The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Data Review call is scheduled on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
11:00 PDT, 14:00 EDT, 20:00 Paris CEST, 23:00 Karachi PKT, (Thursday) 03:00 Tokyo JST, (Thursday) 04:00 Melbourne AEST
For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y54rtxqm
PROPOSED AGENDA
- Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
- Development of Preliminary Recommendations and review of individual proposals:
- Draft answers/recommendations for Q1 and Q5(a);
- Review Proposal #9
- Remaining Agreed Charter Questions sequentially (time permitting)
- AOB
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Resources:
Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2
- Q1: pp.8-12
- Q5(a): pp.24-26
Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team:
RECORDINGS
PARTICIPATION
Notes/ Action Items
Action Items:
- Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 18:00 UTC.
- Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs.
- Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.
- Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting.
Brief Notes:
Question 1 -- Proposal 9
Discussion:
-- Do have a sense of how often spanning the dot is a problem? It could severely restrict registry operators with forms of domain names.
-- Don’t have hard numbers -- could be somewhere between an anomaly and limited. To the market it does apply it would add value.
-- It seems to be dependent on the TLD.
-- You end up in a situation where you are having to include extra letters that aren’t part of the trademark and this allows Sunrise to dead with this.
-- TLDs are not responsible for the actions of TLDs that are not related to them.
-- Don’t think we have the task of creating new rights. The suggestion creates a conflict between the owners of a potential shortened version of the TM. Cannot extend the rights of TM owners beyond what they have in the real world.
-- Not sure there is sufficient data on this.
-- Could we consider the proposal in Phase Two relating to UDRP? There is an enforcement mechanism to deal with it. Could fall into the same bucket as UDRP cases.
-- From the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”: 1.11.3 Where the applicable TLD and the second-level portion of the domain name in combination contain the relevant trademark, panels may consider the domain name in its entirety for purposes of assessing confusing similarity (e.g., for a hypothetical TLD “.mark” and a mark “TRADEMARK”, the domain name <trade.mark> would be confusingly similar for UDRP standing purposes).
Question 5(a):
-- If you extend Sunrise to 1 year many small and medium registries will go out of business.
-- Registry operators need to be at the point of collecting cash so those doing end-date Sunrise could do the marketing/collecting registrations before allocating registrations.
-- The question is flawed because it doesn’t recognize that their are two types of Sunrise -- start date and end date.
-- Allow registries to decide which one works best for them.
-- Could we have a rule that if ICANN releases more than X number of new gTLDs then there is an option to add 30 days to the notification?
-- Number of TLDs launched is not really an issue of the Sunrise length.
Question 6: Proposals #2 and #4:
-- Sub Team members should prepare for the discussion next week.
-- Focus on the data.
