Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 08 May 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/2019-05-08+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Data+Review.

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Action Items:

1. Sub Team members will review discussion threads on:
   1. Q1 (including Proposal #9): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000278.html
   2. Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000270.html
   3. Q4: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000271.html
   4. Q5(a): https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-April/000279.html
   5. Q6: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000286.html
2. Question #8: Staff will revise the summary table.  Distinguish among the three elements: LRP, ALP, QLP to make sure they are not conflated.
3. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.

Brief Notes:

1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.

2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:

a. Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 8

-- There were some limited comments in the data, but don’t think they relate to the LRP.  Some issues around launch programs generally. 

-- Limited uptake of ALP.

-- People need to be clear what they are talking about.  Make sure this is clear in the discussion thread.

-- The responses said that some registries noted issues with the improved launch program, which is completely different.  

-- Staff will revise the summary table by reviewing the source material.

b. Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9, in conjunction with Proposal #13

-- Support for keeping the current rules.

-- Let mark holders decide where to register the mark in Sunrise.

-- Anecdote suggest problems -- scenarios where people gamed the system.

-- Solution penalizes the vast majority of genuine brand owners.

-- Don’t develop a system that goes further than it should.

-- Not every TLD is category-specific.

Proposal #13, Michael Karanicolas:

-- Where a top level domain is suggestive of a category of service, then the TM holder would have to prove use in that category of service.

-- The proposal doesn’t go far enough.

-- Could look at how SDRP could address the problem or some variant.