January 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

ACTIONS & NOTES: RPM PDP WG 08 August 2018
by Ariel Liang Feb. 11, 2020

Feb. 11, 2020

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP WG call held on 08 August 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these will be high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording. The recording, AC chat, and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/uwNpBQ Best Regards, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang GNSO Policy Support Specialist Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) == ACTION ITEMS: * Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. * Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document * WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * WG members to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35, during next week’s call. Later period to discuss larger policy issues. NOTES: Review Agenda/Statements of Interest * George Kirikos has become a member of the At-Large Community: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/George+Kirikos+SOI General Comment on the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table Document * The topics in the table were developed by the WG members and deliberated on by the WG & URS Sub Teams. Each Sub Team then did very substantial work on data collection and reviewing what came back. While the actual Sub Team recommendations and suggestions captured in this document are what is intended the WG should discuss - to see if it wishes to develop policy or operational recommendations - discussion over what should be on the actual list of topics should not be reopened unless the WG agrees to do so. We encourage all WG members to review all the previous reports from each Sub Team, and all the documents they worked on. They are linked in this Super Consolidated document (page 2). * The Super Consolidated document is a summary of findings and suggestions by the Sub Teams. The Table does not mean to limit/restrict recommendations from the WG members. If there is any issue overlapping with UDRP, can possibly be carried over to the phase II of the PDP. * Is it possible to add additional topics to the Super Consolidated Table? One WG member said that access to the Courts, for example, is a topic he raised, which isn't in the table. Statute of Limitations, whether URS should apply to legacy gTLDs as a consensus policy, are just a few of the topics not in the table. He brought it up in November 2017 (see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-November/002585.html ) and it was reflected in a later document. That's a critical issue for registrants. if they don't have access to the courts to challenge a URS decision, then it's a huge denial of their rights. * While the chart is not meant to foreclose further discussion, it is a good faith attempt at capturing the work of the sub teams. The purpose of today's, and likely the next few, calls was to make sure this was an accurate and comprehensive reflection of our discussions so far. That said, WG members should bear in mind that we are seeking consensus, so items which are unlikely to achieve that may not be appropriate to reflect as a recommendation, but could be included in public comments on the Initial Report. Also, before adding items to this chart, we will want to work with staff to see whether such topics was previously discussed, and if so, the level of agreement/consensus. In other words, it is not necessary final, but is equally an opportunity to reintroduce topics which have been discussed, but for which consensus is/was not possible. * Could we create a list of "missing issues" -- a list of issues raised in this call (and calls to follow); we can evaluate the nature and weight of these ideas later. * Regarding the Action Items highlighted in column 3 of the table, Providers ST will do a first pass of the responses from the Providers to the follow-up questions, and then discuss the issues that they identified and proposed suggestions with the full WG. Limited filing period (page 3) * One WG member believes that there should be limitation for filing period to bring URS Complaints, so the domain registered many years ago would not be subject to unfair treatment. He said a registrant who owns a domain for 20 years, for example, shouldn't have to be concerned about a policy that can take their domain down with very short time period to respond. * Other WG members said this was discussed, and did not achieve agreement. That would only even be an option if the trademark pre-dated. This is unlikely to be a situation in practice where a URS was brought because it would probably not be a "slam dunk" case after 20 years unless there had been a change of circumstances. * On the issue of delay and laches - as reported by the Docs Sub Team, the data did not provide any basis for which a policy recommendation should be made. The Providers and Practitioners Sub Teams also did not uncover any specific issues that came to either practitioners' or providers' attention. Administrative Review (page 3-4) * One WG member asked whether ICANN should bring Providers into contractual relationship in order to enforce the URS Rules & Procedures. Another member said it probably need to be ICANN’s legal department to enforce the rules & procedure. * URS Providers have MoU with ICANN. Whether it is ICANN’s compliance department or legal department to enforce the rules & procedures, it should not be controversial that Providers must abide by them. * An MOU could be legally enforceable, depending on the circumstances. 500-word Complaint limit (page 4-5) * On 500-word Complaint Limit - Practitioners' survey results were split (out of 12, 5 agree it's sufficient, 4 disagree); results included feedback from some that the word limit was too low: "arbitrary and often insufficient" and "should be slightly increased". * One member said he understands and generally agrees with the decision not to suggest an expansion of the word limit, he wonders if there aren't situations (multi- domain challenges, etc.) where a Complainant or Respondent might be given the opportunity to request an expansion. This point can be captured for decisional phase. * Another member suggested that perhaps providers can provide stats on the average word length of complaints, to see how close to the 500 words they are at present. (i.e. a table of distributions, e.g. 10% under 200 words, 20% between 201 and 300, etc.) Amending the Complaint in light of GDPR/Temp Spec (page 5-6) * One member believes that 2-3 days might not be a good rule (e.g. weekends, time to research, etc.). Maybe 5 business days. * WIPO’s approach to “doe complaints” has been very helpful and provides some comfort that the lack of true registrant/registrant organization data masked due to GDPR will not result in a deficient complaint for an omitted respondent. * ACTION ITEM: Brian Beckham to send to the WG a WIPO FAQ with regard to “Doe Complaint”. * Forum is asking for amendment of the complaint in UDRP - under the rules that's not allowed in URS. SMD Files (page 6-7) * SMD files are used for limited purpose of demonstrating the use. * Recollection is that SMD files would be passed to the Examiners and relay the critical information related to the TM registration. That's why some people are surprised by the limited info SMD files would provide. * The SMD files contain some basic human-readable information, with the rest of the information coded. For example, the trademark itself is human-readable but the applicable Nice classification is coded. A SMD file is used by registries/registrars for validation, and as Greg noted, to demonstrate use. From the TMCH provider: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/help/faq/which-information-does-smd-… * If the intent of the STI was that the SMD file would be a file summary, that got lost somewhere along the way, way before the SMD file was designed by the TMCH providers. * Rules 3(b)(v) Specify the trademark(s) or service mark(s) on which the complaint is based and the goods or services with which the mark is used including evidence of use –which can be a declaration and a specimen of current use in commerce - submitted directly or by including a relevant SMD (Signed Mark Data) from the Trademark Clearinghouse * It might be useful to look at the spec that they relied on. But the real question is how should the examiner get the relevant data about the Complainant’s mark. The SMD file is probably not the answer, if it was ever intended to be. * the Examiner is not required to second-guess the SMD file. Its existence is sufficient that the mark has had use validated by the TMCH. Other Topics (page 7-8) * These are policy proposals can be brought up when WG members are proposing changes to the URS policy itself. Charter asks us to address the question whether the URS should become a consensus policy applicable to legacy domains. Charter is not specific regarding whether such discussion should occur in phase I or phase II. This feedback illustrates that the ST didn't get to propose policy changes, it is for the WG to discuss and propose changes. * when we reference the STI and IRT reports, we need to keep in mind they only had about 1-2 months to complete their work and produce a report; they were not standard PDP working groups and had limited charters and mandates, which were set by the Board * This is feedback from one Provider, who may want to grow their business. Practitioners survey are from Complaints' side. Need to have a balanced solution when considering the input. * There were plenty of practitioners that represent registrants in the Subgroup, although their experience was largely with the UDRP. Duration of response period (Page 11) * One member believes that if the URS continues in its current form, it would affect valuable domain names. The ones the registrants that do want to defend them, 14 days are not sufficient. 20 days may be more appropriate. It should be based on the age of the domain name. If a domain is 3 months, it will have a shorter period to respond. If you own a domain name for 5-10 years, response period would be longer so less urgency. * Several other WG members disagree. The URS is supposed to be an expedited proceeding so increasing the length of time of a streamlined proceeding defeats the purpose. At most, there could be an additional 3 or 4 days extension period for cause. The point is that there are enough circumstances that give rise to the URS 'quick response' that we should NOT make assumptions into policy. It is an assumption that an "aged" domain would not require a fast response. In Mexico, we have not been able to file a domain name case due to Courts ignorance about the subject and also, because it could take years to be solved. We're spinning out fo control - extending the time to respond to URS cases just because a domain registration is not new defeats the purpose of fast action to take down an infringing domain once it's discovered. The URS is meant to address clear and convincing cases of infringement. A person registers a domain name for less than $50 and brand owner find out about at some point and then files an injunction in court for tens of thousands of dollars. Where is the balance. Examiners Guide (page 13) * The WIPO guidance for examiners took 1500 hours to develop. * The WIPO guidance is relevant to the URS, the elements are shown are the same and the differences include the burden of proof, word limit, etc. A lot of WIPO guidance goes to the shade of grey issues. URS is for clear black/white cases, so if there is a URS guidance it would likely be abbreviated. Duration of Suspension Period & Review of Implementation (page 21-23) * One WG member suggests to find out how much cost for registries & registrars to comply with the URS rules and procedures. Need to get data/feedback from the registries/registrars. * Other WG members are not sure "cost of implementation of URS" for Registries/Registrars is relevant to effectiveness of URS. We don't need to do a cost/benefit analysis (the costs & benefits aren't ICANN's), the providers, registrars, registries need to be asked if they are overburdened by the costs of compliance. * There is an action item to contact the registries/registrars about these issues. Timing TBD due to Sunrise & Claims survey launch. Other topics (page 23-24) * One WG member thinks the HSTS issue is not difficult to fix. The Providers need to improve their technical applicability to resolve the issue. Renee Fossen from Forum disagrees. * ACTION ITEM: Renee Fossen to provide more information on HSTS-preloaded domain suspension issues in the written responses. NEXT STEPS * ACTION ITEM: Staff to recirculate the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document and ask all WG members to provide substantive comment and raise anything they believe is missing on the WG mailing list by COB Tue, 14 Aug. Co-Chairs will then discuss among themselves to determine further actions/process. * ACTION ITEM: WG to finish reviewing the rest of the Super Consolidated URS Topics Table document, including page 24-35. Later period to discuss larger policy issues.

20 45

Updated Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Including Submission of Additional Data
by Kathy Kleiman Feb. 1, 2019

Feb. 1, 2019

Dear RPM WG members, The WG Co-Chairs have considered the requests concerning additional data and the observation that additional specific information may assist the WG’s efforts. Note however that our agreed work process does not allow for an extensive research exercise, and we believe we have already been presented with the vast majority of such information and sources over the past 2 years -- so this is something of a “last call” for data. (Nor do we have the staff resources to conduct such an exercise.) In this light, WG members may suggest additional data to the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams that may either: (1) yield specific useful data we do not currently have and/or or (2) assist Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams. Examples of additional data: * articles about the registration of domains in Sunrise Periods (or attempts) that appear to have had an impact on contracted parties, registrants, or brand owners; * anecdotes or specific evidence from impacted parties; or * studies, reports, or articles discussing the harm of infringement including cybersquatting (including consumer harm). To assist in this process and try to stay within our current timeline, we have added some brief procedures in section 5 of the attached document. Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes: * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings. As noted in the attached revised procedures, although additional data of various kinds may be submitted, we are asking WG members to use the designated Google Form (https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 [goo.gl] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_84YtaNDH2…>) to ensure that any additional data a member wishes to provide should: * highlight what specific information (i.e., new data or evidence-based conclusion) it is being cited for; * include a rationale for why and how that specific information is relevant and in respect of which particular question; and * suggest a solution and/or idea for how to address the topic. If you have issue accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang(a)icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> to request assistance. A .doc version of form will be provided upon request. Upon the close of the submission window, Sub Teams will review any additional data to determine whether it is useful in advancing the WG’s efforts. Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman, RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs

5 11

[Submission Period Opens] Individual Proposal for Sunrise & Trademark Claims
by Ariel Liang Jan. 31, 2019

Jan. 31, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the Working Group Co-Chairs, staff are informing you that the submission period of the individual proposals for Sunrise and Trademark Claims policy/operational recommendations is now open. Please submit your proposal via the online form here by COB 21 February 2019: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SunriseClaims. If you have technical difficulty accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> for assistance. As noted in Section 7 of the Co-Chairs’ Proposed Process for Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams: * Individual WG members may submit their additional proposals, on behalf of one or more members, including any specific proposals that were raised during earlier discussions, e. g., during the WG’s previous (January to July 2017) discussions of the TMCH when proposals relating to its structure and operations were solicited) to the relevant Sub Teams: * The submission period will open on/around 30 January 2019 and remain open for approximately 3 weeks thereafter; * WG members do not necessarily need to rely on Sub Team proposals to develop individual proposals (this is why the submission period for individual proposals opens before the Sub Teams complete their discussion of and make decisions on Sub Team proposals); * Each individual proposal shall be succinct and specific, and may be accompanied by a justification statement of no more than 500 words. It should state the operational or policy rationale for the proposal, and should also cite any evidence in support of it. Such evidence may be information developed by the relevant Sub Team, or documented in other sources; * Sub Teams conduct the initial vetting of individual proposals, determine the level of support within the Sub Teams (e.g., based on data collected), and recommend to the full WG whether to include each of the individual proposals in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment, along with an accompanying rationale; * The Sub Teams’ Summary Tables and reports to the WG should note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report (using the same standard of wide support as for Sub Team proposals, above) and which do not. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, Ariel

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 28 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 28, 2019

Jan. 28, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: On behalf of Greg Shatan and David McAuley, Co-Chairs of the Sunrise Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Greg acted as chair during the call on Wednesday, 23 January. Current Status: The Sub Team largely completed its analysis of the results of the Sunrise survey with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for this RPM). As of the meeting on 23 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed all of the Sunrise Charter Questions 1-4, 5(a) and(b), 6-12 and the Sunrise Preamble Question. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res…. Next Steps: At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will briefly discuss further comments, if any, on the additional input on Charter Questions 3, 4, 5(b), and 6 with respect to the Sunrise survey data. In addition, it will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to turn to the review of individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report 24 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 25, 2019

Jan. 25, 2019

Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, the RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see below the weekly status report. Best, Mary, Ariel, Julie, and Berry --- RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report, 24 January Current Status: The Sub Team completed its analysis of the results of the Trademark Claims surveys with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for each of these RPMs). As of the meeting on 23 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed all of the Trademark Claims Charter Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+drafts%2C+…. Next Steps: The Sub Team Co-Chairs will submit a summary report for the full WG of the results of the analysis of the Trademark Claims surveys with respect to answering the agreed Charter questions. At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to begin the review of individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report, 17 January
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, the RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see below the weekly status report. Best, Mary, Ariel, Julie, and Berry --- RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report, 17 January Current Status: The Sub Team continues to analyze the results of the Trademark Claims surveys with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for each of these RPMs). It aims to complete that analysis by 23 January. As of the meeting on 16 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed the Trademark Claims Charter Questions 1, 3, and 4. During the upcoming meeting on 23 January, the Sub Team will review input on Charter Questions 5 and 2, and additional input, if any, on Charter Questions 1, 3, and 4. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+drafts%2C+res…. Next Steps: At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to turn to the individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 17 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 17, 2019

Jan. 17, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: On behalf of Greg Shatan and David McAuley, Co-Chairs of the Sunrise Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. David acted as chair during the call on Wednesday, 16 January. Current Status: The Sub Team continues to analyze the results of the Sunrise survey with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for this RPM). It aims to complete that analysis by 23 January. As of the meeting on 16 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed Sunrise Charter Questions 1-4, 5(b), and 6. It also has reviewed additional input on Sunrise Charter Question 5(a) and the Sunrise Preamble Charter question. In preparation for the upcoming meeting on 23 January, Sub Team members are to complete analysis of Charter Questions 7-12 and may provide additional input, if any, on the Sunrise Preamble Charter Question, Charter Questions 1-4, 5(a) and (b), and 6 by Tuesday, 22 January, 24 hours before the meeting – in other words, by 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 22 January. We have arranged to have 90 minutes available for this upcoming call rather than the originally scheduled 60 minutes and hope to be able to use the full 90-minute slot, subject to Sub Team member availability and progress on the Charter Question analysis. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res…. Next Steps: At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to turn to the individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

CLOSING - Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams
by Ariel Liang Jan. 15, 2019

Jan. 15, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Please be so kind to note that the deadline for signing up for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims sub teams is COB this Friday, 18 January; further request to join the sub teams after the closing date would not be accepted. Working Group members still have opportunity to provide input to sub teams’ work – per Co-Chairs’ proposed procedure, all sub team recommendations will be shared with the larger Working Group and a final decision on any proposal’s inclusion in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment will be made by the entire Working Group. We appreciate the time from those who have volunteered to participate in the sub teams! Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, Ariel From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:56 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Call for Volunteers: Sunrise and TMCH Claims Sub Teams Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, As noted during today’s meeting, according to the attached timeline for the completion of Phase One of the PDP, the Working Group (WG) will shortly proceed to develop recommendations relating to the Trademark Clearing House (TMCH), Sunrise, and Claims RPMs. This email is a request for WG members to volunteer to join the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Teams to assist with analyzing the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys, and the previously collected data, with a view toward determining if and whether the data are helpful in answering the agreed questions based on refinements of the original charter questions for each of these RPMs (as in the attached two tables). In addition, as per the attached timeline the Sub Teams will assist in the review of individual proposals and in the development of preliminary recommendations. Please reply to this email on the list by Friday, 07 December and indicate which Sub Team(s) you would like to join. Note that to avoid running the Sub Team meetings at the same time, one Sub Team will meet on Wednesdays at 1300 UTC and the other at 1700 UTC, depending on member preferences. We may seek an alternate time if one can be found that doesn’t conflict with other GNSO meetings: ____ Join the Sunrise Sub Team ____ Join the Trademark Claims Sub Team Please also let us know if you have any questions. Thank you very much. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

1 0

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report 14 January 2019
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 14, 2019

Jan. 14, 2019

Dear RPM Working Group members, On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, the RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see below the weekly status report. Best, Mary, Ariel, Julie, and Berry --- RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report, 14 January Current Status: The Sub Team has begun to analyze the results of the Trademark Claims surveys with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for each of these RPMs). It aims to complete that analysis by 23 January. As of the meeting on 09 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed the Trademark Claims Charter Questions 1-3. Sub Team members may provide additional input or comments on these three questions. In preparation for the upcoming meeting on 16 January, Sub Team members are to complete analysis of Trademark Claims Charter Questions 4 and 5 by Tuesday, 15 January, 24 hours before the meeting. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+drafts%2C+res…. Next Steps: At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to begin the review of individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 11 January 2018
by Julie Hedlund Jan. 11, 2019

Jan. 11, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: On the Sunrise Sub Team call this past Wednesday, 09 January 2019, Greg Shatan and David McAuley began their roles as co-chairs of the Sub Team. Greg acted as chair during the call. Here below is the co-chairs weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Current Status: The Sub Team has begun to analyze the results of the Sunrise survey with a view toward answering the agreed questions (which are also based on refinements of the original Charter questions for this RPM). It aims to complete that analysis by 23 January. As of the meeting on 09 January 2019 the Sub Team has analyzed the Sunrise Charter Question 5(a) and the Sunrise Preamble Charter question. Sub Team members may provide additional input or comments on these two questions. In preparation for the upcoming meeting on 16 January, Sub Team members are to complete analysis of Charter Questions 1-4, Question 5(b), and Question 6 by Tuesday, 15 January, 24 hours before the meeting – in other words, by 18:00 UTC on Tuesday, 15 January. We have arranged to have 90 minutes available for this upcoming call rather than the originally scheduled 60 minutes and hope to be able to use the full 90-minute slot, subject to Sub Team member availability and progress on the Charter Question analysis. See the Charter Questions on the Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res…. Next Steps: At the meeting on 30 January the Sub Team will begin analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed questions. Per the timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete that analysis by the meeting on 13 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on preliminary recommendations at a full WG meeting on 27 February, and to begin the review of individual proposals at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0