[gnso-consumercci-dt] MP3 recording of the CCI DT/ 26 October 2012

[Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear All,

Please find the MP3 recording and transcript of the Consumer Metrics Project 
Discussion call held Tuesday 26 October 2012 at 1900 UTC at:

http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-cci-20121026-en.mp3

On page :
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct

(transcripts and recordings are found on the calendar page)

Participants on the Call:
Cheryl Langdon-Orr – ALAC
Olivier Crepin-Leblond – ALAC
Evan Leibovitch - ALAC
Steve DelBianco – CBUC
John Berard - CBUC
Tobias Mahler - Individual
Michael Graham – IPC
Jonathan Zuck - IPC
Mason Cole – Registrars SG
Jonathan Robinson – Registries SG
Cintra Sooknanan – NCSG - guest

ICANN Staff:
Berry Cobb
Julie Hedlund
Glen de Saint Géry
Julia Charvolen

Apology:
** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.

Kind regards
Glen

Adobe Connect Chat transcript


  Berry Cobb:Welcome to the 26 Oct 2012 CTCCC Conference call.

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG):Hi All

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:excellent  plan Jonathan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and brilliant  work on all this Steve...

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG):Zuck was breaking up for me.  Anyone else?

  John Berard:I agree with Cheryl

  Evan Leibovitch:I am extremely cautious about significant changes ragarding 
"private"domains.

  Michael Graham:I also agree with Cheryl -- I believe we addressed this in 
attaching  Appendix D.

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG):Mason dropped off call.  Will be back.

  Mason Cole:dialing back in

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but with noting if any minority  'report'  update was 
required  as the WS comment was a reiteration  and NOT an opportunity for 
re-hash

  Mason Cole:back on

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I AGREE totally Steve

  Evan Leibovitch:+1 Cheryl

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:+++  to all that Steve

  Michael Graham:++++to Steve's comments.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:always welcome  Mason

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG):Note.  Bottom of page 2.  Use of 
"indentifying" should be replaced by  "identify"

  Berry Cobb:Got it JR.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:hand up

  Michael Graham:Cheryl:  Well said.

  Evan Leibovitch:Metrics might be used by compliance ... or by governments, 
journalists, financial analysts etc. This effort is about making the metrics 
and it's a beyond our mandate to pre-interpret how the metrics will be used.

  Jonathan Zuck:Exactly Evan

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Stick to verbatim

  Evan Leibovitch:The definitions are OK with me. (and in fact I'm a little 
surprised this isn't repeating  an existing definition set). I'm more concerned 
about how they will affect the rest of the metrics..

  Evan Leibovitch:I also have a slight concern about the need to pidgeonhole.

  Evan Leibovitch:Is every brand a coined word that could not possibly be a 
dictionary word?

  Evan Leibovitch:We do have an application for ".apple" which is both a TM (in 
multiple categories) and a dictionary word

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:either ® or ™  here

  John Berard:I agree with Jonathan and MIchael

  Tobias Mahler:Yes, remove "recognized"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup

  Mason Cole:on 1.3, doesn't that have to do with SRS and other 
registrar-facing services, which closed tlds won't be?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:agree no edit to 1.4

  Evan Leibovitch:Agree to no change in 1.5. A "such as" list is just that... 
examples

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:dropped from the call -- please call me back

  Glen de Saint Gery:sure Olivier you are being called

  Michael Graham:"Putime for Registrar services (such as WHOIS, contact info, 
complaints, etc.) for which SLAs are established in the new RAA.

  Michael Graham:Sorry, "U[ptime"

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:thanks -- back on the call

  Berry Cobb:The metrics platform will be collecting both anyway.  It will be 
up to the RT to split hairs as to how this meausre be calculated

  Tobias Mahler:1.7 How do we distinguish whether a breach notice to Registrar 
is related to one or another TLD? Aren't many breach notices for non-compliance 
with payment obligations?

  Berry Cobb:TLD registrations by registars can be associated to the TLDs that 
they offer services to.

  Berry Cobb:It is a point in time.  Day one 1st delgation.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:all good then for page 11

  Evan Leibovitch:why exclude failure to pay

  Evan Leibovitch:?

  Berry Cobb:URS, will measure total, then successful vs unsuccessful

  Berry Cobb:They used to be split apart

  Berry Cobb:The history on this is that a complainant will file URS, may fail 
and then file UDRP

  Michael Graham:Steve: Very good explanation.

  Evan Leibovitch:They're not equivalents. UDRPs are touchdowns. URSs are field 
goals. All need to be considered, but we could blow our brains out trying to 
weight them

  Berry Cobb:@Evan - LOL

  Jonathan Zuck:I see your hand Evan

  Berry Cobb:I'll remind the team, a metric like this will take the future RT 
two weeks to iron out the requirements....and probably only be able to do that 
after they get access to real data.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:well said Michael

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) 2:Thanks Evan.  Good point.

  Berry Cobb:+1 Evan, but that applies to all metrics

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) 2:No objection to the measure.  My concern 
is with the target

  Mason Cole:my concern about the measure and the target is that one could 
anticipate some aggressive filings in new TLDs following land rush

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) 2:Could be is helpful in the right direction

  Mason Cole:that may or may not be of merit

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:OK with "may be compatible to"

  Steve DelBianco (BC):"may be comparable" instead of "should be combined"  
Okay everyone?

  Michael Graham:I'd agree with Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:I'd avoid "merit"

  Michael Graham:s

  Evan Leibovitch:To a disinterested viewer, an "IP claim" would intuitively be 
interpreted as URS+UDRP

  Berry Cobb:Out of all of our changes so far, only one has to do with denoting 
TLD type.

  Berry Cobb:We have 40 minutes remaining.

  Steve DelBianco (BC):I know (sigh)

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:it is my Sat morning  but happy to extend

  Evan Leibovitch:@Barry... that's why all those definitions at the start may 
be overkill.

  Berry Cobb:how just excludes closed brand tlds?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ok I'm for adding the new point 2.1(a)    *AND* coupled  
with that addition  the additional  sentence  re "....not closed brand TLDs"  
as a coupling

  Cintra Sooknanan:why are we assuming that TLDs will only do what is required

  Michael Graham:I agree with Steve -- but would address Closed Brand TLDs in a 
new metric -- though not testing what is done (my error in drafting) but THAT 
they state what they do.

  Jonathan Zuck:let's get back to hand raising

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:remember my no hand raising ability :-)

  Jonathan Zuck:ok

  Tobias Mahler:I agree with Steve here.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:me as well

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:in favour

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:in favour ONLY if 2.1(a) is included

  Mason Cole:yes

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:now your loosing me Michael

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:and OCL as well

  Berry Cobb:for closed brands, I still fail to see how this relates to 
"consumer" choice.

  Berry Cobb:Closed branded TLDs will be monitored by their registrations from 
the zone.

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:term here is TRANSPARENCY

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:indeed Cheryl

  Berry Cobb:Registrant of "Internet User"

  Berry Cobb:or

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:Exactly Michael

  John Berard:stepping away for 5 minutes

  Tobias Mahler:2.1 (a) is ok. However, if we include it, it should be moved to 
trust section. Moreover, is it possible to clear up the language?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ok with that reviewed  language fro Steve

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) 2:That's helpful Steve

  Steve DelBianco (BC):"websites for closed brand TLDs should include a  page 
that discloses domain registaration poilicies"

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:as ever   I continually  stand in awe of Steve's ability 
to draft on the fly

  John Berard:back

  Evan Leibovitch:OK wih that.

  Steve DelBianco (BC):target: All closed brand TLDs should include a diclosure 
page"

  Michael Graham:Closed brand TLDs should include at least one website that 
discloses or embodies the TLDs domain registration policies.

  Evan Leibovitch:+1 @Michael

  Evan Leibovitch:Iḿ starting to wonder of 2.3 is not just redundant with 2.1 
which already uses the word "clearly". Maybe it should just come out.

  Evan Leibovitch:Also, since "clarity" is in the eye of the beholder, it's 
hard to measure

  Michael Graham:I would agree with Evan -- this does seem redundant.

  Mason Cole:registrar difficulty: having 1930 plain english statements about 
each tld

  Mason Cole:and plain german, french, and spanish if we serve those customers 
too

  Michael Graham:I'm okay with that.

  Michael Graham:Offline for a moment

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:agreed to increase in IDNs including brands

  Evan Leibovitch:OK with the changes in 2.9-2.11

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:al good

  Evan Leibovitch:Thanks :-)

  Michael Graham:Agree

  Evan Leibovitch:OK with 3.5

  Evan Leibovitch:change

  Michael Graham:3.6 -- need " after gTLD registries

  Evan Leibovitch:disagree with change to 3/6

  John Berard:i have to drop off

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:but how does that reflect as a measure  of competition  
@Evan

  Evan Leibovitch:A bookseller could participate in an open TLD (ie, .shop) or 
as an Amazon associate (which would be closed but still constitute choice to 
the bookseller)

 Michael Graham:Steve:  Could we lose the last sentence of the Measure?

  Cintra Sooknanan:+1

  Steve DelBianco (BC):well, the whole point of this metric is New Entrants

  Berry Cobb:Yes compeitition within Service Providers, Ry, Rr.

  Berry Cobb:Compeition as we have defined here do not include Registrants and 
Internet Users

  Michael Graham:Our measure is of competition among REGISTRIES -- "new 
registrants" that offer and sell more SLDs. Yes?]

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:need to step away for a moment

  Michael Graham:Sorry "new registries"

  Berry Cobb:Competition can occur across Brands too.

  Berry Cobb:as Ry Operators

  Tobias Mahler:yes to Berry's suggestion

  Mason Cole:there's a lot of static on the line

  Cintra Sooknanan:everyone's phone

  Steve DelBianco (BC):Prepare separate measures for open and closed gTLDs

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:back

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:still on 3.6?

  Michael Graham:Agree with Steve on 3.7

  Berry Cobb:Your all gonna apply for the future RT right?  :-)

  Jonathan Zuck:Mason next

  Mason Cole:thanks Jonathan

  Berry Cobb:MC refer to appendix that has response about collection of Pricing

  Mason Cole:Yep Berry I've seen

  Michael Graham:Qualitative assessment of other non-price indicia of 
competition . . . ?

  Michael Graham:In 3.11

  Jonathan Zuck:good point Michael

  Steve DelBianco (BC):Mason is correct and we all understood that when we put 
the price measures in there.   It was at the request of US DoJ

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:yup

  Steve DelBianco (BC):fine

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:ok with Michael

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:'s  new text add in for 3.11

  Evan Leibovitch:The limitation of 3.7 to open is apparently a matter of 
expediency, not public interest

  Jonathan Zuck:ok for you Evan?

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:perfect from my POV Steve

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:let's use the new language in the following  3.9 and 3.10 
then

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:happy with that yes

  Cintra Sooknanan:thanks for including me in this call

  Cintra Sooknanan:very insightful

  Jonathan Robinson (Registries SG) 2:Well done all

  Mason Cole:still here!

  Cheryl Langdon-Orr:indeed. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

  Jonathan Zuck:oh!

  Olivier Crepin-Leblond:I thought we'd take more than 1 session to reach this 
point. Well done!

  Tobias Mahler:Almost midnight on a Friday evening. Thanks, all!

  Evan Leibovitch:Thanks for acommodating my views on this.

  Cintra Sooknanan:bye bye

Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://gnso.icann.org