09:31:13 From ICANN Tech - Rafael : Hello - thanks for joining this session of “At-Large: PICS and PICDRP: What's the Right Path Forward?” Will begin at 15:00/3pm Kuala Lampur Time (07:00 UTC).
For full schedule information and language options please visit;
https://68.schedule.icann.org/meetings/34FwnAvwA7kyZyzYz#/?limit=10&sortByFields[0]=isPinned&sortByFields[1]=lastActivityAt&sortByOrders[0]=-1&sortByOrders[1]=-1
09:44:07 From Yesim Nazlar : Hello, my name is Yeşim Nazlar and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Please note that I will only be able to read your comment/question 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 type your question or comment in English and 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.
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
09:44:22 From Yesim Nazlar : This session also includes interpretation.
To listen to the interpretation, please follow these steps.
1. Download the Congress Rental Network mobile app to your phone or cut and paste the mobile browser link
a. Mobile App Download: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-GET-APP
b. Mobile Browser Link: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-ALAC
2. Enter the Session Token: ICANN68-ALAC
3. For Reference in case needed - Participation How-To Guide: https://68.schedule.icann.org/participation-tools
09:50:28 From Richard_HIll : Hey, it's a computer. They do that to everybody ...
09:52:39 From Maxim Alzoba : Hello all
09:55:53 From Jonathan Zuck : It’s Jamie’s fault
09:56:09 From Maxim Alzoba : no, it is just zoom
09:57:33 From Maxim Alzoba : it is just a picture
09:58:19 From Richard_HIll : Yes, it's just the information screen
09:58:31 From Joanna Kulesza : Hi everyone!
09:58:52 From Maarten Botterman : Good morning from Rotterdam
09:59:04 From Siranush Vardanyan : hello everyone from Armenia
09:59:12 From Richard_HIll : I have been muted by the host
09:59:13 From Claudia Ruiz : This session also includes interpretation.
To listen to the interpretation, please follow these steps.
1. Download the Congress Rental Network mobile app to your phone or cut and paste the mobile browser link
a. Mobile App Download: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-GET-APP
b. Mobile Browser Link: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-ALAC
2. Enter the Session Token: ICANN68-ALAC
3. For Reference in case needed - Participation How-To Guide: https://68.schedule.icann.org/participation-tools
09:59:17 From Jonathan Zuck : Good morning Maarten, from VR!
09:59:34 From Herb Waye : Greetings everyone
09:59:40 From Dave Kissoondoyal : Hello everyone
10:00:08 From Jonathan Zuck : Not quite morning in LA…but close!
10:03:28 From Jonathan Zuck : OR you can just bring it up in a browser
10:03:30 From Claudia Ruiz : https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-GET-APP
10:04:19 From shreedeep rayamajhi : low audio
10:06:12 From Jeffrey Neuman : The question of the session implies that there are problems
10:06:31 From Jeffrey Neuman : It would be good if someone can highlight the problems
10:06:55 From Maxim Alzoba : PICs are already right (those are obligatory)
10:07:18 From Maxim Alzoba : basic text of PICs is same
10:07:47 From Maxim Alzoba : ROs were forced to have it in their Registry Agreement (RA)
10:09:50 From Dave Kissoondoyal : https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Meetings+-+Monday%2C+22+June+2020?preview=/126429396/138970059/Updated%20Holly%20Raiche%20PICs%20slide%5B2%5D%20%20-%20%20Read-Only.pdf
10:10:18 From Claudia Ruiz : When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please type your question or comment in English and 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.
10:10:41 From Yesim Nazlar : Hello, my name is Yeşim Nazlar and I will be monitoring this chat room. In this role, I am the voice for the remote participants. Please note that I will only be able to read your comment/question within the time set by the Chair of this sessionWhen submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please type your question or comment in English and 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.
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
10:11:21 From Yesim Nazlar : This session also includes interpretation.
To listen to the interpretation, please follow these steps.
1. Download the Congress Rental Network mobile app to your phone or cut and paste the mobile browser link
a. Mobile App Download: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-GET-APP
b. Mobile Browser Link: https://urlgeni.us/ICANN68-ALAC
2. Enter the Session Token: ICANN68-ALAC
3. For Reference in case needed - Participation How-To Guide: https://68.schedule.icann.org/participation-tools
10:11:37 From Claudia Ruiz : In response to Zoom bombers we have, effective immediately, disabled attendee rights to unmute and to rename themselves in all Zoom sessions. Any participant violating the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior will be removed. We will continue to assess our options to avoid these disruptions and provide updates for any further changes.
10:12:30 From Jeffrey Neuman : Correction: All PICs are enforceable by ICANN compliance. ICANN has the option of sending any PIC complaint to the PICDRP
10:13:06 From Alan Greenberg : Beat me to it Jeff.
10:13:26 From Richard_HIll : @Jeffrey: I was going to make the same comment when I speak
10:13:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : yup
10:13:48 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : great @Richard
10:14:10 From Alan Greenberg : All PICs are enforceable, but could be worded so that they can be changed. But once there, should be enforceable. By Compliance or a PICDRP.
10:14:52 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Alan - yes.
10:15:39 From Jeffrey Neuman : Thanks @Richard. I was one of the drafters of the PICDRP, so I would be happy to respond to any questions as well.
10:16:10 From Alan Greenberg : The only issue that seem to be unclear if whether ICANN compliance *will* enforce a PIC if it is related to content.
10:17:00 From Jonathan Zuck : Exactly, @Alan or even have to do with the characteristic of the registrant
10:17:14 From Jeffrey Neuman : Its by no means perfect, and I agree it is not well understood. Excited to hear this presentation as one of the co-chairs of Subpro (with the great CLO) and hearing concrete recommendations
10:17:48 From Joanna Kulesza : @Alan, isn't content out of scope per say?
10:17:49 From Richard_HIll : @Alan: if I recall correctly, regarding the PICs proposed by Ethos in the context of the proposed sale of PIR/.ORG, a comment was made to the effect that ICANN might exceed its mandate if it had to enforce a PIC that was outside its mandate.
10:20:15 From Jeffrey Neuman : Except there are puppy hotels ;)
10:20:26 From volker greimann : or tokio.hotel
10:21:05 From Jonathan Zuck : That’s right. That’s one of the reasons that ALAC have suggested that Compliance do an “enforcement analysis” up front so those relying on RVCs know beforehand whether compliance sees a particular commitment as one they can enforce.
10:21:32 From volker greimann : or it could not be a problem
10:22:17 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes, @Jeff, you could make the case that there should be no restricted TLDs but that’s simply not the consumer expectation. They don’t go to .doctor expecting a spin doctor or .bank expecting a blood bank
10:23:40 From Chris Disspain : Jonathan, I don’t think it’s black and white...doctor is most assuredly not a word that can be limited to medical doctors. in company names it is uses
10:23:42 From Benny Samuelsen : In a world were everyone speak English and no other language it makes completely sense.. but that is not how the worlds is build
10:23:44 From Richard_HIll : @Jonathan: if I understand correctly, PICs are contractual terms, so they have to be accepted by ICANN. I presume that ICANN does review them before accepting them.
10:23:54 From Jeffrey Neuman : @jonathan - Depends on the content of the site. A content issue. If you go to a site that advertises a puppy hotel, or puppy spa, I don't think the consumer would be confused.
10:24:04 From Chris Disspain : Jonathan, I don’t think it’s black and white...doctor is most assuredly not a word that can be limited to medical doctors. in company names it is used a lot for computer experts, a
10:24:15 From Maxim Alzoba : before violation = it never happened
10:24:16 From volker greimann : drpepper.doctor
10:24:30 From Chris Disspain : Jonathan, I don’t think it’s black and white...doctor is most assuredly not a word that can be limited to medical doctors. in company names it is used a lot for computer experts, and so on. Dentist on the other hand...
10:25:08 From volker greimann : park.bank could be a clever hack for a bench in a German park, and why not?
10:25:21 From Bill Jouris : Pharmacy might be a better example
10:25:25 From Maxim Alzoba : for geoTLD, how to understand if the website is relevant?
10:25:25 From Jonathan Zuck : Yes, there are PLENTY of possibilities. And there are now PLENTY of generic domains and many folks added voluntary pics to overcome GAC objections. IF they then cannot be enforced, that needs to be known up front
10:25:27 From Ashley Roberts : People don't navigate to TLDs, they navigate to second/third level domains. So one might go to blood.bank expecting to find something related to blood banks.
10:25:32 From volker greimann : .
10:25:54 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Jonathan - don't get me wrong, I don't oppose PICs. I am all for it. I think we should address the actual harms when they occur, not the possible harms
10:26:02 From Justine Chew : An aspect of enforceability is the way commitments, especially voluntary commitments, may be worded - if they are unclear, then they could be unenforceable due to lack of clarity. So a strict screening of commitments offered is needed to make sure they don't end up being unenforceable due to lack of clarity.
10:26:02 From Jonathan Zuck : It’s great that everyone knows different given that Laureen is quoting a worldwide survey
10:26:14 From Benny Samuelsen : Lykkelig.gift = happily married but farlig.gift = dangerous poison but with the logic applied here everyone should expect a page about gifts
10:26:19 From Chris Disspain : Jeff + 1
10:26:23 From Maxim Alzoba : PIC is a part of the Registry Agreement (already)
10:26:23 From Richard_HIll : Is there any research on how often people directly use URLs to find a site, as opposed to using a search engine?
10:26:36 From Gangesh Varma : Please could someone direct me to the report that has the stats used in these slides?
10:26:50 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Jonathan - If you ask a person what they believe will be on a .doctor site, yes I have no doubt that most people will answer a doctor.
10:27:16 From Jonathan Zuck : @Richard, even if you use a search engine, you get to a domain and possibly have an expectation.
10:27:29 From Claudia Ruiz : Friendly reminder: questions or comments will only be read aloud if submitted in English within the Q&A pod. I will read them aloud during the time set by the Chair or Moderator of this session. Questions and comments placed in chat will be considered as part of the “chat” and will not be read out loud on the microphone
10:27:31 From Jeffrey Neuman : But if you ask a consumer to look at a site that is a .doctor and they see it is a site for "lawn.doctor", they would probably think that was ok too
10:27:33 From Rose Ofianga : +1 Jonathan
10:27:34 From Jonathan Zuck : @Jeff, in particular with heavily regulated areas
10:27:34 From Richard_HIll : @Jonathan: agreed
10:27:41 From volker greimann : but when you ask them what they expect under the domain name spin.doctor, the answer may be different
10:28:15 From volker greimann : since when are lawn doctors regulated, jonathan?
10:28:15 From Justine Chew : Yes, would love to understand how to make PICDRP better. Hopefully Richard can oblige.
10:28:22 From Maxim Alzoba : all kinds of things could be found on bad.doctor
10:28:33 From Jonathan Zuck : But Volker, there’s only one spin.doctor. So if it just says. Dre.Doctor, it might be more confusing, no?
10:28:48 From Chris Disspain : Volker that is true but surely the issue is what people expect at the top level isn’t it.
10:29:10 From volker greimann : not really, if marketed by that paticular “doctor”
10:29:37 From Chris Disspain : for me it’s not about the principle of pics but rather to what sort of strings should they be applied
10:29:58 From Jonathan Zuck : I know, that was a joke. But Greimann.doctor might be something you register for your hobby as a DJ but might very well confuse the average user
10:30:11 From volker greimann : ultimately it is the same question as whether domain names in cctlds must be targeted at that country.
10:30:21 From Jeffrey Neuman : Why is the focus always on Spec 11(3) on DNS abuse. There are many other PICs we should be discussing, since there are tons of sessions on DNS Abuse
10:30:35 From Jonathan Zuck : But @Chris, this is a red herring. The fact is that very few PICs were followed or enforced, regardless of how they ended up there
10:31:04 From Richard_HIll : The main issue being discussed in the chat right now goes well beyond PICs. It's what computer scientists call "putting significance in a name". It's typically very difficult to create a naming system that can capture significance appropriately, that's why bar codes use numbers, not names. There is no practical way to put significance into product designators (except for the country and the manufacturer)
10:31:05 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Jonathan - In SubPro we have not seen evidence of that.
10:31:25 From Chris Disspain : Understood Jonathan. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be discussing that.
10:31:31 From Jonathan Zuck : Evidence of non-enforced pics, Jeff?
10:31:51 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Jonathan - yes. Putting DNS Abuse aside because of the broad language
10:32:02 From Richard_HIll : @Jonathan: there have been two PIC DRP cases.
10:32:06 From Jeffrey Neuman : But I am not aware of PIC complaints that were filed where there was no enforcement
10:32:07 From Jonathan Zuck : We’ve gone off the rails talking about. End user expectations. Let’s talk PIR. How. Enforceable did THOSE PICs look to be?
10:32:25 From Claudia Ruiz : When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please type your question or comment in English and 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.
10:32:27 From Jeffrey Neuman : I actually don't want to talk about PIR because that didn't happen
10:32:29 From Maxim Alzoba : it is for new gTLDs
10:32:38 From Chris Disspain : well, hold on.you can’t have a hypothetical if
10:32:56 From Richard_HIll : In the two cases that went to the PIC DRP, the panels did find that they were enforceable.
10:32:57 From Chris Disspain : well, hold on.you can’t have a hypothetical. what about a real example.
10:33:10 From Chris Disspain : indeed
10:33:13 From Jeffrey Neuman : Griffin will address a PICDRP and a problem we found
10:33:20 From Jeffrey Neuman : And SubPro IS addressing that
10:33:26 From Nadira Al Araj : :)))
10:33:27 From Jonathan Zuck : Don’t use PIR then, Jeff. What if a potential new registry publishes PICs, can we rely on them to be enforced when they have to do with free speech and the like?
10:33:30 From Jeffrey Neuman : Hopefully Griffin will state that
10:33:31 From Bill Jouris : We could, of course, just abandon Public Interest Commitments. And then see how the contrated parties like dealing with Attornies General. Which is probably their real world alternative.
10:34:09 From Griffin Barnett : Yeah Laureen is stealing a bit of my thunder here, but that’s OK.. she is probably stating it better than I would
10:34:12 From Bill Jouris : Somehow, our didn't experience this spring (over .org) didn't e
10:34:29 From Griffin Barnett : And yes Jeff, I do address that in my comments
10:34:37 From Bill Jouris : seem that wonderful
10:34:50 From Bill Jouris : Drat, didn't mean to hit Enter in mid sentence
10:35:12 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Laureen - that is only invoked if the registry is found in breach.
10:35:17 From Maxim Alzoba : then IANA was transited from State to California level of governance
10:35:23 From Richard_HIll : @Bill: indeed, it appears to me that enforcement through ICANN, which is what PICs are about, is not the only method for combating abuse. Regular law also applies. So if a non-doctor is advertising as a doctor under ".doctor" they are subject to enforcement under national law
10:35:27 From Jeffrey Neuman : There is a breach dispute resolution process especially if you want to terminate the registry
10:35:56 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Laureen - that is NOT Accurate
10:36:23 From Bill Jouris : @Tichard, makes you wonder why they appear to be resisting enforcement so much, doesn't it?
10:36:33 From Richard_HIll : @Jeffrey: in the .ORG registry agreement, the mechanism is binding arbitration
10:36:34 From Jeffrey Neuman : I would love to raise my hand
10:37:04 From Richard_HIll : @Bill: who is resisting enforcement?
10:37:09 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Richard - In every registry agreement, there is a mechanism of binding arbitration once ICANN decides to "terminate the registry"
10:37:12 From Jonathan Zuck : Jeff, I hope you do
10:37:47 From Maxim Alzoba : how to prevent this from becoming a blackmail mechanics? pay someone or they flood your TLD with the abusive domains
10:38:07 From Bill Jouris : @Richard, well every time the subject comes up, it FEELS like they are resisting it. But perhaps I am misinterpreting what sounds like extremely defensive presentation of what they have done.
10:38:14 From Jeffrey Neuman : .pharmacy and .bank absolutely validate and verify that all pharmacies and banks are accredited.
10:38:22 From Richard_HIll : @Jeffrey: that's what I thought, but I have not read all of them, so I only referred to the one that I had recently looked at in detail.
10:38:25 From Jeffrey Neuman : BEFORE registration
10:38:34 From volker greimann : <question> need for improvement implies there have been significant issues. so far inheard of no such issues. where is the need?
10:39:52 From Claudia Ruiz : When submitting a question or comment that you want me to read out loud on the mic, please type your question or comment in English and 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.
10:40:42 From Richard_HIll : It seems to me that the following issues have been raised (1) the scheme is complex (2) enforcement is slow (3) in some cases, there may be no enforcement at all. I'm not commenting here on the validity of any of these issues, I'm just recapping what I think I heard.
10:41:24 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Richard - I would say (1) is right. (2) has not been established, and (3) has not been established with any examples
10:41:39 From Maxim Alzoba : 80 page contract tends to be complex
10:41:55 From volker greimann : <question> need for improvement implies there have been significant issues. so far inheard of no such issues. where is the need beyond the theoretical?</QUESTION>
10:42:09 From Richard_HIll : Re (1), as I said before, anything involving putting significance into names is indeed complex
10:42:24 From volker greimann : <QUESTION> need for improvement implies there have been significant issues. so far inheard of no such issues. where is the need beyond the theoretical?</QUESTION>
10:42:42 From volker greimann : sorry for the reposts, was informed the format must match
10:42:53 From Yesim Nazlar : Volker - noted your question, thanks
10:44:21 From Griffin Barnett : Sorry but the feedback PICDRP specifically did find breaches of Spec 11 Section 3
10:44:36 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Yesim - Is there a queue?
10:45:35 From Justine Chew : <QUESTION>For Jamie Hedlund, what criteria does Contractual Compliance rely on to determine whether a complaint is valid or invalid?</QUESTION>
10:45:53 From Yesim Nazlar : @Jeffrey - I’m assuming Holly will be taking the questions once the presentation are over
10:46:33 From Justine Chew : <QUESTION>Also Jamie Hedlund, how does ICANN Org educate public on PICs and PICDRPs?</QUESTION>
10:46:49 From Jeffrey Neuman : All _ SubPro is recommending that in the future PICs be made more clear along with a description of the intent behind making the PIC
10:47:29 From Jeffrey Neuman : And by the way, lets not use .pharmacy as it is one of the most responsible registries out there.
10:47:50 From Jim Prendergast : PICS never went through a policy process. It was a creation by a former CEO and imposed upon applicants after the application process was finalized. Could be part of the problem with why language is unclear.
10:47:58 From Lori Schulman : Agree that we need clearer PICS. Lack of clarity stymies ability to enforce.
10:48:20 From Lori Schulman : @Jim. Good point.
10:48:32 From Justine Chew : .pharmacy is considered as a verified TLD, so all potential registrants are screened and verified by the registry operator BEFORE registration is allowed.
10:48:39 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Lori - And SubPro is going to make that a recommendation
10:48:44 From Bill Jouris : <QUESTION>But if a company does multiple businesses, they might have a legitimate business of kind X. But be using the site primarily to do business Y?</QUESTION>
10:48:50 From Suellen Camargos : <QUESTION> if we need to improve enforcement, shouldn't the language in the PICs be a "MUST"? </QUESTION>
10:48:56 From Justine Chew : +1 Jim, the same goes for PICDRP I believe.
10:49:19 From Maxim Alzoba : in other industries things like that might be seen as bait and switch tactics (severe change of rules after the payment)
10:49:49 From Bill Jouris : All drop my question in favor ot the presenters
10:50:14 From Bill Jouris : All => I'll
10:50:27 From Pam Little : + 1 Jim - it was a product of top-down and rushed contractual obligations
10:50:41 From Joanna Kulesza : How do we specify/amend the PICs? Granted they are not specific/valid enough?
10:51:03 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Joanna - what do you think needs to be amended?
10:51:22 From Maxim Alzoba : lack of due process led to undercooked text
10:51:37 From Jeffrey Neuman : SubPro is looking at the PICs and the PICDRP and making some recommendations
10:51:55 From Joanna Kulesza : It was just mentioned they are not specific enough (personally I believe they might go just beyond consumer protection, as currently understood, but that's a different discussion). What I'm asking is just the process.
10:51:59 From Maxim Alzoba : A Registry might update it’s own PIC if ICANN agrees that it is a worthy thing
10:53:14 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Joanna - so the SubPro PDP is reviewing the process and the PICs. SubPro is already likely to make a recommendation that PICs be clearly stated and that applicants describe the intent behind making that PIC.
10:53:21 From Joanna Kulesza : Is there anything _we_ can do? Own action by registry seems unlikely. Once the AtLarge identifies a valid end user interest that is not covered by the PICs - how do we act to protect it, since PICs are beyond policy?
10:53:49 From Nadira Al Araj : Good point @Maxim, it only can be done at registry renewal agreements with ICANN
10:54:37 From Kathy Kleiman : PICDRP did not arise from any Multistakeholder process -- so it does not have the definition, clarity, fairness or balance of the UDRP and URS. Shouldn't this basic issue be remedied?
10:54:50 From Laureen Kapin : One can't assume a lack of problems b/c of a lack of complaints to ICANN compliance. Most end-users have never heard of ICANN, much less ICANN Compliance and the ability to file a complaint.
10:54:51 From Maxim Alzoba : @Nadira, those are different processes
10:55:48 From Nadira Al Araj : Thanks Maxim
10:55:57 From Jonathan Zuck : I really don’t think we should focus on consumer expectations here. This is really just about PICs
10:55:59 From Joanna Kulesza : @Jeff, thanks, but these would not be effective vs e.g. .berlin (not to say .pharmacy)
10:56:11 From Reg Levy - Tucows : +1 Kathy
10:56:30 From Pam Little : +2 Kathy
10:56:33 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Joanna - Sorry, I am not following
10:56:54 From Bruna Santos : +3 Kathy
10:56:57 From Richard_HIll : Yes, I will stay in the call
10:57:06 From Jim Prendergast : +3 Kathy -
10:57:15 From Maxim Alzoba : @Joanna, what expectations are for the GEOs? They have obligations before the local governments and tend to follow closely
10:57:15 From Joanna Kulesza : No worries @Jeffrey, I'll pick this up over coffee once we meet f2f.;)
10:57:29 From Yesim Nazlar : @All - Kind reminder to please state your names before speaking.
10:58:22 From Justine Chew : +4 Kathy, or the level of awareness that PICDRP exists compared to UDRP and URS.
10:58:34 From Joanna Kulesza : @Maxim, yes, in the broader context I'm looking to make these easily accessible to an end-user on the street, preferably one outside the US.
10:59:04 From Maxim Alzoba : @Joanna, those are accessible via the local government
10:59:25 From Richard_HIll : In case people don't know, I've been a UDRP panelist since the inception of the UDRP and am currently handling over 100 cases per year
11:00:24 From Joanna Kulesza : @MAxim I'd love to see stats on local (non-US) LEAs enforcing consumer protection against non-resident domain name registry.
11:00:52 From Joanna Kulesza : LEAs and/or consumer protection bodies. And I'm not even talking jurisdiction and enforceability.
11:01:21 From Maxim Alzoba : @Joanna - they do, but sending these stats to a foreign entity might constitute treason charges
11:02:02 From Maxim Alzoba : so if RO is in Jurisdiction A, they are subject to laws of A, LEAs of A can do what is prescribed in laws
11:02:07 From Joanna Kulesza : Thanks @Maxim! Very helpful.
11:02:08 From Brian beckham : adding to Griffin: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1465
11:02:45 From Maxim Alzoba : after all ROs are law abiding entities
11:03:41 From Jeffrey Neuman : FYI - Griffin points out some real issues. But many of these issues have been remedied already in recent changes, and others are being addressed by SubPro PDP
11:04:10 From Richard_HIll : In my view, PIC DRP is not a true adversarial process, because it is embedded in the ICANN compliance system
11:04:39 From Chris Disspain : thanks Jeff. presumably the sub pro addressing the issues also answers Kathy’s earlier point about the birth of PICs?
11:05:04 From Kathy Kleiman : No
11:05:05 From Maxim Alzoba : birth of current PICs was top down
11:05:28 From Chris Disspain : why doesn’t it Kathy?
11:05:34 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Richard - it was designed that way. That was a result of the fact that the contract (which is being enforced) is a contract between ICANN and the registry...not the registry and the world. Plus, it is also the quid pro quo for the complainant not having to show that it was harmed
11:05:53 From Richard_HIll : @Jeffrey: correct.
11:05:58 From Kathy Kleiman : SubPro has defined PICDRP as out of scope because it impacts all new gTLDs, not just the ones to come.
11:06:07 From Jeffrey Neuman : So in the absence of a standing requirement (to show harm), the process wasn't designed as adversarial
11:06:10 From Jamie Hedlund : Improvements to PICDRP described at https://www.icann.org/news/blog/public-interest-commitment-dispute-resolution-procedure-improvements
11:06:20 From Chris Disspain : I’m confused, obviously
11:06:24 From Jeffrey Neuman : @Kathy - that is not correct
11:06:29 From Richard_HIll : @Jeffrey, again, correct.
11:06:30 From Kathy Kleiman : Thought is that GNSO should undertake another proceeding to review PICDRP.
11:06:46 From Kathy Kleiman : @Jeff - we are dealing with some aspects of PICs, but not the PICDRP
11:06:52 From Kathy Kleiman : in SubPro
11:07:16 From Chris Disspain : ah...that’s the distinction..ok...got it
11:07:20 From Richard_HIll : @Kathy, Jeffrey: my second "correct" did not refer to Jeffrey's comment on Kathy's comment.
11:10:17 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Well noted @Richard
11:10:37 From Justine Chew : <QUESTION>For Griffin Barnett, in your opinion, what else needs to be improved of the PICDRP post the ones highlighted by Jamie Hedlund?</QUESTION>
11:11:52 From Jeffrey Neuman : All - just to be clear, we had at least 3 public comment periods. Other than the concerns Griffin has raised, SubPro got no clear comments on recommendations on concerns or on how to improve the PICDRP. Rather, most of the concerns were addressed as Griffin explained. If there are concrete recommendations, please submit them during the comment period for the SubPro draft final report.
11:13:14 From Gisella Gruber : @All - Kind reminder to please state your names before speaking. This is to identify you on the other language channels - we have French and Spanish interpretation on all our sessions. As well as for transcription purposes
11:13:33 From Griffin Barnett : Justine - I think the rec from Sub Pro about RO fraud/deceptive practices is a good step forward
11:14:24 From Justine Chew : @Griffin, absolutely. Just wondering if there might be more :)
11:14:25 From Griffin Barnett : I also think we need a similar change to how Spec 11 3(a) is worded to make it clear that consequences for the list of prohibited activities must be implemented by contracted parties and if they are not in a reasonable way, that ICANN may enforce
11:14:27 From Yesim Nazlar : From volker greimann to Everyone: (10:41 AM)
<question> need for improvement implies there have been significant issues. so far inheard of no such issues. where is the need beyond the theoretical?</QUESTION>
11:14:55 From Griffin Barnett : I mean…. I just told you the problems we encountered Volker
11:15:04 From Griffin Barnett : I also think Laureen recounted problems
11:15:15 From volker greimann : that was one case.
11:15:34 From Griffin Barnett : Maybe not a widespread among many ROs - which is good - but when they do arise they are serious and need to be addressed
11:16:00 From Maxim Alzoba : one out of how many? less than 1%
11:17:00 From Griffin Barnett : Not only end users who would likely have no idea about how to bring a complaint, even sophisticated companies don’t know
11:17:48 From Maxim Alzoba : not all people can stand in the court, so it is somewhat similar
11:18:20 From Bill Jouris : Less that 1% of new cars have mechanical problems. Doesn't mean you don't need to work on fixing them.
11:18:30 From Griffin Barnett : Nothing more to add here
11:18:56 From Yesim Nazlar : From Justine Chew to Everyone: (10:45 AM)
<QUESTION>For Jamie Hedlund, what criteria does Contractual Compliance rely on to determine whether a complaint is valid or invalid?</QUESTION>
From Justine Chew to Everyone: (10:46 AM)
<QUESTION>Also Jamie Hedlund, how does ICANN Org educate public on PICs and PICDRPs?</QUESTION>
11:19:36 From Maxim Alzoba : @Bill this does not require 99% cars to be changed
11:21:43 From Richard_HIll : @Maxim: it seems to me that the question here is whether the current ICANN process is adequate to detect and correct the 1%
11:22:21 From Maxim Alzoba : if the changes are to be suggested , it should be a proper due process this time
11:22:45 From Griffin Barnett : That’s what Sub Pro is doing
11:23:04 From Kathy Kleiman : +1 Maxim
11:23:10 From Bill Jouris : @Maxim, it does for the correction notices I've gotten over the years
11:23:25 From Jamie Hedlund : Can’t unmute
11:24:05 From Maxim Alzoba : @Bill, only those with potentially affected cars receive it , not all car owners
11:24:47 From Justine Chew : I thought I saw more questions
11:24:56 From Griffin Barnett : @Maxim I would liken this more to having safety belts in cars… even if you believe that fatalities from car crashes is statistically insignificant, you should still require safety belts in all cars
11:26:57 From Justine Chew : @jeff, probably along the lines of possible PICs SubPro is considering for String Similarity restrictions?
11:27:10 From Bill Jouris : @Maxim,
11:27:25 From Bill Jouris : For a part that fails 1% of the time? Everybody gets it replaced
11:27:55 From Maxim Alzoba : if only 1% of models have a flaw, not all 100% of those get replacements
11:27:56 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr : Jeff you and I need to be over with GAC now...
11:28:05 From Yesim Nazlar : From Bill Jouris to Everyone: (10:48 AM)
<QUESTION>But if a company does multiple businesses, they might have a legitimate business of kind X. But be using the site primarily to do business Y?</QUESTION>
11:28:12 From Bill Jouris : @Griffn, that's the kind of problem I confess I had in mind
11:28:34 From Laureen Kapin : Just to clarify, I was asked to discuss user expectations about new gTLDs. Also, CCT review team made Recs about this topic. PICDRP is quite complex and lengthy and can lead to separate DRP (even if limited in scope).
11:28:45 From Griffin Barnett : Seems more like a question for Laureen?
11:29:10 From Maxim Alzoba : so far ICANN was not regulating content, this seems to be a radical shift
11:29:11 From Kathy Kleiman : To what Jeff has shared - .HORSE has become a place for artists.
11:29:31 From Griffin Barnett : Expectations about how gTLDs are used could relate to fraudulent or deceptive practices, which is covered under Spec 113a
11:29:42 From Griffin Barnett : But I tend to agree it’s a bit tenuous perhaps
11:30:25 From Griffin Barnett : But I think the issue Laureen is talking about is specific only to the regulated.high-regulated categories and not generally applicable
11:30:47 From Dave Kissoondoyal : +1
11:30:56 From Dave Kissoondoyal : Thanks and bye to all
11:31:00 From Matthew Shears : Thanks all!
11:31:01 From Maarten Botterman : Thanks for the session!
11:31:03 From Danko Jevtović : thanks *.*, good discussion
11:31:03 From Richard_HIll : thanks to all
11:31:07 From Suellen Camargos : thanks !!! great session
11:31:08 From Maxim Alzoba : thanks all
11:31:11 From Jamie Hedlund : Thanks all!
11:31:12 From Heidi Ullrich : Thanks, all.
11:31:16 From Tripti Sinha : Thank you
11:31:17 From Katambi Joan : bye
11:31:17 From Rose Ofianga : thanks all
