15:33:04 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Welcome to At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call taking place on Wednesday, 20 July 2022 at 13:00 UTC.
15:33:24 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/AoFJD
15:56:47 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
It sounds “windy”
16:04:44 From Gopal Tadepalli to Everyone:
Greetings. - Dr. T V Gopal, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Guindy Campus, Anna University , Chennai, INDIA.
16:05:02 From Herb Waye Ombuds to Everyone:
Greetings from the Office of the Ombuds. Hope you are enjoying your summer (or winter for those south of Capricorn).
16:06:13 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
16:07:11 From Michel TCHONANG LINZE to Everyone:
Thank Yesim
16:07:54 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
Link to the TPR PDP Public comments from At-Large: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KLXoDldO-kQTjnufQ2cPpOb3AL3cYWqrExOgWyNyTo/edit?usp=sharing
16:12:45 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Both GAC and GNSO have not put forward their reps yet.
16:17:58 From Michael Palage to Everyone:
Greg's new nick name - Senator Rubio :-)
16:24:07 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
<q> Did apple apply for .apple as a brand, or did it apply for .apple as a generic? It would make a difference, because if .apple applied for it as a generic, ICANN couldn't possibly allowed closed generic policies. And if applied for .apple as a brand, then it must have weighed the merits of .apple as a brand Vs the compelling need to have apple as a generic brand for those who are associated with apple (i.e, could those potential registrants live with .fruit or .orchard or if they MUST have a .apple name)
16:24:17 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
This may have the unintended consequence of seeing a lot of trademarks having additional classes added to prevent genericisation.
16:25:59 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
Domain Name: NIC.APPLE
Registry Domain ID: D3625598-AGRS
Registrar WHOIS Server:
Registrar URL:
Updated Date: 2022-01-22T22:43:43Z
Creation Date: 2016-01-22T21:18:49Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2023-01-22T21:18:49Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: Apple, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 9999
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Reseller:
Domain Status: ok https://icann.org/epp#ok
16:26:17 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
There is no question that this overall question will periodically lead to "confusing" situations.
16:26:32 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
In the case of .apple (discussed here as an example TLD), the issue predates the new gTLD process. The rationale as above is so complling that Apple Inc can't own "apple" as a name, the company must have been denied this 'generic' name as a trade mark by the Trade Mark authorities, by the International Trade Mark registration process. That was not done.
16:28:32 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
If ICANN wishes to act differently, rule differently and considers it wise to go by more rationalized rationale, then it needs to make a decision on how to deal with the plethora or trade marks, some International, some national with varying policies by varying rationale.
16:29:05 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
Cause reforms
16:29:11 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
.
16:29:14 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
Hi all - sorry to be late
16:30:18 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
... [If] the rationale as above is so compelling .....
16:32:24 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
May be ICANN needs to put on its ICANN hat and announce that new gTLD policies will refer to trade mark database, but would make its decisions independent of the existing database, governed by global public interest considerations.
16:32:57 From Gerry George, SLICTA - Saint Lucia to Everyone:
I also think that the scope of "Public Interest" will be impacted by national, regional and international concerns and interests. Would one take precedence over another?
16:34:26 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Sure, that just means we need to brainwash Greg and Alan. It's subtle but doable.
16:35:59 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Is there a need or demand for closed generics?
16:37:18 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
If “closed generics" are not allowed, will a brand TLD not be approved?
16:37:44 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
no because brand TLDs are not "closed generic"
16:37:59 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
On closed generics: If .apple (example TLD) were to deploy .apple as a TLD for apple users and apple enthusiasts, and if a billion apple users are to take .apple names, then it also leads to a comeback of Compuserve and AOL.
16:38:00 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
at least according to Greg's litmus test
16:38:07 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
(in theory at least)
16:38:36 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
the above is a concern, not a summary opposition to the concept of closed generics
16:39:04 From Gopal Tadepalli to Everyone:
GAC Beijing Communique at: https://gac.icann.org/advice/communiques/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final-ar.pdf Nice Generics are found here. It is interesting to look into the implications of this set to arrive at a policy. - Dr. T V Gopal, Anna University, Chennai, INDIA
16:39:29 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
Thankless tasks are my speciality!
16:40:58 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
could closed generics be like valuable real estate, like some unique, short .coms?
16:41:15 From Gerry George, SLICTA - Saint Lucia to Everyone:
Good point on the actual utility of "closed generics". As a barrier to entry?
16:42:05 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
straight up marketing, customer support, etc. There are plenty of examples I could come up with. Quickin getting .BOOKS, Facebook getting .FACE, for their customers
16:42:25 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
I think that Amazon has .BOOK
16:42:44 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Yes, JM but as an open string
16:43:19 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
YES Justine. that's the conversation I was hoping to have
16:43:20 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
JZ - can you take the queue please
16:43:43 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@JZ So open that I don't think it has even launched yet.
16:43:44 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Sure
16:43:45 From Gerry George, SLICTA - Saint Lucia to Everyone:
Agree from a marketing perspective. However, to restrict it to a specific business (and commercial group) seems more like barriers to entry and market restrictions in the name of marketing/customer service
16:47:16 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
I was talking about giving Greg and Alan some flexibility to advocate what they consider is appropriate within the principles that At-Large agrees to.
16:47:47 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
yes, Justine but what are those principles?
16:47:58 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Doesn't answer which country
16:48:25 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
@jonathan, that's what we need to establish
16:49:17 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
@Justine, I guess that's the convo I was trying to have
16:49:57 From Gopal Tadepalli to Everyone:
"Upward Compatibility" is the crux on Closed Generics. We cannot perpetuate crimes for assuring "Upward Compatibility". This is the real challenge i.e how to assess the vulnerabilities and risks on some closed generics. - Dr. T V Gopal, Anna University, Chennai, INDIA
16:50:42 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Governments will impose their own solutions anyway.
16:51:13 From Christopher Wilkinson to Everyone:
@ Mike Palage: Agree. CW
16:55:25 From Greg Shatan to Everyone:
Thank you all for the discussion and guidance. I look forward to developing my independent thinking on Closed Generics with the CPWG!
16:55:49 From Claudia Ruiz - ICANN Org to Everyone:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-KLXoDldO-kQTjnufQ2cPpOb3AL3cYWqrExOgWyNyTo/edit?usp=sharing
16:59:00 From Michael Palage to Everyone:
Thx Steiner - you do a good job against a WG heavily stacked with Registrars
17:03:43 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
The ALAC Team to the IDNs EPDP is AWESOME!
17:04:32 From Satish Babu to Everyone:
:-)
17:05:24 From Michael Palage to Everyone:
Need to drop for another call, will listen to the rest of the recording when available. Good call.
17:09:21 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
There are only 700 or so retail registrars. The rest are dropcatchers so it is a smaller problem than it first appears.
17:09:23 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Spot checks?
17:14:46 From Laura Margolis to Everyone:
we want whois is back again :) :)
17:16:02 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
+1 for the new name.
17:16:05 From Sivasubramanian M to Everyone:
:)
17:16:37 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
The Internet routes around damage and the attempt to rename WHOIS was damage? :)
17:17:02 From Alan Greenberg to Everyone:
Nice way to think of it John!
17:24:50 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
"often problematic"
17:26:50 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
A registrar dependent on bulk regs has an interest in keeping the customers registering. That's where that KYC thing might break down.
17:26:59 From Gopal Tadepalli to Everyone:
PERSONAL: My granddaughter Ameya was born on 23 June 2022. Happy to share this with you all. However, I am constrained to skip some of the ICANN Meetings and try my best to catch up on the Confluence. Leaving now. - Dr. T V Gopal, Anna University, Chennai, INDIA
17:27:33 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
KYC is only relevant for Registrars. Registrars are obliged to check registration data. It is more a question for Registries and Registrars to monitor their namespace for suspicious behaviour
17:28:05 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Steinar Alpnames as an example.
17:30:02 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
but not that useful
17:30:44 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
Neither RA Spec 11.3b or the RAA refers to what “tools” to use
17:32:08 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Yeah, the contract language has always been a bit vague
17:33:05 From Carlos Dionisio Aguirre to Everyone:
maybe we can say/determinate a bulk registration is a suspicious behaviour. After that oblígate to register each domain in a single manner
17:33:53 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Ah, the frequent use of the strawman, inside ICANN
17:33:57 From Laura Margolis to Everyone:
Not all bulk registrations are bad but..
17:34:35 From Laura Margolis to Everyone:
:)
17:34:45 From Carlos Dionisio Aguirre to Everyone:
I know but, maybe is the way to solve this problem
17:36:28 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Some new gTLDs and registrars might not be financially viable without bulk regs. That's what is rarely said.
17:37:10 From Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond to Everyone:
some of the RBLs are inaccurate too and have too many false positives
17:38:21 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
If some new gTLDs are not financially viable w/o bulk, they will probably not be proposed - or am I missing something?
17:39:43 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Some bulk regs have very high non-renewal rates (95%) but 5% can renew. It builds a set of registrations that keep renewing. Repeated each month, it will build up a zone and help a gTLD that would struggle to break 10K regs easily break 100K regs.
17:40:28 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Roberto Great expectations for demand that turns out to not have ever existed.
17:41:23 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Roberto The amount of snakeoil about new gTLDs being .COM killers in the 2012 round was amazing.
17:43:27 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
@JmcC I understand the rationale, what I consider dangerous is to take decisions about processes being affected by the fact that there will be more or less business for some operators rather yhan what is more convenient for the public interest - unless we assume that the public interest is to foster commercial business - but maybe I am overreacting
17:43:36 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
One of the challenges is that the contracted parties don't really believe that DNS Abuse IS an issue.
17:43:45 From Nthabiseng Pule to Everyone:
From an end-user perspective, can one really name an incident as DNS abuse and think to go toe eg NetBeacon? Maybe users don't know the term DNS abuse but can tell when there is harm caused
17:44:36 From Jonathan Zuck to Everyone:
Yes, @Steiner. They really just need an email address to which folks can forward a phishing email
17:44:39 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Roberto Excessive buk regs also kill off commercial usage and development in a gTLD.
17:44:54 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
ICANN job!
17:46:10 From Herb Waye Ombuds to Everyone:
Always nice to be with you. Stay safe and be kind. Merci et gracias.
17:46:17 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
@Roberto The public interest is great and a noble aspiration when somone else is funding it. The lack of demand is why some of the new gTLDs did not meet expectations.
17:46:22 From Amrita Choudhury to Everyone:
Thanks and bye everyone
17:46:33 From Yeşim Saglam - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Next Meeting: Wednesday, 27 July at 19:00 UTC.
17:46:35 From Justine Chew to Everyone:
Thanks all
17:46:36 From Satish Babu to Everyone:
Thanks and bye!
17:46:38 From John McCormac - HosterStats.com to Everyone:
Thanks and later all.
17:46:39 From Pari Esfandiari to Everyone:
thanks everyone.
17:46:43 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
Thank you all
17:46:45 From DANIEL K. NANGHAKA to Everyone:
bye
17:46:53 From Roberto Gaetano to Everyone:
Bye all!
17:47:00 From Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org to Everyone:
Thank you, goodbye all
17:47:08 From AM Joly Bachollet to Everyone:
bye
17:47:10 From Laura Margolis to Everyone:
bye all! winter here :)
17:47:12 From Steinar Grøtterød to Everyone:
bye
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
ALAC Liaisons and Representatives
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
