The Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Data Review call is scheduled on Thursday, 02 May 2019 at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes. 

11:00 PDT, 14:00 EDT, 20:00 Paris CEST, 23:00 Karachi PKT, (Friday) 03:00 Tokyo JST, (Friday) 04:00 Melbourne AEST

For other times:  https://tinyurl.com/yx8qaupe

PROPOSED AGENDA

Revised Proposed Agenda:

  1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs)
  2. Overview of Updated Timeline and Work Plan
  3. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:
    1. Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6, in conjunction with Proposals #2 & #4
    2. Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 8
    3. (if time permits) Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9, in conjunction with Proposal #13
  4. AOB


While the discussions of Questions 1 and 5(a) and review of Individual Proposal #9 have not been completed during the call this week, Sub Team members have been asked to provide any additional input via the discussion threads by 15 May 2019 (unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise).


BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS


Sunrise_Trademark Claims Sub Teams & Full WG Timeline (30 April 2019)

RECORDINGS


Mp3

Zoom Recording

GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar

PARTICIPATION


Attendance & Chat

Apologies: None

Notes/ Action Items


Action Items:

 

  1. Staff will start up a discussion thread on Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4).
  2. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.
  3. Sub Team members will review the homework assignments in preparation for the next meeting.

 

Brief Notes:

 

  1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided.


  1. Overview of Updated Timeline and Work Plan:


  1. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:


  1. Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6, in conjunction with Proposals #2 & #4

 

-- Perhaps don’t answer 6(a) for now.  Could look at the proposals.

-- On the descriptive portion of Q6(a), this was covered during the initial WG discussion of the refined Sunrise Charter questions (i.e. info about SDRPs)
.

-- Not sure this is serving the purpose to which it was intended.  The SDRP is sort of vestigial.  When we talk about whether it’s serving its intended purpose maybe it is obsolete, but maybe it could be made more useful.

-- Not sure if it is in our scope to address particular policies for particular TLDs.  But there are minimum requirements imposed on all TLDs, which the WG is required to look at.

-- Each RO has it's own SDRP. But each has to have certain elements per the AG: Applicant Guidebook 4 June 2012, Module 5, Page 8, Article 6.2.4
.

-- Registries are not responsible for actions or inactions of other non affiliated Registries.


-- David McAuley will put a suggested answer to Question 6(c) in the thread: We aren’t going to answer about “changed” in 6(c) since it is asked in 6(a), don’t know how we can answer how they should be used, etc.

-- It’s about the mandatory parts of the SDRP, not the ones that are optional for the ROs to adopt.

-- Need both levels -- TMCH challenge and SDRP challenge.

-- Perhaps look at paring back SDRP requirements.

-- From the AGB: i.    at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty;

  1. the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration;  

iii.    the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or

  1. the trademark registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did not issue on or before the date specified by the Registry in its Sunrise Criteria, if one was specified.


-- Only (ii) is anything the RO can control.  The rest are generally within the TMCH's control.

-- When Deloitte met with the full WG about 2 years ago, they reported that all the sunrise-related disputes they’d handled to date had been from TM owners regarding verification of TM info.


-- When we think about remedies that Brand Owners and registrants need, is SDRP a way to fix the sunrise process?

-- To answer an earlier question, staff is not aware of any single published source of all ROs’ SDRPs.


-- Here is the TMCH’s Dispute Resolution Procedure (per Kristine and Susan) which allows third parties to challenge a decision as to a TMCH decision/record: http://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute

-- Proposal for someone who has the right to get a single access to a record in the TMCH to see if an SDRP would be well-grounded to challenge a Sunrise registration.

-- Opening it up on a single access basis could be gamed.

-- The SDRPs are available, but they are not all on one page per registry operator.  Go to the ICANN start up page, from that page for each registry operator that lists the documents provided by the RO -- some provides as a single document, others do it differently. See: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods


Proposals #2 and #4:  Staff will open a discussion thread for Question 6 and the proposals.

 



  • No labels