February 2019 - GNSO-RPM-WG

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

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report 28 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 28, 2019

Feb. 28, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Co-Chairs of the TM Claims Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Martin acted as chair during the call<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-27+Sub+team+for+Tr…> on Wednesday, 27 February. Current Status: As of the meeting on 27 February the Sub Team completed the discussion of the analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed Charter questions. In particular, it discussed the following data sources with respect to the Claims Charter Questions 1-5. See the Charter questions on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+drafts%2C+res…. 1. ICANN Org-maintained list of Registry Operators and relevant dates for Sunrise, Trademark Claims and other specific approved program periods (e.g. Limited Registration Periods, Qualified Launch Programs): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> 2. Data Sub Team Meeting with Jon Nevett (DONUTS) at ICANN61:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79438928/Transcrip… In addition, the Sub Team completed discussion of the following additional data with respect to the Trademark Claims Questions 1-5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSjuohvTGkXbmK5eNGSEi_R0qw6GvI3Hv3MtpK8… [docs.google.com]<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSjuohvTGkXbmK5eNGSEi_R0qw6GvI3Hv3MtpK8…> The next Sub Team meetings will be at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10-11 March. In Session 1 on Sunday, 10 March for the full WG meeting, the Sub Team will provide a summary report on its analysis of previously collected data and additional data. In Session 4 on Monday, 11 March the Sub Team will turn to the development of preliminary recommendations.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 27 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 27, 2019

Feb. 27, 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<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-27+Sub+Team+for+Su…> on Wednesday, 27 February. Current Status: As of the meeting on 27 February the Sub Team completed the discussion of the analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed Charter questions. In particular, it discussed the following source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 6-12. See the Charter questions on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res…. 1. ICANN Staff-Compiled Summary Data on Sunrise Registrations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171010/fc173bd9/Sta… 2. ICANN Org-maintained list of Registry Operators and relevant dates for Sunrise, Trademark Claims and other specific approved program periods (e.g. Limited Registration Periods, Qualified Launch Programs): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> 3. Data Sub Team Meeting with Jon Nevett (DONUTS) at ICANN61:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79438928/Transcrip… In addition, the Sub Team completed the discussion of the following additional data with respect to the Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 1-12:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSjuohvTGkXbmK5eNGSEi_R0qw6GvI3Hv3… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> The next Sub Team meetings will be at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10-11 March. In Session 1 on Sunday, 10 March for the full WG meeting, the Sub Team will provide a summary report on its analysis of previously collected data and additional data. In Sessions 2 and 3 on Sunday, 10 March and Monday, 11 March, the Sub Team will turn to the development of preliminary recommendations.

1 0

Please share with your groups / ICANN64 GNSO Policy Briefing Available for Download
by Terri Agnew Feb. 27, 2019

Feb. 27, 2019

Dear all, GNSO Policy Briefing for ICANN64 is now available for download at http://go.icann.org/gnsobriefing<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_gnsobriefi…> If you prefer to download individual sections, you can do so by visiting this page [go.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__go.icann.org_policybrie…>. The policy briefing is intended to facilitate your preparation for ICANN64. Please feel free to share the link with your respective groups and anyone else that may be interested: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO/status/1100428245936291841 Happy reading! Best Regards, Terri

1 0

ICANN64: RPM PDP WG Meetings 10-11 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 27, 2019

Feb. 27, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members, The next WG meeting will be at ICANN64 in Kobe, with remote participation provided as usual. There is no WG meeting next week. Please see the attached timeline for reference. Please see below the schedule of RPM PDP Working Group (WG) and Sub Team meetings at ICANN64. In particular, please note that the full WG will meet at Session 1 on Sunday, 10 March and that the Sub Teams will provide progress reports on their analysis of previously collected data and additional data during that meeting. Following the full WG meeting, the Sunrise Sub Team will use Sessions 2 and 3 for the development of preliminary recommendations. The Trademark Claims Sub Team will meet in Session 4 for the development of preliminary recommendations. WG members are welcome to attend the Sub Team meetings. Let us know if you have any questions concerning the upcoming schedule. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group and Sub Team Meetings at ICANN64, Kobe GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in gTLDs (1 of 4) 15:15 - 16:45, Sun, Mar 10, 2019 – Room: Diamond Details/Remote Participation: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/962042 Description: Part 1: The GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group was chartered in March 2016 to conduct a two-phased PDP. In Phase One, which is ongoing, the Working Group is reviewing all the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program. This includes developing possible recommendations concerning the use and effectiveness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. In the first of four open community sessions being held at ICANN64, the Working Group will discuss presentations from the Trademark Claims and Sunrise Sub Teams on the results of their data analysis. All interested community members are welcome to attend this session. GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in gTLDs (2 of 4) 17:00 - 18:30, Sun, Mar 10, 2019 -- Room: Diamond Details/Remote Participation: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/962043 Description: Part 2: The GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group was chartered in March 2016 to conduct a two-phased PDP. In Phase One, which is ongoing, the Working Group is reviewing all the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program. This includes developing possible recommendations concerning the use and effectiveness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. In the second of four open community sessions being held at ICANN64, the RPM Sunrise Sub Team will begin development of preliminary recommendations relating to Sunrise RPMs. All interested community members are welcome to attend this session. GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in gTLDs (3 of 4) 12:15 - 13:15, Mon, Mar 11, 2019 – Room: Ruby Details/Remote Participation: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/962131 Description: Part 3: The GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group was chartered in March 2016 to conduct a two-phased PDP. In Phase One, which is ongoing, the Working Group is reviewing all the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program. This includes developing possible recommendations concerning the use and effectiveness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. In the third of four open community sessions being held at ICANN64, the RPM Sunrise Sub Team will begin development of preliminary recommendations relating to Sunrise RPMs. All interested community members are welcome to attend this session. GNSO Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms in gTLDs (4 of 4) 13:30 - 15:00, Mon, Mar 11, 2019 – Room: Ruby Details/Remote Participation: https://64.schedule.icann.org/meetings/962132 Description: Part 4: The GNSO’s Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Group was chartered in March 2016 to conduct a two-phased PDP. In Phase One, which is ongoing, the Working Group is reviewing all the RPMs that were developed for the 2012 New gTLD Program. This includes developing possible recommendations concerning the use and effectiveness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs. In the fourth of four open community sessions being held at ICANN64, the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team will begin development of preliminary recommendations relating to Trademark Claims RPMs. All interested community members are welcome to attend this session.

1 0

ICANN64: GNSO Sessions How to Get Organized and Remote Participation Details
by Julie Bisland Feb. 25, 2019

Feb. 25, 2019

Dear all, The one-stop wiki page for all your Remote Participation queries is now available. This wiki page covers remote participation details for all GNSO open and public meetings. In addition to this, ICANN meetings' team has put together an updated ICANN meeting website which allows you to download all GNSO-related meetings to your inbox calendar in one go. 2 LINKS TO BOOKMARK NOW: ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> Step 1 - Create a profile and your personalized ICANN64 schedule Go to the Meeting Schedule webpage and create a profile and login. Every session on the schedule can be selected and added to your individual schedule by clicking the Add box to the bottom right of each meeting, this adds it to your individual schedule which you can then email to yourself or add to your calendar. See next step. Step 2 - There are two ways to import your schedule into Outlook: once you've added all your chosen meetings to "My Schedule" go to Export. * Importing creates a one-time snapshot of your schedule and copies it into Outlook. If you subsequently make changes to your Pathable calendar, they will not be reflected in Outlook. * Subscribing creates a live feed of your schedule in Outlook. Outlook checks for changes every few hours and updates your calendar appropriately. Step 3 All Adobe Connect rooms (which can be found on the session information on the ICANN64 Meeting Schedule<https://64.schedule.icann.org/> and on the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg>) will provide audio streaming only, Adobe Connect room microphones will not be enabled. If you cannot join an Adobe Connect room for a session, and will need to dial in with your phone, please refer to the <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> GNSO Remote Participation Wiki Page<https://community.icann.org/x/-6MWBg> for the audio pass codes and dial in numbers. Please also follow the previous steps if you wish to take part in the session over the phone. Step 4 Please download the mobile app by searching for "ICANN64" in your app stores. Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew will be onsite in Kobe to assist you directly. For all GNSO meeting related queries (RP or others), please email us at: gnso-secs(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org> and we will be more than happy to assist! Kind regards, GNSO SO/AC Support team Julie Bisland Secretariat Operations Coordinator for the GNSO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: julie.bisland(a)icann.org<mailto:julie.bisland@icann.org> Skype ID: 79613b691cb8a6c1 Find out more about the GNSO by visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy…>

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 21 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 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<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-20+Sub+Team+for+Su…> on Wednesday, 20 February. Current Status: The Sub Team continued analysis of the previously collected data in order to determine whether any of the data may assist in answering the agreed Charter questions. See the Charter questions on the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+…. As of the meeting on 20 February the Sub Team continued the discussion of the analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed Charter questions. In particular, it discussed the following source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 6-12: 1. INTA Survey Final Report by Nielsen (including the original survey questions in the appendix):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/INTA%20… 2. Lori Schulman’s Presentation to the CCT RT (May 2017):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/ICANN%20New… 3. Lori Schulman’s Presentation to the RPM WG (August 2017):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69277722/INTA%20New%… At the meeting on 27 February the Sub Team will discuss the following previously collected data source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 1-12: 1. ICANN Staff-Compiled Summary Data on Sunrise Registrations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171010/fc173bd9/Sta… 2. ICANN Org-maintained list of Registry Operators and relevant dates for Sunrise, Trademark Claims and other specific approved program periods (e.g. Limited Registration Periods, Qualified Launch Programs): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> 3. Data Sub Team Meeting with Jon Nevett (DONUTS) at ICANN61:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79438928/Transcrip… In addition, the Sub Team will discuss the following additional data with respect to the Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 1-12: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSjuohvTGkXbmK5eNGSEi_R0qw6GvI3Hv3MtpK8… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Per the revised timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete the analysis of previously collected data by the meeting on 27 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on analysis of previously collected data and additional data to the full WG and to turn to the development/review of preliminary recommendations at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Trademark Claims Sub Team Status Report 21 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 21, 2019

Feb. 21, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG: On behalf of Martin Silva and Roger Carney, Co-Chairs of the TM Claims Sub Team, please see below the weekly progress report to the full RPM PDP WG. Martin acted as chair during the call<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-20+Sub+team+for+Tr…> on Wednesday, 20 February. Current Status: The Sub Team continued analysis of the previously collected data in order to determine whether any of the data may assist in answering the agreed Charter questions. See the Charter questions on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+drafts%2C+res…. As of the meeting on 20 February the Sub Team continued the discussion of the analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed Charter questions. In particular, it discussed the Review the INTA New gTLD Impact Study Survey Result with respect to the Claims Charter Questions 1-5. At the meeting on 27 February, the Sub Team will discuss the following source documents of previously collected data with respect to the TM Claims Charter Questions 1-5 in order to determine whether any of the data may assist in answering each of the agreed Charter questions: 1. ICANN Staff-Compiled Summary Data on Sunrise Registrations: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20171010/fc173bd9/Sta… 2. ICANN Org-maintained list of Registry Operators and relevant dates for Sunrise, Trademark Claims and other specific approved program periods (e.g. Limited Registration Periods, Qualified Launch Programs): https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> 3. Data Sub Team Meeting with Jon Nevett (DONUTS) at ICANN61:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/79438928/Transcrip… In addition, the Sub Team will discuss the following additional data with respect to the Trademark Claims Questions 1-5: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PSjuohvTGkXbmK5eNGSEi_R0qw6GvI3Hv3MtpK8… [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Per the revised timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete the analysis of previously collected data by the meeting on 27 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on analysis of previously collected data and additional data to the full WG and to turn to the development/review of preliminary recommendations at ICANN64 in Kobe.

1 0

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 15 February 2018
by Julie Hedlund Feb. 15, 2019

Feb. 15, 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<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-02-13+Sub+Team+for+Su…> on Wednesday, 13 February. Current Status: The Sub Team has begun analysis of the previously collected data in order to determine whether any of the data may assist in answering the agreed Charter questions. See the Charter questions on the wiki at:https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+…. As of the meeting on 13 February the Sub Team continued the discussion of the analysis of the previously collected data, with a view toward answering the agreed Charter questions. In particular, it discussed the following source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Questions 6-12, continuing from the discussion at the meeting on 06 February: 1. Registry Operator Responses to Initial Survey from TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Registry%20R… 2. Deloitte responses to initial questions from TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Deloitte%20r… 3. Deloitte TMCH Report: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170311/e28abe0e/IC… 4. Response to follow up questions - Apr 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170414/4591dc7c/De… It also discussed the following source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 1-12, as assigned for review for the meeting on 13 February: 1. Analysis Group Independent Review of TMCH Services: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64066042/Analysis%20Group%… 2. AG Response to follow up questions - June 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-June/002043.html 3. AG Response to follow up questions - July 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170727/06a0c33e/Re… At the meeting on 20 February the Sub Team will discuss the following source documents with respect to Sunrise Charter Preamble Question and Questions 1-12: 1. INTA Survey Final Report by Nielsen (including the original survey questions in the appendix):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/INTA%20… 2. Lori Schulman’s Presentation to the CCT RT (May 2017):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/ICANN%20New… 3. Lori Schulman’s Presentation to the RPM WG (August 2017):https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/69277722/INTA%20New%… Per the revised timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to complete the analysis of previously collected data by the meeting on 27 February. The Sub Team is expected to provide a progress report on analysis of previously collected data to the full WG and to turn to the review of preliminary recommendations at ICANN64 in Kobe.

2 1

PLEASE SHARE: ICANN64 Prep Week Announcement
by Terri Agnew Feb. 14, 2019

Feb. 14, 2019

Hello all, Please find below the announcement of the "ICANN64 Prep Week" published on the ICANN website which includes the link to register for Pre-ICANN64 Policy Update Webinar as well as other webinars in the week. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-14-en Kind regards, Terri ICANN64 Prep Week ICANN org is piloting a new initiative called Prep Week to consolidate all pre-ICANN Public Meeting webinars into one week. Starting with ICANN64, Prep Week will streamline the pre-meeting experience, so deeper conversations can be had in the ICANN meeting sessions. There are four webinars scheduled for ICANN64 Prep Week. The org will present updates on the community's work. Wednesday, 27 February 16:00 UTC | Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives (MSSI) Webinar. Topics include: * General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) * ICANN Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2025 * The latest update and progress on various ICANN Reviews * The next steps on WorkStream 2 recommendations Wednesday, 27 February 23:00 UTC | Contractual Compliance Update Webinar. Topics include updates on: * Registrar compliance * Registry compliance * The Registry Contractual Compliance Audit underway Thursday, 28 February 16:00 UTC | Policy Update Webinar. Topics include updates on activities of various Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. Thursday, 28 February 23:00 UTC | Finance/Operating Plan and Budget Planning Webinar. Topics include: * Key dates in the ICANN Planning process and cycle * An overview of the ICANN64 Finance/Planning Session Please register and submit any questions via this form [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_…> by Friday, 22 February 2019. The webinars will be in English. Recordings and materials will be posted here<https://meetings.icann.org/en/kobe64-prep-week>. With this new initiative, we not only hope to improve community preparation, but also to increase awareness of cross-community and high-interest topics and enhance briefings and readout sessions.

1 0