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+Sun.... 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.