March 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

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] Re: Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior
by Julie Hedlund April 5, 2019

April 5, 2019

Hi Paul, You may try it without the [icann.org] append, as in: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…> That should resolve. Best, Julie From: Paul Keating <Paul(a)law.es> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 8:51 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior I get a page does not exist error. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 10:08 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Please see the recent correspondence related to Complaints Issues within the Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group and Expected Standards of Behavior. These letters were posted on ICANN Org’s correspondence page on 9 & 10 March: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence [icann.org] [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_resource…>.” Best regards Julie, Ariel & Mary _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg[cid:image001.png@01D4D99B…

3 3

RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team Status Report 29 March 2018
by Julie Hedlund March 29, 2019

March 29, 2019

Dear members of the RPM PDP WG, On behalf of David McAuley and Greg Shatan, 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 meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-27+Sub+team+for+Tr…> on Wednesday, 27 March. Greg acted as chair during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-11+ICANN64+Kobe+-+…> on Monday, 11 March at ICANN64, and during the meeting<https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-10+ICANN64+Kobe+-+…> on Sunday, 10 March at ICANN64. Current Status: The Sub Team has begun the discussion of preliminary recommendations with respect to the Sunrise Charter questions. See the Charter questions and the summary table on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res…. At the meeting on 10 March at ICANN64 the Sub Team discussed tentative preliminary recommendations with respect to questions 1 and 7. At the meeting on 11 March at ICANN64 the Sub Team began discussion of tentative preliminary recommendations with respect to question 2. At the meeting on 27 March the Sub Team continued the discussion of preliminary recommendations with respect to question 2, and began discussions with respect to question 3. Next Steps: Per the revised timeline in the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams, the goal is for the Sub Team to: * Complete development of preliminary recommendations based on all data reviewed to date by 03 April; * Complete the review of individual proposals by 01 May, and; * Complete the discussion of whether additional preliminary recommendations or modifications to current preliminary recommendations are needed in view of individual proposals by 15 May. On 22 and 29 May the Sub Teams will provide reports on all preliminary recommendations to the WG.

1 0

Closing Tomorrow: Individual Proposal for Sunrise & Trademark Claims
by Ariel Liang March 28, 2019

March 28, 2019

Dear RPM Working Group members, Please be so kind to note that George Kirikos submitted six (6) individual proposals pertaining to Sunrise and Trademark Claims. You may access the proposals here: https://community.icann.org/x/R6EWBg Furthermore, staff would like to take the opportunity and remind you of the individual proposal submission deadline, which is EOB tomorrow (Wednesday, 27 March 2019). Please submit your proposal via the online form here: 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. Detailed requirements for individual proposals are included below. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Berry, Ariel == 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 31 January 2019 and remain open till 27 March 2019; * 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 3 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.

1 1

Reminder - Current Version: Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams & Timeline as of 08 February 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 26, 2019

March 26, 2019

Dear RPM PDP WG and Sub Team members, Per the action item from the WG meeting on 10 March at ICANN64 in Kobe, please see below and attached the current version of the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and Timeline. Note in particular the changes reflected below as of 08 February. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, February 11, 2019 at 3:53 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Updates to RPM PDP WG Timeline & Preliminary Kobe Planning Dear RPM PDP WG members, On behalf of the RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached updated timeline from the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. The updated document reflects the WG Co-Chairs’ decision after considering the request from the Sunrise and Trademark Claims Sub Team Co-Chairs, on behalf of Sub Team members, to extend the time for the analysis of the previously collected data as it may pertain to the revised agreed Charter questions. In addition, the updated timeline reflects an adjustment to the due date for WG members to submit suggestions for additional data, and to submit individual proposals. Finally, the timeline reflects the WG Co-Chairs suggestion for the WG meeting sessions at ICANN64 in Kobe. The updates are summarized as follows: 1. Extend Sub Team analysis of previously collected data to meetings on 20 and 27 February (to include 13 February). 2. Close of Submission of Additional Data: extended from COB Friday, 08 February to COB Wednesday, 13 February. 3. Close of Submission of Individual Proposals: extended from COB Thursday, 21 February to COB Wednesday, 27 March. 4. Proposed Sessions for ICANN64 in Kobe: * Session 1: Sunday, 10 March, 1515-1645 -- Sunrise Sub Team Meeting * Session 2: Sunday, 10 March, 1700-1830 -- Sunrise Sub Team Meeting * Session 3: Monday, 11 March, 1215-1315 -- TM Claims Sub Team Meeting * Session 4: Monday, 11 March, 1330-1500 -- Full WG Meeting The WG Co-Chairs may make further adjustments to the timeline as may be requested by the Sub Team Co-Chairs to further facilitate the work of the Sub Teams, and as may be requested by WG members. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie

1 1

Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior
by Paul Keating March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

I get a page does not exist error. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 at 10:08 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Please see the recent correspondence related to Complaints Issues within the Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group and Expected Standards of Behavior. These letters were posted on ICANN Org’s correspondence page on 9 & 10 March: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence [icann.org].” Best regards Julie, Ariel & Mary _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Recent Correspondence Related to Complaints Issues within the RPM PDP WG & Expected Standards of Behavior
by Julie Hedlund March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, Please see the recent correspondence related to Complaints Issues within the Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group and Expected Standards of Behavior. These letters were posted on ICANN Org’s correspondence page on 9 & 10 March: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence [icann.org]<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence%20%5bicann.org%5d>.” Best regards Julie, Ariel & Mary

1 0

Transcript re: Notes and Action Items - RPM PDP WG Meeting at ICANN64 - 10 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 13, 2019

March 13, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see the attached transcript for the WG meeting on 10 March. This document also is posted to the wiki. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items - RPM PDP WG Meeting at ICANN64 - 10 March 2019 Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10 March 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-10+ICANN64+Kobe+-+…. Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder. Notes: TM Claims Sub Team Presentation: -- Important to note that we can’t say “registry operators want X” we are basing this on a very limited response rate to the Analysis Group surveys. -- There was a lot of data, but some that had very few responses. -- As we look at developing preliminary recommendations, we’ll have to note the limited responses. -- Survey was meant to get outside of our circle – the WG has a lot of people involved in these issues; we have a lot of expertise in the WG too. -- One group that is not well-represented is potential registrants, which is why we reached out to them in the surveys. -- On Question 4: Middle column – previously collected data. What does it mean, “marks in the TMCH may not be the basis...” it is a summary of a summary – details provide more context. Ariel Liang: Re Susan's question about the previously collected data in response to Claims Q4 (b)(i), this is the text included in the summary table: (b)(i) The marks in the TMCH may not be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of Claims Notices. The reasons include the relatively few abused labels indicated in the Deloitte TMCH Report, as well as the doubled amount of domain names/labels derived from the trademark records. -- On the question of whether the notice deters potentially infringing/non-infringing the data doesn’t really dictate, so we are back to policy. Data collection was not built into the new gTLD program, so hard to get the data. Sunrise Sub Team Presentation: -- This WG can’t do anything about premium pricing – it is out of scope. ICANN made no pricing policies for new TLDs. Any authority to recommend policy with respect to pricing lies with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG. Question: Is there liaising between the two WGs? Could we refer this question to them? Answer: If this WG were to put out a recommendation that ICANN should adopt some type of pricing limitation for marks in the clearinghouse and if that made it into our final report the SubPro would know that we put that out for comment. Our liaisons can coordinate. -- On Question 3: Concerns from registry operators with the revelation of proprietary data. -- On Question 5(b): On geos have sunrises – as we dive down should registries be able to choose a combination of rights protections. -- On Question 5(b): Third column – potential abuses of sunrise – on question about whether TM should even be able to be recorded in the TMCH to game the sunrise period. The remedy does not lie in the change to sunrise, but in the TMCH. -- On Question 5(b): First column – the data said TM owner’s preference. These are slightly nuanced, so not quite the same as having the same sort of preference. George Kirikos 2: <COMMENT>To followup on Kathy's point, it's important to note that we're developing policies for the next round of new gTLDs, and the most desirable extensions will have already been launched in the past round. Thus, the next round of TLDs will likely have more "niche" or "long tail" extensions, where a different decision calculus might apply.</COMMENT> -- On Question 9: Doesn’t seem correct to refer to “anecdotal” data, may not be applicable in all instances. Timeline/Next Steps: -- Preliminary recommendations will be based on data analysis among other inputs. -- How do the preliminary recommendations take into account the individual proposals? Because Sub Teams are a fraction of the members in this case the individual proposals will be vetted by the Sub Teams. -- Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder.

1 0

Today - ICANN64: RPM PDP Meetings 10-11 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2019

March 11, 2019

Dear RPM PDP Working Group and Sub Team members, Please see below the schedule of today’s RPM PDP Working Group (WG) and Sub Team meetings at ICANN64 and note the following: * Box Lunches will be provided for the 12:15-13:15 Sunrise Sub Team meeting. In order to ensure that we can start the meeting on time, we suggest that Sub Team and WG members may wish to arrive a bit early (the room is occupied until Noon). * During the TM Claims Sub Team session at 13:30-15:00 we will observe a moment of silence at 14:46 pm local time in remembrance of the lives lost and people affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake that occurred on 11 March 2011 at 14:46 pm. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Schedule of RPM PDP Working Group and Sub Team Meetings at ICANN64, Kobe on Monday, 11 March 2019 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 [64.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__64.schedule.icann.org_…> 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 [64.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__64.schedule.icann.org_…> 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

Notes and Action Items - RPM PDP WG Meeting at ICANN64 - 10 March 2019
by Julie Hedlund March 11, 2019

March 11, 2019

Dear Working Group members, Please see below the notes from the WG meeting at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10 March 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-10+ICANN64+Kobe+-+…. Please also see the attached referenced slides. Kind regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Notes and Action Items: Actions: Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder. Notes: TM Claims Sub Team Presentation: -- Important to note that we can’t say “registry operators want X” we are basing this on a very limited response rate to the Analysis Group surveys. -- There was a lot of data, but some that had very few responses. -- As we look at developing preliminary recommendations, we’ll have to note the limited responses. -- Survey was meant to get outside of our circle – the WG has a lot of people involved in these issues; we have a lot of expertise in the WG too. -- One group that is not well-represented is potential registrants, which is why we reached out to them in the surveys. -- On Question 4: Middle column – previously collected data. What does it mean, “marks in the TMCH may not be the basis...” it is a summary of a summary – details provide more context. Ariel Liang: Re Susan's question about the previously collected data in response to Claims Q4 (b)(i), this is the text included in the summary table: (b)(i) The marks in the TMCH may not be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of Claims Notices. The reasons include the relatively few abused labels indicated in the Deloitte TMCH Report, as well as the doubled amount of domain names/labels derived from the trademark records. -- On the question of whether the notice deters potentially infringing/non-infringing the data doesn’t really dictate, so we are back to policy. Data collection was not built into the new gTLD program, so hard to get the data. Sunrise Sub Team Presentation: -- This WG can’t do anything about premium pricing – it is out of scope. ICANN made no pricing policies for new TLDs. Any authority to recommend policy with respect to pricing lies with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG. Question: Is there liaising between the two WGs? Could we refer this question to them? Answer: If this WG were to put out a recommendation that ICANN should adopt some type of pricing limitation for marks in the clearinghouse and if that made it into our final report the SubPro would know that we put that out for comment. Our liaisons can coordinate. -- On Question 3: Concerns from registry operators with the revelation of proprietary data. -- On Question 5(b): On geos have sunrises – as we dive down should registries be able to choose a combination of rights protections. -- On Question 5(b): Third column – potential abuses of sunrise – on question about whether TM should even be able to be recorded in the TMCH to game the sunrise period. The remedy does not lie in the change to sunrise, but in the TMCH. -- On Question 5(b): First column – the data said TM owner’s preference. These are slightly nuanced, so not quite the same as having the same sort of preference. George Kirikos 2: <COMMENT>To followup on Kathy's point, it's important to note that we're developing policies for the next round of new gTLDs, and the most desirable extensions will have already been launched in the past round. Thus, the next round of TLDs will likely have more "niche" or "long tail" extensions, where a different decision calculus might apply.</COMMENT> -- On Question 9: Doesn’t seem correct to refer to “anecdotal” data, may not be applicable in all instances. Timeline/Next Steps: -- Preliminary recommendations will be based on data analysis among other inputs. -- How do the preliminary recommendations take into account the individual proposals? Because Sub Teams are a fraction of the members in this case the individual proposals will be vetted by the Sub Teams. -- Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder.

1 0