- Gnso-rpm-sunrise - lists.icann.org

[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q1
by Ariel Liang April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 1, including Proposal #9. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 8-12) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise Summary Table%5D %2816 April 2019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2 Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1 (Page 8) Q1(a) Should the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches be reviewed? Proposed Answer: The availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches should not be reviewed. Q1(b) If the matching process is expanded, how can Registrant free expression and fair use rights be protected and balanced against trademark rights? Proposed Answer: The matching process should not be expanded. Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #9 on 24 April 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update via this discussion thread. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #9: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

[HOMEWORK] Due Thursday 2 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Ariel Liang April 25, 2019

April 25, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Homework By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Thursday, 2 May at 18:00 UTC (pending Sub Team’s agreement on the modified date/time due to 1 May ICANN office closing), the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Continue providing input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3 (including Proposals #10 & #11) and Question 4 2. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1 (including Proposal #9) and Question 5(a) 3. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6, in conjunction with Proposals #2 & #4 4. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 8 5. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9, in conjunction with Proposal #13 Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Thursday, 2 May at 18:00 UTC (pending Sub Team’s agreement on the modified date/time due to 1 May ICANN office closing): 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations: * Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6, in conjunction with Proposals #2 & #4 * Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 8 * (if time permits) Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9, in conjunction with Proposal #13 3. AOB While the discussions of Questions 1 and 5(a) and review of Individual Proposal #9 have not been completed during the call this week, Sub Team members have been asked to provide any additional input via the discussion threads by 15 May 2019 (unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise). Resource Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum… * Q1: pp.8-12 * Q3: pp.15-20 * Q4: pp.20-24 * Q5(a): pp.24-26 * Q6: pp.29-32 * Q8: pp.34-36 * Q9: pp.36-40 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Next Meeting 02 May 18:00 UTC re: Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 24 April 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

Dear all, Per action item 1 below and based on the discussion on today’s call, it seems that there is general agreement that next week’s call can be rescheduled to Thursday, 02 May at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes due to the holiday on 01 May. Unless we hear otherwise staff will ask the GNSO Secretariat to schedule the call accordingly. Best regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 24 April 1800 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 24 April 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-24+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Action Items: 1. Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 18:00 UTC. 2. Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs. 3. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting. 4. Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting. Brief Notes: Question 1 -- Proposal 9 Discussion: -- Do have a sense of how often spanning the dot is a problem? It could severely restrict registry operators with forms of domain names. -- Don’t have hard numbers -- could be somewhere between an anomaly and limited. To the market it does apply it would add value. -- It seems to be dependent on the TLD. -- You end up in a situation where you are having to include extra letters that aren’t part of the trademark and this allows Sunrise to dead with this. -- TLDs are not responsible for the actions of TLDs that are not related to them. -- Don’t think we have the task of creating new rights. The suggestion creates a conflict between the owners of a potential shortened version of the TM. Cannot extend the rights of TM owners beyond what they have in the real world. -- Not sure there is sufficient data on this. -- Could we consider the proposal in Phase Two relating to UDRP? There is an enforcement mechanism to deal with it. Could fall into the same bucket as UDRP cases. -- From the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”: 1.11.3 Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD “.mark” and a mark “TRADEMARK”, the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes). Question 5(a): -- If you extend Sunrise to 1 year many small and medium registries will go out of business. -- Registry operators need to be at the point of collecting cash so those doing end-date Sunrise could do the marketing/collecting registrations before allocating registrations. -- The question is flawed because it doesn’t recognize that their are two types of Sunrise -- start date and end date. -- Allow registries to decide which one works best for them. -- Could we have a rule that if ICANN releases more than X number of new gTLDs then there is an option to add 30 days to the notification? -- Number of TLDs launched is not really an issue of the Sunrise length. Question 6: Proposals #2 and #4: -- Sub Team members should prepare for the discussion next week. -- Focus on the data.

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 24 April 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 24, 2019

April 24, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 24 April 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-24+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Action Items: 1. Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 18:00 UTC. 2. Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs. 3. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting. 4. Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting. Brief Notes: Question 1 -- Proposal 9 Discussion: -- Do have a sense of how often spanning the dot is a problem? It could severely restrict registry operators with forms of domain names. -- Don’t have hard numbers -- could be somewhere between an anomaly and limited. To the market it does apply it would add value. -- It seems to be dependent on the TLD. -- You end up in a situation where you are having to include extra letters that aren’t part of the trademark and this allows Sunrise to dead with this. -- TLDs are not responsible for the actions of TLDs that are not related to them. -- Don’t think we have the task of creating new rights. The suggestion creates a conflict between the owners of a potential shortened version of the TM. Cannot extend the rights of TM owners beyond what they have in the real world. -- Not sure there is sufficient data on this. -- Could we consider the proposal in Phase Two relating to UDRP? There is an enforcement mechanism to deal with it. Could fall into the same bucket as UDRP cases. -- From the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”: 1.11.3 Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD “.mark” and a mark “TRADEMARK”, the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes). Question 5(a): -- If you extend Sunrise to 1 year many small and medium registries will go out of business. -- Registry operators need to be at the point of collecting cash so those doing end-date Sunrise could do the marketing/collecting registrations before allocating registrations. -- The question is flawed because it doesn’t recognize that their are two types of Sunrise -- start date and end date. -- Allow registries to decide which one works best for them. -- Could we have a rule that if ICANN releases more than X number of new gTLDs then there is an option to add 30 days to the notification? -- Number of TLDs launched is not really an issue of the Sunrise length. Question 6: Proposals #2 and #4: -- Sub Team members should prepare for the discussion next week. -- Focus on the data.

1 0

REMINDER: Agenda, Homework, Discussion Threads
by Ariel Liang April 22, 2019

April 22, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, This is a gentle reminder for the various emails that staff sent following last week’s meeting, including 1) proposed agenda for this week’s call (24 April 18:00-19:30 UTC), 2) homework due before the call, 3) discussion threads. 1. Proposed Agenda: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000272.html 2. Homework: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000269.html 3. Discussion Threads: * Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000270.html * Q4: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000271.html Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Recordings, attendance & zoom chat / Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call on Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance and zoom Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & zoom recording below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 17 April 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/PQB1Bg MP3: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/gnso-rpm-sunri… Zoom Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/share/Lb5r-RJhBjLaZlpYD2hWS6Ix9s31jMs-vjKY-… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2019 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie Dear all, Please find the attendance and AC Chat attached to this email, and the MP3 & AC recording below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 16 January 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/iwj_BQ MP3: AC Recording: https://participate.icann.org/p3z7gcyxjy4/<https://participate.icann.org/p3z7gcyxjy4/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=11b94b5d9e476fe9…> The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar/2019 [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 24 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear All, For the meeting on Wednesday, 24 April at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes the Sub Team will continue the development of preliminary recommendations and the review of individual proposals. Here is a proposed Draft Agenda and links to resources below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations and review of individual proposals: * Draft answers/recommendations for Q1 and Q5(a); * Review Proposal #9 * Remaining Agreed Charter Questions sequentially (time permitting) 3. AOB Resources: Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSun… * Q1: pp.8-12 * Q5(a): pp.24-26 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team: * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf…

1 0

[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q3
by Ariel Liang April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 3, including Individual Proposals #10 and #11. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposals: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 15-20) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise Summary Table%5D %2816 April 2019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum…>. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3(a)-(b) (Pages 15-17) (a) Should Registry Operators be required to create a mechanism that allows trademark owners to challenge the determination that a second level name is a Premium Name or Reserved Name? (b) Additionally, should Registry Operators be required to create a release mechanism in the event that a Premium Name or Reserved Name is challenged successfully, so that the trademark owner can register that name during the Sunrise Period? Proposed Answer: ICANN Org should establish a uniform mechanism that allows trademark owners to challenge a determination by a Registry Operator that a second level name is a "Premium Name" or a "Reserved Name" during the Sunrise Period. ICANN Org should require Registry Operators to create a release mechanism in the event that a Premium Name or Reserved Name is challenged successfully, so that the trademark owner can register that name during the Sunrise Period. Draft Recommendation: The Sub Team recommends that ICANN Org establish a uniform mechanism to allow trademark owners to challenge a Registry Operator’s determination that a second level name is a “Premium Name” or “Reserved Name”. The Sub Team recommends, further, that the following Implementation Guidance guide the Implementation Review Team (IRT), which will be created to implement approved policy recommendations from this PDP: * The mechanism could be a component of an enhanced Sunrise Dispute Resolution Procedure (SDRP), where the challenger brings the issue to the Registry Operator first via a formal process within the registry, with the possibility of an appeal to a neutral third party if the initial direct registry interaction does not result in the desired outcome for the challenger. * If the challenger ultimately prevails, the Registry Operator would be required to change the designation of the domain name at issue such that it is no longer identified as a "Premium Name" or a "Reserved Name" and becomes available for registration by the challenger. * As part of the proposed challenge mechanism, a defense, or ground for denying the challenge, should be that the registry must continue designating a certain name as "reserved" to comply with other ICANN policies or applicable law or due to other reasonable justifications. * The IRT should consider building carve-outs/caveats into the suggested challenge mechanism. The challenge mechanism is not an absolute/automatic challenge; it should include the legitimate grounds for the Premium Name designation or Reserved Name status. * To avoid overcomplication, the IRT should consider restricting the challenge mechanism to unique non-dictionary trademarks that are recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse, and/or consider placing a numeric limit on the number of Reserved Names challenged by a trademark owner. * The IRT should consider modeling the challenge mechanism after the Passive Holding doctrine developed in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) jurisprudence, with clear definitions to prevent potential misinterpretation by the panelists. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3(c) (Pages 16-17) (c) What concerns might be raised by either or both of these requirements? Proposed Answer: One Sub Team member noted that Registry Operators may be concerned that any change to the Reserved list will affect their ability to run the required real-time platforms. This may subsequently result in unpredictable consequences, including: violating applicable law/ICANN policies, raising security and stability concerns, undermining Spec 11, rendering the reserved GEO TLDs ineffective. The Sub Team member also noted that Registry Operators may have concerns about gaming by trademark owners and the number of challenges brought by multiple trademark owners that registries have difficulty handling. Another Sub Team member noted the concern that the suggested challenge mechanism may be of little/infrequent use due to the subjectivity, complications, and expense, as well as potentially fewer domain name applications in the next round of TLDs. Draft Recommendation: The Sub Team recommends that the RPM Working Group refer the following question to the SubPro Working Group: would it be feasible to recommend that the names recorded in the TMCH either cannot be designated premium or can be designated premium at a certain price ceiling as an exception to ICANN’s position about pricing? Individual Proposals Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the draft answers to the three questions regarding the individual proposals. Links to the individual proposals are also included below. Proposal #10 (Pages 17-18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… Proposal #11 (Pages 21-22): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

[HOMEWORK] Due Wed 24 April 18:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 24 April at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3 and Question 4, including Individual Proposals #10 and #11 2. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9; 3. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a). Resource Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum… * Q1: pp.8-12 * Q3: pp.15-20 * Q4: pp.20-24 * Q5(a): pp.24-26 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… Intended Scope of Work for the Next Meeting According to the current workplan, during the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 24 April, the Sub Team is expected to proceed with developing preliminary recommendations for Questions 1 and 5(a), as well as the review of Individual Proposal #9. If the Sub Team progresses quickly and if time permits, the Sub Team will work on the remaining Agreed Charter Questions sequentially. While the discussions of Questions 3 and 4 and review of Individual Proposals #10 and #11 have not been completed during the call this week, Sub Team members have been asked to provide any additional input via the discussion threads by 15 May 2019 (unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise). Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 17 April 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 17, 2019

April 17, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 17 April 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-17+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Action Items: 1. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript from the 17 April meeting. 2. Staff will open email threads on the Sub Team distribution list to facilitate drafting of the answers to charter questions and preliminary recommendations. 3. Staff will send a message to the Sub Team concerning the homework/preparation for next week’s meeting. 4. Sub Team members will be encouraged to continue discussions on the email threads and complete the homework. Brief Notes: Question 3: The Sub Team has completed this discussion; it can continue and further discussion on the thread on the list. Question 4(a): Are Registry Operator Reserved Names practices unfairly limiting participation in Sunrise by trademark owners? -- Have a discussion around “unfairly”. -- On the use of the word “unfairly” that is there for us to think about balance. On balance is this such an overarching problem that we should be amending the RPMs. Don’t think the data supports that. We do see what we expected that some names would be suppressed. -- Could look at Sunrise challenge mechanisms. -- On the use of PICs - individual proposal 11 doesn’t relate to Q4, it relates to Q3. -- Could look into justification for dealing with this and the hurdles one would have to get over to challenge a reserved name. -- Susan Payne’s proposal to add a contractual obligation to the Registry Agreement (if agreement that there is a problem to be addressed). Question 4(b): Should Section 1.3.3 of Specification 1 of the Registry Agreement be modified to address these concerns? Section 1.3.3: reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); and -- Seems like this might be out of scope. Relates to consensus policies. -- How would one change 1.3.3 if at all? -- Could be that the original charter question does not make sense. -- Everything in 1.3.3 relates to 1.2 -- scope of consensus policies in the Bylaws. The Bylaws that reflect the scope of the Consensus Policies spelled out in Spec 1 are in Annex G-1 & G-2: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexG1 . -- 1.4.4 prevents that from Spec 1. -- Perhaps the answer is “no” to this question as this is outside the scope of the WG. Question 4(c): Should Registry Operators be required to publish their Reserved Names lists -- what Registry concerns would be raised by that publication, and what problem(s) would it solve? -- Support for publication. -- Some registries allow you to check if you can register a name or not -- and if not it is likely in the reserved names list, but not mandatory. -- Reasons to not publish depend on jurisdiction and laws. -- Move from a challenge mechanism to an inquiry mechanism. Flesh out on the email thread. -- List is not static and varies from registry operator. Those that they are choosing to reserve at this time to just not release them. -- 100 list are those you are reserving for your own use (different list). -- In Spec 5, Section 3.2 speaks to the 100 names; Section 3.3 to the ones withheld pursuant to Section 2.6 of the main agreement. And the Sunrise Charter Questions Sub Team’s proposed definition of Reserved Name referred expressly to those withheld under Section 2.6.  -- Perhaps consider the inquiry mechanism, but not necessarily a clear path forward. Question 4(d): Should Registry Operators be required to provide trademark owners in the TMCH notice, and the opportunity to register, the domain name should the Registry Operator release it – what Registry concerns would be raised by this requirement? -- Continue discussion on the thread on the Sub Team email distribution list.

1 0