Dear Sub Group A members, Please see below the actions from the meeting on 26 May 2020 at 1300 UTC. 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/2020-05-26+RPM+Sub+Group+A. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie Actions: TMCH Recommendation #1: ACTION ITEM: Consider whether clarifying language is necessary for item #3. Sunrise Recommendation #1: ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the record to determine if the WG has previously discussed “spanning the dot” proposals. ACTION ITEM: Determine based on previous WG discussions whether it’s necessary to prepare clarifying questions for CORE. Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided. 2. Reviewing Public Comments – See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLn... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>, see the links in the Table of Contents [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> in the first tab and below: a. TMCH Recommendation #1 – tab link “TMCH Rec1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc_edit-23gid-3D1163822586&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=t9wraEY2ThtChDn15UG3votKi_N6AJLYt7HjgZfYmVU&s=fIHMTHjDTO9Js96KlMnvBlO-_q6atmz5VYVdaj4ZWm8&e=>” -- Support for Recommendation #1, maintaining the status quo, with perhaps some clarification of the language for item #3. ACTION ITEM: Consider whether clarifying language is necessary for item #3. b. Sunrise Recommendation #1 – tab link “Sunrise Rec1 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc_edit-23gid-3D665123988&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=t9wraEY2ThtChDn15UG3votKi_N6AJLYt7HjgZfYmVU&s=H5lIVSv1kHyuqGo8zAjCumS4L037Sjg_RoJ6ozzx7aE&e=>” Re: CORE comment: “For community based-TLDs and for geographically oriented TLDs, the following possibility should be allowed: smd label when equal to sld+TLD should be allowed (eg. the smd "RealMadrid" should allow for sunrise registration "real.madrid" or "BBCRadio" as a sunrise registration for "bbc.radio") in case the relevant Registry Operators wish to allow such registrations.” Discussion: -- Possible new idea. -- Broad community support for the recommendation. -- Consider taking back to the full WG, but as applied to all TLDs. -- How would this be implemented? Would it be technically feasible? -- The WG had a discussion with ICANN GDD in Nov 2018 where how the TMCH deals with “spanning the dot” was raised. -- WG also considered a proposal on “spanning the dot” and that proposal did not receive support to be included for public comment. -- Consider asking clarifying questions of CORE. -- Staff should review whether the WG has previously discussed “spanning the dot” proposals. ACTION ITEM: Staff to review the record to determine if the WG has previously discussed “spanning the dot” proposals. ACTION ITEM: Determine based on previous WG discussions whether it’s necessary to prepare clarifying questions for CORE. c. Sunrise Recommendation #2 – tab link “Sunrise Rec2 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc_edit-23gid-3D1583960969&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=t9wraEY2ThtChDn15UG3votKi_N6AJLYt7HjgZfYmVU&s=X1rWoghax6P-amlFZG9GOXRTeEiLTEkdHW5Ke6sEqdI&e=>” RE: CPH comments: “The phrasing "effect of circumventing RPMs or restricting use of Sunrise” is much too vague to be implemented; the language must more precisely set forth what conduct may be curbed.” Discussion: -- Several commenters said the recommendation is too vague. -- Some said that they would support it if it was narrowed to Premium Names. -- Look at IPC comment under TM-PDDRP. -- See context at: https://community.icann.org/x/wCGJBw (note all recommendations/proposals with their context are listed here: https://community.icann.org/x/XCCJBw): “Context: The Working Group is uncertain about the scope and extent of abuses of the Sunrise Period. Some Working Group members noted abuses such as discriminatory pricing and unfair business practices related to Registry Operators, as well as anecdotal evidence of trademark owners using questionable means to gain priority for the Sunrise Period. Some Working Group members suspected that trademark owners may have the potential to abuse Sunrise due to TMCH’s acceptance of non-standard character claim marks and common/dictionary words, as well as the broad scope of registration within the TMCH. However, there is a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the suspicion.” -- If this is going to be taken forward then there has to be engagements with the CPH and ICANN Org on a workable standard. -- It was never the intention for this language to be implementable. -- Sub Group will continue the discussion for the next meeting.