Zoom Chat: 2021-08-11 At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)

13:55:17 From Devan Reed - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Hello All, Welcome to the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 21th July 2021.
13:58:57 From Evin Erdogdu to Everyone:
Hello all, welcome
14:00:06 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
I note that I seem to have access to My Apps (those I have added to my Zoom account) available for use (I assume to screen share access) within the ICANN Meetings...
14:00:51 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
So I could Share or Send from My Apps like Miro or Survey Monkey
14:00:55 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
interesting
14:01:05 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
That’s right @Cheryl but the timer, in particular, is implemented via screen share, rather than some sort of overlay which would be so much more useful
14:01:26 From Dave Kissoondoyal to Everyone:
Hello everyone
14:01:27 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
let's hope it keeps evolving then
14:01:32 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
45-47 in Tunis this week
14:01:52 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
I hate to say so but in winter here, it was in the low twenties with sun
14:02:15 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
that's an Aus summer set of temps @Chokri !!
14:02:35 From Herb Waye Ombuds to Everyone:
Greetings everyone.
14:03:12 From Eduardo Diaz to Everyone:
¡Hola a todos!
14:03:27 From Devan Reed - ICANN Org to Everyone:
RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
14:03:54 From Heidi Ullrich to Everyone:
Welcome, All.
14:10:00 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
did the losing FOA have some legal or contractual impact?
14:10:12 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
I vote NO, but I can’t vote as a co-host
14:10:55 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
strange? I can vote
14:10:57 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
release the co-host rights, vote, then get the rights back
14:11:06 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
and you are no longer co-host JOnathan
14:11:12 From Devan Reed - ICANN Org to Everyone:
I removed co-host, it should work for you now Jomathan
14:11:40 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
other question did the losing FAO have any impact on the period of Transfer process?
14:12:01 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
What is the implication - is there otherwise notice that the transfer is being initiated
14:12:16 From Michael Palage (fTLD) to Everyone:
I find that rather "weak"
14:12:41 From Michael Palage (fTLD) to Everyone:
Which security experts stated thta
14:12:53 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
It is a nasty security problem.
14:14:11 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Good result - we need to look at the implications for the losing registrar/registrant
14:14:25 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@Holly That is a very important question
14:15:41 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
It would make transfers vulnerable where the dom for main nameservers for the mailserver has been dropped and reregistered. 2FA might help with that.
14:17:12 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
It would require the previous e-mail address to be known but registrations that are pre-2018 (the great GDPR wipeout) could be at risk.
14:19:56 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ John - So you voted no?
14:20:18 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Holly Voted not sure. It is a worrying situation.
14:20:25 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John At present, what information does the Registry has about the domain name? Is it merely Registrant's contact information, A records, or all records including records such as Mx records etc?
14:20:55 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Holly Just spent the last few hours working on zombie hosters and counting the numbers of domain names still hosted on them.
14:21:01 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
i.e What records are considered necessary for the Registry to keep note of, and what records are considered unnecessary?
14:21:21 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Steiner - for next week’s presentation, could we have a presentation on the implications of any change BEFORE we vote
14:21:36 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
A zombie hoster is where the domain name for the nameservers has been deleted from the zone.
14:30:10 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
Hello all
14:30:19 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
sorry or joining late
14:30:26 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
for
14:32:43 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
@IGO ‘curative’ WT: I consider that the limitation to curative rights is prejudicial. It should be ‘preventative’. Curative procedures , widely preferred by GNSO members, effectively shifts the burden of proof in a way that I consider unacceptable. CW
14:36:43 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Certain names, a class of known and important names may have to be treated as inviolable names.
14:42:57 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
Some answers to the chat discussion re Losing FOA.

The transfer policy covers the change of sponsoring registrar for a domain name only. Changing nameservers in a transfer is not recommended and not included in the present policy or charter questions.

The Transfer Authorization Code (TAC) is created/given to the registrant by the losing Registrar. Present, the losing FOA is sent when the transfer is initiated i.e TAC validated OK. The losing FOA is a notice to the registrant where the registrant can cancel the transfer.

A transfer will only succeed if the domain name is eligible for a transfer (transfer locks removed etc,) and a valid TAC.
14:43:17 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Siva - the bigger issue - why should such names have such status? What are the grounds for challenge?
14:45:58 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
someone with registrant's riggts operating un.com theoretically runs at least a miniscule part of UN.
14:46:10 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
Link to the Losing FOA working document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wCUMe9ii6g05kUZ558IuUvJaS6K2t0GZJYvlfOy-raY/edit?usp=sharing
14:46:42 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
that is @holly
14:47:51 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Steiner - maybe put the document up to explain BEFORE a vote, so everyone can understand the implications
14:49:21 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
@Holly. Point taken.
14:53:39 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Steiner - thanks
15:00:24 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
kindly, I will have to drop off the call
15:02:53 From Siva... Away to Everyone:
During all this lengthy process, assuming there is a problem with un.TLD, is there some swift directive to place the domain name under suspension at least?
15:04:27 From Yrjo Lansipuro to Everyone:
@Siva: No. Thaty’s why achieving results by this WT is pretty important
15:05:41 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Indeed @Yrjo!
15:05:53 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
What if the IGO is only recently formed and the registrant's registration pre-dates the IGO formation date?
15:06:27 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
That would be grounds for an IGO losing a UDRP
15:09:54 From Yrjo Lansipuro to Everyone:
@John: in that would happen, this would not be a case for the process we’re now discussing
15:10:22 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Yrjo Thanks.
15:11:10 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ John - to me, that is the issue: what status should IGO names
15:11:14 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@ Yrjo but even this WT is taking time...
15:11:36 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@ there are obvious conclusions, not reached...
15:12:36 From Yrjo Lansipuro to Everyone:
@Siva: Diplomacy takes time…anyway, I
15:12:40 From Yrjo Lansipuro to Everyone:
Remain hopeful
15:13:30 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
ICANN multistakeholder process for the Interent's Critical Resources are expected to be far swifter than the multilateral diplomatic or other processes???
15:13:37 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
that was @Yrjo
15:14:06 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Isn't that the point about the multistakeholder process at ICANN?
15:15:13 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
@Justine/ Yrjo I can certainly support that mandate as outlined to give you all a framework in the WT....
15:16:50 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
I support the proposed path forward-- seems rational and equitable. Thanks for the great explanation.
15:17:36 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Holly Perhaps the IGOs can set up the .IGO gTLD in the next round. Malicious and fraudulent use would/should be a matter for LEAs.
15:18:44 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ John - I think that is what Christoper is suggesting - something up front protect acknowledged IGOs
15:18:59 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Chartering is up to the Chartering Organisations
15:19:12 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
+1 on the point about charter(s)
15:19:23 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Holly Christopher's blocklist idea is the best way of approaching it without more work.
15:19:43 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
(+1 for CW)
15:19:47 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
Isn't this something like the Trademark Clearinghouse?
15:20:10 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
yes
15:20:13 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ John - what I was thinking. and OCL - that is also what I was thinking
15:20:16 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Olivier yep
15:20:18 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
if ALAC/At-Large is to have influence in the outcomes *and* if they are invited to be involved then we kinda have to work within any given parameters... What is useful is where we (ALAC/At-Large can have influence in the creation *of* Charters
15:20:31 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
What if an IGO round precedes sunrise?
15:21:05 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
preceding trademark sunrise...
15:21:34 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
All the lawyers would have to get up earlier? :) Seriously though, the list of IGOs would have to be established in advance of the next round.
15:21:44 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Agree - of the full name is protected, they why not include the acronym
15:21:56 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
Thank you
15:22:11 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John with some essential preparation
15:22:35 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
+1 JZ
15:22:45 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
the problem with acronyms is that there are SO MANY of them
15:23:39 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
That is where the Harm aspect are pivotal IMO @JZ
15:23:49 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Not all acronyms indiscriminately, but the most well known ones, the unmistakable ones @JZ
15:23:52 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
yes greg
15:24:26 From christopher wilkinson to Everyone:
@JZ the notification for Geos would be at the Top Level, this is mainly about second level.
15:24:29 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
Agreed @Greg
15:24:30 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
So Siva, that would include WHO, for example?
15:25:01 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
@CW, sure but it’s jut data and still pretty easy to set up
15:25:15 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Acronyms, especially 2 and 3 character ones are considered high value keywords. Some of them sell for a lot of money.
15:26:17 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Agree with our focus being on minimizing end user confusion and fraud, however
15:26:57 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
+1 JZ
15:27:33 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
WHO is a candidate but it shouldn't affect whois, and provided there isn't a greater and elevated significance to Who than that of being an acromyn for World health organization @JZ
15:28:58 From Cheryl Langdon-Orr to Everyone:
)430 for her
15:28:59 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
Thank you Justine and Yrjo
15:29:03 From gshatan to Everyone:
Last point -- costs for IGOs wouldn't be greater than for other orgs and they are not exorbitant...
15:29:31 From Evin Erdogdu to Everyone:
Thank you, Justine
15:30:07 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
Amazingly articulate for 3-4am @ Justine.
15:30:10 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
Welcome to the Asia Pacific area - and the time for calls that suit the US/Europe areas
15:30:41 From Marita Moll to Everyone:
I might have trouble being that articulate in prime time
15:32:13 From gshatan to Everyone:
It would be quite amusing if there are more signatories to the "minority statement" than there are to the "consensus report."
15:32:48 From gshatan to Everyone:
Perhaps "amusing" is not the right word. Desperately sad and frustrating might be better.
15:32:59 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John Money is fine, as long as consideration for money is at the expense of more important considerations.
15:34:22 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John ... as long as ... is NOT at the expense
15:34:26 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Siva some two letter and three letter doms in .COM are very expensive. The new gTLDs aren't that expensive.
15:35:20 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
keep the harmless ones that earn money, but consider more important factors along with monetary considerations in cases where the name is far too sensitive
15:35:25 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Siva many of the NGT registries have been holding back short names are premium registrations.
15:36:08 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John Such a process can -- can -- also be good, provided it is not only money centric
15:36:39 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Siva This is the domain name business. Money is always important.
15:37:01 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Siva that's why the BC and the Registry stakeholders might object.
15:37:37 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
@John There are multiple avenues for monetization well within and around the DNS, but being focussed only on money in total disregard for all other (harmful) factors is unacceptable
15:38:11 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
I think there is lack of trust
15:38:22 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
from both sides
15:38:26 From Holly Raiche to Everyone:
@ Hadia - all too true
15:38:57 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
It tool place
15:39:19 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
took
15:39:45 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
The point is to figure out how to establish more trust - without which the multi-stakeholder model is crippled
15:42:39 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Volunteers rarely submit them, within the At-large community, however. Usually staff
15:43:07 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
We had two consecutive meetings earlier at 13 00 UTC
15:43:15 From Chokri Ben Romdhane to Everyone:
thank you all
15:43:21 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
That needs to be compensated by having the next meeting at 19
15:43:31 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Those of us in the IDN EPDP starts 13:39
15:43:37 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
13:30 UTC
15:43:45 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
it will be at 13:30 UTC
15:44:31 From Dave Kissoondoyal to Everyone:
Thanks and bye to all
15:44:38 From Michel TCHONANG LINZE CAPDA CMR to Everyone:
Thank you, great meeting bye bye
15:44:41 From Herb Waye Ombuds to Everyone:
Take care everyone… stay safe and be kind.
15:44:44 From Hadia El Miniawi to Everyone:
Thank you so much - Bye for today
15:44:45 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Thanks all/ later
15:44:51 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Thanks everyone