You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 10 Next »

Sunday, 29 October 2017 - 12:15 -13:15 GST
08:15–09:15 UTC | (timezone converter)
LOCATION:  Hall A, Section A (ccNSO)


  General Session / Plenary, Open Session


Interested in hearing how DNS Abuse impacts the New generic Top-Level Domain (New gTLD) Program? Join the engagement session of the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team on 29 October 2017 to learn about its latest findings and share your input.
The goal of this engagement session is to provide an overview of the CCT findings and recommendations from its Draft Reports. This is a unique opportunity to provide your feedback, questions, and comments. Community participation is key to the success of a review, so please share your unique input and perspective to help shape the final recommendations of the CCT. 
Background
The CCT has recently published new sections to their previous draft report for public comment on two new areas of analysis. These include the impact of safeguards introduced as part of the New gTLD Program to mitigate DNS abuse and the costs to trademark holders. 
The Review Team sought to measure the effectiveness of a number of technical safeguards developed for the New gTLD Program in mitigating various forms of DNS abuse. To do so, ICANN commissioned the Statistical Analysis of DNS Abuse in gTLDs (SADAG) report by researchers from SIDN Labs and Delft University of Technology to address the review team’s request for a comprehensive DNS abuse study. Results of the study can be found here. 
To better understand the impact of the New gTLD Program on rights holders, the CCT Review Team worked with INTA, which commissioned a survey of its members. The results of this survey informed the CCT Review Team as it made recommendations on rights protection mechanisms that were incorporated into the New gTLD Program. 
The Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review (CCT) is mandated by the ICANN Bylaws to evaluate: 1) how the New gTLD Program has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. 2) the effectiveness of the application and evaluation processes. 3) the effectiveness of safeguards put in place to mitigate issues arising from the New gTLD Round.
This review is one of the key inputs to the re-opening of applications for the next round of New gTLDs. For further information on the progress of the review, please visit the CCT Review Team wiki or the CCT Review homepage.


Agenda

12:15 -13:15  Presentation on "New Sections" Draft Report

    • Mandate & Timeline of the CCT Review
    • Findings and recommendations of "New Sections" Draft Report
      • Parking, Q&A
      • DNS Abuse Study, Q&A
      • INTA Survey, Q&A
    • Next steps to Final Report

Attendees (per AC room sign-in)  Alice Jansen, Antonietta Mangiacotti, Claudio, Daniel, DJS, David Taylor, Drew Bagley, Edmon, Eleeza Agopian, Erich Schweighofer, Fabricio Vayra, Farzaneh Badii, J.L., Jean-Baptiste Deroulez, Jennifer Scott, John McCaormac, Jonathan Zuck, Kal Feher, Kathy Kleiman, Kimberly Alston, Klaus Stoll, Laureen Kapin, Linna Hsii, Lori Schulman, Martin Sutton Nerendra Nath Gangavarapu, Raymond Zylstra

Recording

Chat transcript:  EN

Slides: PDF

Questions received:

  • John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Has the paper been updated to replace WIN with TOP as a Chinese gTLD?
  • Edmon: Curious why "parking" and "domain forwarding /redirection" is considered within the same "category"?

  • John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Will ICANN take action against abusive registrars based on this report/paper? Will compliance pressure be brought to bear on registries that facilitate such abusive registrars and activity?

  • Kathy Kleiman: Does the RT report expressly reflect some of the limitations of the INTA Study -- that there were only 33 responses of 1096 questionnaires send out and that 52% of responses were from companies with revenues over $5 Billion. This raised many questions by others reviewing it. It would seem that those questions should be raised by CCTRT as well. Will it?

  • Kathy Kleiman: On what basis was the idea that the URS should be used more?  Just wondering what the evidentiary basis was for this recommendation.




  • No labels