Dear All,
Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 19 December 2018 (18:00-19:00 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. 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/2018-12-19+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Registrations.
See also the survey analysis tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs1qmUuIjg/edit#gid=381275905.
Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
==
NOTES & ACTION ITEMS
Actions:
Question 5 (Final Charter Questions for Sunrise & Trademark Claims RPMs for Which Data is Being Sought)
(a) Does the current 30-day minimum for a Sunrise Period serve its intended purpose, particularly in view of the fact that many registry operators actually ran a 60-day Sunrise Period?
• Are there any unintended results?
• Does the ability of Registry Operators to expand their Sunrise Periods create uniformity concerns that should be addressed by this WG?
• Are there any benefits observed when the Sunrise Period is extended beyond 30 days?
• Are there any disadvantages?
Notes:
1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest: Susan Payne has taken the position of Secretary of the Intellectual Property Constituency.
2. Select Sub Team Leader:
-- ACTION ITEM: Resend the nomination announcement until COB 21 December, also send to the full WG.
-- Consider whether WG Co-Chairs could rotate.
3. Begin survey analysis
-- ACTION ITEM -- Tool: Look at the refined charter questions and the Data Sub Team questions -- structured on the original data request table. Applies some structure.
-- Ask Sub Team members to point out where other data applies.
-- Cells F28 and G28 answer that, namely that only 4 TM owners missed the 30 day deadline.
-- Cell F31 argues for 'more time', but with no tradeoff/cost attached to it, it's somewhat a weak question
-- Registries and Registrars data also apply.
-- Question 5 is not the place to start.
-- See F28 and G28 responses.
-- Don't look at the Sunrise period on its own, look at the time before it sharts (G35 on registries and registrars tab).
-- F31 indicates that people believe that a 60-day period would be preferable.
-- Can look at brand owner, but also at registries and registrars. Line: 33 onward.
-- Haven't decided the overarching question -- is Sunrise a good thing? Is it a good thing? Propose that we go to the summary table: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181203/0f4ad243/TableoffinalagreedSunrisequestionsdataforreview-3Dec2018-0001.pdf.,
-- Need to start filling in the table.
-- From registrars find it too late -- don't participate. Misunderstanding of 30 days versus 60 days (30 days sunrise and 60 days are both 60 days, for the first one is a 30 day notice period). dding +30 (multiplied by something) days means registry can not start business , but paying bills. There is no way registries could do 60 days because of the first come, first-served scenario. The questions didn't provide clarity or there was no knowledge about this.
-- Could run it longer than 60 days -- the durations are a minimum.
-- Filter for the question was those registrars who participated in sunrise.
-- Registry/Registrar -- Q15 and Q4 tabs -- costs implementing sunrise periods. Also, registry E29.