Zoom chat: 2023-02-08 ​​At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)

00:29:14    Raymond Mamattah: Good afternoon from Ghana
00:29:48    Shah Rahman: Good evening from Bangladesh
00:30:36    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: RTT Link: https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
00:31:09    Gisella Gruber - ICANN Org: Wishing everyone a very warm welcome to the CPWG on Wednesday, 8 February at 14:00 UTC
00:32:03    Heidi Ullrich - ICANN Org: Welcome, all.
00:37:39    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Having registry operator input would be good. The main weak link in the process is the registrant's response within the TTL.
00:38:42    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Almost everything can be gamed. Best to proceed on that basis.
00:41:34    Shah Rahman: Alan@ agree with you
00:41:45    Laura Margolis: I agree with Alan's comments too
00:43:15    Alfredo Calderon: Apologies for joining late.
00:43:45    Jahangir Hossain: I'm agree with @John McCormac but security perspective we should support the initiative shorter TTL for the TAC.  Also we should try to get input of registry operator to know challenges .
00:43:50    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Most of the small registries like .BANK are quite small and have a higher level of Know Your Customer data. A transfer might be genuine with those. With gTLDs like .COM/NET, the same level of KYC data does not exist.
00:46:13    Greg Shatan: +1 Alan.  Also, the potential for confusion only exists for registrants who are registering with multiple registries (i.e., in multiple TLDs).
00:46:36    Laura Margolis: Adding to Jahangir comments also we are giving hackers more time while longer time
00:46:58    Chokri Ben Romdhane: I'm not with @Alan in  point, if there is a possibility to reduce the TTL we have to open the door this will reduce the risks probability and we can sacrify some security gain to unify the process!
00:47:55    Chokri Ben Romdhane: I mean we cant  sacrify some security gain to unify the process!
00:49:03    Shah Rahman: well I recently transferred my domains out of namecheap (NC). Steps I took were more or less as follows: 1. Unlock at NC, disable whois protection, request auth code, receive auth code 2. Request transfer at receiving registrar (RR) 3. RR retrieves whois info, send e-mail to whois owner (me), initiates transfer 4. NC sends me an e-mail with link stating that if I don't want transfer to be done,  I should click on link. However this link also gives me an option to confirm transfer and if that option is selected, transfer is completed in about 30 mins.
00:49:31    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Different registry models need different TTLs and approaches rather than one single approach?
00:50:24    Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: oops Satish is with us :-)
00:50:28    Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: Sorry Satish
00:50:34    Jahangir Hossain: Reacted to "well I recently tran..." with 
00:50:36    Satish Babu: No issues :-)
00:50:53    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Trying to get a single one-size-fits-all approach might not be good because of the different levels of KYC data available.
00:51:07    Steinar Grøtterød: Replying to "well I recently tran..."

Good example. Thanks
00:51:11    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Definitely needs registry operator input.
00:52:49    Chokri Ben Romdhane: @Shah the TTL period is only targeting Registered Name Holder to confirm/deny the transfer operation
00:53:18    Chokri Ben Romdhane: not the whole transfer period
00:53:33    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Could a registry redesignate one of the non-revoked strings as its primary?
00:58:02    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: A country breaking into new countries could be one of the situations where a primary string being revoked could be a hypothetical situation but the revocation may be more of a primary being retired rather than revoked.
00:58:33    Hadia El Miniawi: Priority will be given to existing labels requesting variants
00:59:59    Hadia El Miniawi: @Sebastien are the two Quebecs  considered variants based on RZ-LGR?
01:01:33    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: The UK came close to being a possible example with the last Scottish independence referendum. Had it voted for independence, the .SCOT gTLD would no longer have been a UK gTLD but Scotland also has Scottish Gaelic as a language so a Gaelicised .SCOT might have been a possible example of a variant (for a non-private TLD). There is talk of another Scottish Independence referendum in the next year or two.
01:02:44    Satish Babu: @John, we did discuss reorganization of territories, change in langauges as some of the situations were revocation would be required.
01:02:48    Alan Greenberg (ALAC): We still need agreement from the group that (in participants' minds) the document reflects what was decided. That should come at next week's meeting (next Wednesday).
01:03:01    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Thamks Satish
01:03:46    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Satish the .CAT situation might also provide some ideas too.
01:06:23    Satish Babu: Thansk @John. We'll look at the possible geopolitical scenarios as well at the next meeting.
01:06:54    Steinar Grøtterød: Replying to "The UK came close to..."

I have problem seeing .SCOT as a “UK gTLD”. The Registry Operator is organisation: Dot Scot Registry Limited
address:      Suite 119, 111 West George Street
address:      Glasgow Scotland G2 1QX
01:07:40    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Steinar Scotland is still in the UK (for the moment).
01:08:14    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: I think that .SCOT was also a Nominet gTLD.
01:09:34    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Same with the .WALES/.CYMRU gTLDs for the Welsh. Cymru being Wales in Welsh language.
01:11:05    Steinar Grøtterød: Replying to "I think that .SCOT w..."

I worked with CORE on the .SCOT proposal. RSP is CORE Association
01:11:53    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: OK. Thought it was a Nominet gTLD.
01:12:38    Steinar Grøtterød: Replying to "Same with the .WALES..."

These TLDs use Nominet as backend
01:15:30    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: The .WALES/.CYMRU is almost an example of a primary string and variant. A .SCOT and an Gaelicised version would be an example of a primary and variant (if the registry even considers it in a future round.
01:20:01    Marita Moll: GPI, in the ICANN context, is understood through the by-laws -- so there is a restriction as to how far that discussion can go
01:21:42    Marita Moll: Or at least that is how I understood it
01:25:05    Jahangir Hossain: @Marita, me too with others. How global public interest (GPI) define ?  what are matrix to identify and accounting the GPI ? their should be public dashboard in ICANN org about GPI.
01:26:13    Satish Babu: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/prjxplrpublicint/pages/109576887/GPI+Toolkit
01:26:43    Jahangir Hossain: Replying to "https://community.ic..."

Thanks Satish da
01:26:51    Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond: this discussion about the public interest rivals the length of the discussion on WHOIS
01:27:00    avri doria: Yes, the GPI Framework the Board is exploring with the community does take its origin in in the Articles &  ByLaws and is rooted there. But with the Commitments and Values, it does not look that narrow to me.   I also value the statements that have come out about there being other GPI consideration in places in the Article & Bylaws beyond those that have been pulled out to date. Look forward to any further work that gets done on the GPI in the course of the discussions.
01:27:59    Greg Shatan: Replying to "https://community.ic..."

Satish, that is the framework we discussed and largely found wanting.
01:28:16    Marita Moll: Thanks @Avri for clarification
01:28:19    Satish Babu: The GPI framework is about ICANN itself, and may not include registries or registrars.
01:28:22    Sarah Kiden: Sorry everyone, I have to drop off now. I’m taking a train shortly. My apologies.
01:28:30    Satish Babu: Agree, @Greg.
01:28:59    Jahangir Hossain: Replying to "Yes, the GPI Framewo..."

Thanks Avri
01:37:51    Chokri Ben Romdhane: Thank you @Olivier and all I have to leave
01:38:41    Michael Palage: Thx Greg and Alan for your work on this topic
01:39:17    Greg Shatan: @Michael, I can neither confirm nor deny that I worked on this topic.
01:39:29    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: Due to time constraints, we have a request for this group regarding Public Comment proceedings. There are two open proceedings that this group needs to make a decision on:
01:39:48    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: (1) Proposed Procedure for Selecting a Top-Level Domain String for Private Use: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/alacpolicydev/pages/102666823/At-Large+Workspace+Proposed+Procedure+for+Selecting+a+Top-Level+Domain+String+for+Private+Use
01:39:59    Alan Greenberg (ALAC): Regarding the GPI Framework. It is a framework for evaluating whether something that ICANN might or might not do meets ICANN's GPI. It does not address GPI in general.
01:40:11    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: (2) Additional Script-Based Reference Label Generation Rules and Related Updates: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102666833
01:40:40    Hadia El Miniawi: @Chantelle thank you
01:40:41    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: Please let Hadia and I know if you want to volunteer to look at one of these proceedings. The turn around time for drafting a statement will be quick
01:43:49    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: A simple web directory of resources and firms might be one way of helping.
01:44:11    Satish Babu: Sarah's left.
01:45:01    Satish Babu: @Chantelle, the second one is about the addition of new languages to the RZ-LGR for second-level labels. Normally, we do not comment on RZ-LGR related statements, but I'd like to check back with the EPDP team and Bill Jouris if there's any reason to respond to it.
01:46:21    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: Thank you Satish! It closes on 3 March.  Could we have a yes/no response by no later than Friday?
01:46:47    Satish Babu: Sure, will do.
01:47:20    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: It is also necessary to address the registry-registrar model and whether it is the right one for the next round and underserved regions
01:47:39    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: That would need to be sorted out before the round.
01:48:06    Jahangir Hossain: Reacted to "It is also necessary..." with 
01:48:11    Jahangir Hossain: Reacted to "That would need to b..." with 
01:49:27    Sivasubramanian M: Apologies, missed the time thinking that the meeting today is at 19 00 UTC.
01:49:55    Maureen Hilyard: Reacted to "That would need to b..." with 
01:51:45    Maureen Hilyard: @John Mc  there is a section in our GGP framework focusing on the business side of applications
01:53:12    Hadia El Miniawi: @Satic
01:53:19    Hadia El Miniawi: ?
01:55:01    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Maureen I tried to compile a list of all the ccTLD registars last year to correlate them with resellers and registrars. Ended up with close to 20K ccTLD registrars before removing duplicates/owned registrars. There are only about 800 retail/brand protection registrars (the rest are dropcatcher registrars). The landscape outside the gTLDs is very different and it is the one in which these new new gTLDs will have to operate.
01:56:18    Greg Shatan: I thought it was pronounced WISS-is, but that might just be me... :-)
01:56:45    Maureen Hilyard: @John  I will certainly add that to ourcomments Very interesting Thank you
01:58:41    Sébastien Bachollet: For staff: Kust Pritz
For At-Large: Tijani
For Board/ SeB
01:59:13    Sébastien Bachollet: I am sorry I was disturb
01:59:29    Maureen Hilyard: Reacted to "I thought it was pro..." with 
01:59:36    Greg Shatan: With apologies, I need to jump off in a moment.
02:00:42    Marita Moll: I like that model that seb is suggesting. We will see where the group lands on this
02:00:48    Hadia El Miniawi: +1 Sebastein
02:00:56    Hadia El Miniawi: Sebastien
02:01:20    Laura Margolis: +1 Sebastian
02:01:29    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: @Maureen With resellers in some countries, it is more financially viable to become a ccTLD registrar in the local ccTLD than become an ICANN accredited registrar. This is the problem that every new gTLD in an underserved region is going to have to deal with because the gTLD is unproven in terms of demand and it may be competing with local ccTLDs. On the latest hosting brands report, approximately 25% of the gTLD market is hosted on off-registrar nameservers. What happens with underserved regionis is that resellers without their own nameservers will use large registrars outside their countries. It is a bit counter-productive when it comes to growing the Internet infrastructure in those regions.
02:01:46    Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1G3tCu16ECXXK9oAjpBrr_9t1d4acMYNw/edit?disco=AAAAooxR-js
02:01:59    Hadia El Miniawi: @Michelle thank you
02:02:50    Heidi Ullrich - ICANN Org: Thanks, All.
02:02:51    Herb Waye Ombuds: Stay safe and be kind.
02:02:58    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: Thank you all for joining. Excellent discussions
02:03:03    Hadia El Miniawi: Thank you all
02:03:05    Satish Babu: Thanks and bye!
02:03:23    Michelle DeSmyter - ICANN Org: Next meeting: Wednesday, 15 February at 19:00 UTC - thank you everyone for joining today!!
02:03:25    Hadia El Miniawi: Bye for today
02:03:33    Laura Margolis: thank you all! Bye
02:03:34    John McCormac - HosterStats.com: Thanks and later all.
02:03:36    Chantelle Doerksen - ICANN Org: Goodbye!
02:03:40    Sivasubramanian M: Thank you !