Would the co-chairs please identify which charter question(s) we plan to cover on Wednesday, so that we can prepare in advance? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:31 AM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:

Dear All,

Please see the agenda below and the attached documents for the meeting on Wednesday, 27 March at 18:00 UTC.

Note for US participants – the time of 87:00 UTC is one hour later than previously in US time zones due to the change to Daylight Savings Time – so, 11:00 PDT and 14:00 EDT.

Best,

Julie

From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:44 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 27 March 2019

Dear RPM PDP Sunrise Sub Team members,

For the meeting on Wednesday, 27 March at 18:00 UTC the Sub Team will continue the development of preliminary recommendations. Here is a proposed Draft Agenda:

Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) Development of Preliminary Recommendations AOB

For reference concerning the discussion and progress at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10-11 March, please see below the brief notes, but also the attached transcripts and the Sunrise Summary Table.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:

Session 2 – 10 March 2019

1. Continued WG Discussion:

-- Not allow additional comments in or additional proposals in after the sub teams because points could be reopened and re-litigated by these new proposals.

-- For the individual proposals the actual deadline is March 27. And the sub teams aren't going to have the completed development of preliminary recommendations until April 3 and those individual proposals aren't even going to be reviewed until April 10.

-- That is the individual proposals, not the sub team proposals (preliminary recommendations).

Not a subsequent bite at proposals. The timing problem was an interesting one because we did want the individual proposals to come through the sub teams before they disbanded. And they disband upon delivery of their recommendations up to the sub team.

-- Staff will resend the proposed process.

2. Sunrise Sub Team Meeting:

Question 7:

(a) Can SMD files be used for Sunrise Period registrations after they have been canceled or revoked?

(b) How prevalent is this as a problem?

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Suggestion is that the answer is “no”. The SMD file cannot be used for Sunrise Period registrations after being canceled or revoked and this problem is not prevalent.

Discussion:

-- Start with Question 7.

-- The first part of this question, Part A, is yes based on what we've seen because the onus is on the trademark holder to inform the Trademark Clearinghouse of the revocation or the cancellation then we can reasonably conclude that SMD files can be used for Sunrise periods even though they shouldn't.

-- How prevalent is this as a problem? Don’t have much data.

-- Question is about what happens if a trademark is abandoned and how do we ensure that the brand owner (former brand owner) isn’t misusing the SMD file?

-- Concern that SMD files could be canceled, revoked but trademark owners could try to use them.

-- Don’t think we can say that the problem is prevalent.

-- Note that it’s bifurcated – both about the SMD file and the trademark.

-- There’s already a solution to this problem.

-- Is the country and trademark registration part of the SMD file? There’s an FAQ on the TMCH web page that the first five lines are human readable. Other than the mark the SMD file does not contain human readable information about the file.

-- So to question 7 it’s whether an SMD file can be used to register in Sunrise after the SMD file has been canceled or revoked.

-- Second question is about the trademark – if the trademark underlying an SMD file is abandoned can the SMD file be used to do a Sunrise registration filing? We looked and when the trademark dies the SMD file dies.

-- The second part of the question is whether this is a prevalent problem and we’re hearing no. So, our answer to the question should be no.

Question 1:

(a) Should the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches be reviewed?

(b) If the matching process is expanded, how can Registrant free expression and fair use rights be protected and balanced against trademark rights?

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Suggestion is that the answer is “no”. The availability of Sunrise registrations only for identify matches should not be reviewed and the matching process should not be expanded.

Discussion:

-- Based on the data the answer to (a) would be no and thus (b) does not require an answer.

-- We need to answer the charter question, which - and I think the answer to the question is no, we should not be reviewing the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches, which means there's no - we don't need to answer Question B and that there - and that there's no preliminary recommendation that comes out of this question. So I think that is the end result of this.

-- But good to make a recommendation, even if it is not to change the status quo.

Session 3 – 11 March 2019

Question 2:

(Threshold question: Is Registry pricing within the scope of the RPM WG or ICANN's review?)

(a) Does Registry Sunrise or Premium Name pricing practices unfairly limit the ability of trademark owners to participate during Sunrise?

(b) If so, how extensive is this problem?

Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Not at this time. Continue the discussion at the next meeting and also in relation to question 3.

Discussion:

-- Data speaks to this.

-- Possible answer: Registry pricing may not specifically be in the scope, but we could address it to put it before the SubPro WG. Based on the data there is evidence that pricing practice do unfairly limit the ability of trademark owners to participate during Sunrise.

-- Key part of sub question (a) is the word “unfairly” – is it a fair economic model. Need to distinguish between premium pricing that could be legitimate. There were limited responses so not a representative sample.

-- The key thing is whether the pricing is discriminatory against brand owners compared to other categories. Address abusive pricing models.

-- Pricing is outside the scope of the RPM WG (per at least one Sub Team member).

-- Not sure if the use of the term “discriminatory” is quite accurate. Challenging to define “unfairly” because that suggests that there is “fair” pricing.

-- Instances where high prices were put on well-known brands. Maybe discussing targeted pricing that is aimed not a high-value generics, but to those with brand value.

-- Pricing per se is outside of scope, but it’s about where pricing was fixed in a way to circumvent the rights protection mechanism – such as adopting very high prices only during the Sunrise period. There were some examples of that.

-- There were examples of clients who were told that their name was a well-known brand so the price was higher as the name was on the premium list.

-- On discrimination it is worth noting that is you have well-known brands they can afford to pay more. If you talk about unfairly limiting Sunrise, the question is does it preclude participation.

-- Pricing is always going to impact levels of participation.

-- From the registry operators’ point of view it is expected that people would try this – pricing almost becomes a negotiation.

-- Economic decision to put it into Sunrise depending on the pricing. There are other RPMs to deal with abuses.

-- Examples: 1) pricing at different levels depending on the brand, 2) all pricing is high in Sunrise, or 3) pricing drops for certain names outside of Sunrise.

-- Suggesting that a brand can afford so why not charge it seems abusive. Does seem to interfere with Sunrise.

-- To what extent does this happen? Is there really a problem? Not sure if the data backs this up.

-- We can agree that registries should be able to use pricing to circumvent RPMs. There are contractual restrictions on abusive pricing – pricing uniformity. We could refer this to SubPro.

-- What should we recommend? Pricing caps for different brands/value of words? How to determine the value? Could be very complex and impractical. Or could just suggest a more high-level recommendation.

-- Re: Spec 11, Section 2.10(c) of the RA states “The parties acknowledge that the purpose of this Section 2.10(c) is to prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed by Registry Operator without the written consent of the applicable registrant at the time of the initial registration of the domain and this Section 2.10(c) will be interpreted broadly to prohibit such practices.” From the PIC: “Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies.”

-- Note that Questions 2 and 3 are related.

-- Sunrise if for Trademarks – not competing with other identifiers in this period. So, we could be singling out certain marks, and the other is the pricing practices.

-- Data in INTA and AG surveys – responses from TM and Brand owners indicated that they thought the problem was extensive.

-- Not sure we are able to answer the question – not sure we have the data to answer “yes” in a helpful way except that it has the ability to limit TM owners from participating in Sunrise – but is this “unfairly” limiting?

-- If we look to the preamble question – whether Sunrise is achieving its purpose – and this question in that context.

_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise

Dear All, Please see the agenda below and the attached summary table for the meeting on Wednesday, 27 March at 18:00 UTC. Note for US participants – the time of 18:00 UTC is one hour later than previously in US time zones due to the change to Daylight Savings Time – so, 11:00 PDT and 14:00 EDT. Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations – Questions 2 and 3. 3. AOB At the last Sunrise session at ICANN 64 the Sub Team discussed question 2 in an effort to see if any TMCH recommendations were to be made, but the Sub Team did not finish Q2. The Sub Team may wish to continue this discussion tomorrow. QUESTION 2: (Threshold question: Is Registry pricing within the scope of the RPM WG or ICANN's review?) (a) Does Registry Sunrise or Premium Name pricing practices unfairly limit the ability of trademark owners to participate during Sunrise? If so, how extensive is this problem? The Sub Team may also proceed to consider question 3: QUESTION 3: (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? (c) What concerns might be raised by either or both of these requirements? NOTE: If any Sub Team member knows they will miss tomorrow’s call could they please consider emailing any question 2 or question 3 recommendations (or even Q4 – see the attached summary table) to the Sub Team list. Thank you very much. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Friday, March 15, 2019 at 12:44 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 27 March 2019 Dear RPM PDP Sunrise Sub Team members, For the meeting on Wednesday, 27 March at 18:00 UTC the Sub Team will continue the development of preliminary recommendations. Here is a proposed Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations 3. AOB For reference concerning the discussion and progress at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10-11 March, please see below the brief notes, but also the attached transcripts and the Sunrise Summary Table. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Session 2 – 10 March 2019 1. Continued WG Discussion: -- Not allow additional comments in or additional proposals in after the sub teams because points could be reopened and re-litigated by these new proposals. -- For the individual proposals the actual deadline is March 27. And the sub teams aren't going to have the completed development of preliminary recommendations until April 3 and those individual proposals aren't even going to be reviewed until April 10. -- That is the individual proposals, not the sub team proposals (preliminary recommendations). Not a subsequent bite at proposals. The timing problem was an interesting one because we did want the individual proposals to come through the sub teams before they disbanded. And they disband upon delivery of their recommendations up to the sub team. -- Staff will resend the proposed process. 2. Sunrise Sub Team Meeting: Question 7: (a) Can SMD files be used for Sunrise Period registrations after they have been canceled or revoked? (b) How prevalent is this as a problem? Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Suggestion is that the answer is “no”. The SMD file cannot be used for Sunrise Period registrations after being canceled or revoked and this problem is not prevalent. Discussion: -- Start with Question 7. -- The first part of this question, Part A, is yes based on what we've seen because the onus is on the trademark holder to inform the Trademark Clearinghouse of the revocation or the cancellation then we can reasonably conclude that SMD files can be used for Sunrise periods even though they shouldn't. -- How prevalent is this as a problem? Don’t have much data. -- Question is about what happens if a trademark is abandoned and how do we ensure that the brand owner (former brand owner) isn’t misusing the SMD file? -- Concern that SMD files could be canceled, revoked but trademark owners could try to use them. -- Don’t think we can say that the problem is prevalent. -- Note that it’s bifurcated – both about the SMD file and the trademark. -- There’s already a solution to this problem. -- Is the country and trademark registration part of the SMD file? There’s an FAQ on the TMCH web page that the first five lines are human readable. Other than the mark the SMD file does not contain human readable information about the file. -- So to question 7 it’s whether an SMD file can be used to register in Sunrise after the SMD file has been canceled or revoked. -- Second question is about the trademark – if the trademark underlying an SMD file is abandoned can the SMD file be used to do a Sunrise registration filing? We looked and when the trademark dies the SMD file dies. -- The second part of the question is whether this is a prevalent problem and we’re hearing no. So, our answer to the question should be no. Question 1: (a) Should the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches be reviewed? (b) If the matching process is expanded, how can Registrant free expression and fair use rights be protected and balanced against trademark rights? Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Suggestion is that the answer is “no”. The availability of Sunrise registrations only for identify matches should not be reviewed and the matching process should not be expanded. Discussion: -- Based on the data the answer to (a) would be no and thus (b) does not require an answer. -- We need to answer the charter question, which - and I think the answer to the question is no, we should not be reviewing the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches, which means there's no - we don't need to answer Question B and that there - and that there's no preliminary recommendation that comes out of this question. So I think that is the end result of this. -- But good to make a recommendation, even if it is not to change the status quo. Session 3 – 11 March 2019 Question 2: (Threshold question: Is Registry pricing within the scope of the RPM WG or ICANN's review?) (a) Does Registry Sunrise or Premium Name pricing practices unfairly limit the ability of trademark owners to participate during Sunrise? (b) If so, how extensive is this problem? Tentative Preliminary Recommendation: Not at this time. Continue the discussion at the next meeting and also in relation to question 3. Discussion: -- Data speaks to this. -- Possible answer: Registry pricing may not specifically be in the scope, but we could address it to put it before the SubPro WG. Based on the data there is evidence that pricing practice do unfairly limit the ability of trademark owners to participate during Sunrise. -- Key part of sub question (a) is the word “unfairly” – is it a fair economic model. Need to distinguish between premium pricing that could be legitimate. There were limited responses so not a representative sample. -- The key thing is whether the pricing is discriminatory against brand owners compared to other categories. Address abusive pricing models. -- Pricing is outside the scope of the RPM WG (per at least one Sub Team member). -- Not sure if the use of the term “discriminatory” is quite accurate. Challenging to define “unfairly” because that suggests that there is “fair” pricing. -- Instances where high prices were put on well-known brands. Maybe discussing targeted pricing that is aimed not a high-value generics, but to those with brand value. -- Pricing per se is outside of scope, but it’s about where pricing was fixed in a way to circumvent the rights protection mechanism – such as adopting very high prices only during the Sunrise period. There were some examples of that. -- There were examples of clients who were told that their name was a well-known brand so the price was higher as the name was on the premium list. -- On discrimination it is worth noting that is you have well-known brands they can afford to pay more. If you talk about unfairly limiting Sunrise, the question is does it preclude participation. -- Pricing is always going to impact levels of participation. -- From the registry operators’ point of view it is expected that people would try this – pricing almost becomes a negotiation. -- Economic decision to put it into Sunrise depending on the pricing. There are other RPMs to deal with abuses. -- Examples: 1) pricing at different levels depending on the brand, 2) all pricing is high in Sunrise, or 3) pricing drops for certain names outside of Sunrise. -- Suggesting that a brand can afford so why not charge it seems abusive. Does seem to interfere with Sunrise. -- To what extent does this happen? Is there really a problem? Not sure if the data backs this up. -- We can agree that registries should be able to use pricing to circumvent RPMs. There are contractual restrictions on abusive pricing – pricing uniformity. We could refer this to SubPro. -- What should we recommend? Pricing caps for different brands/value of words? How to determine the value? Could be very complex and impractical. Or could just suggest a more high-level recommendation. -- Re: Spec 11, Section 2.10(c) of the RA states “The parties acknowledge that the purpose of this Section 2.10(c) is to prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed by Registry Operator without the written consent of the applicable registrant at the time of the initial registration of the domain and this Section 2.10(c) will be interpreted broadly to prohibit such practices.” From the PIC: “Registry Operator will operate the TLD in a transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination by establishing, publishing and adhering to clear registration policies.” -- Note that Questions 2 and 3 are related. -- Sunrise if for Trademarks – not competing with other identifiers in this period. So, we could be singling out certain marks, and the other is the pricing practices. -- Data in INTA and AG surveys – responses from TM and Brand owners indicated that they thought the problem was extensive. -- Not sure we are able to answer the question – not sure we have the data to answer “yes” in a helpful way except that it has the ability to limit TM owners from participating in Sunrise – but is this “unfairly” limiting? -- If we look to the preamble question – whether Sunrise is achieving its purpose – and this question in that context.