response to the discussion]

- Jeff Neuman: @Steve - It does seem like that NCSG comment is mostly in support.  They seem to say that the Accountability mechanisms were burdened with new gTLD appeals type questions and that next time there should be a different process.

Jeff Neuman: So I see the comment agreeint that an appeals process is needed

Jeff Neuman: But the NCSG should confirm

Action Item: Confirm that the NCSG is expressing support in their comment on recommendation 2.8.2.c.1

2.8.2.c.2 - Support from ALAC, BRG, BC, INTA, IPC, RySG

Next call will pick up at 2.8.2.c.3

3. AOB

- None