Versions Compared

Old Version 8

changes.mady.by.user Terri Agnew

Saved on

compared with

New Version 9

changes.mady.by.user Amr Elsadr

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

1. Discuss Google Doc revisions
2. Discuss Work Plan

Documents: Table with Original Charter Questions and Proposed Final Questions + Data Collection Needed

Attendance

Attending but leaving early: Matthew Mlsna

...

AC Chat

Transcript

Action Items:

1. To cover concerns to registrants, Sub Team to suggest possible rewording of Question 1, batching it with other questions, or possibly suggest an additional question

2. Sub Team to follow up with Lori Schulman on data (examples) to answer Proposed Final Question 2 provided in the INTA survey results/report

3. Sub Team to consider adding a fourth bullet to Proposed Final Question 2 on registry operator practices other than pricing of Sunrise registrations and Premium Names, which may have a deterrent effect on brand owners’ use of Sunrise

4. Sub Team to follow up on outstanding action item regarding definitions for Premium Names, Reserved Names and Premium Sunrise Pricing on the mailing list

5. Sub Team to consider rewording of Proposed Final Question 3 to reflect that the effect on both trademark holders and registry operators needs to be considered, when discussing the impact on geoTLDs and QLPs when reserved names are registered in the TMCH

6. Sub Team to revise Final Proposed Questions (such as Final Proposed Question 4) to ensure that they incorporate the original Charter questions, and are asking questions that are practically answerable

7. Sub Team to look over the Proposed Final Question 6, which addresses the intended effect and effectiveness of Sunrise, and consider if it requires further refinement

8. Staff to circulate previous versions and current version of the google doc tables, so that Sub Team can track changes made

 

Notes: 

-- Question 1:

  • Co-chairs of the Working Group asked that the Sub Teams submit the list of proposed final Charter questions to the Full Working Group by 31 May 2017
  • Focus of call on two columns in the latest version of the table:
    • Proposed Final Updates/Refinements made by the Sub Team
    • Sub Team Suggestions on Data Collection
  • Data collection suggestions may need to be updated, particularly if the Sub Team continues to update/refine Charter questions
  • Table is meant to display original Charter questions, changes made and reasons/rationale on why the changes were made
  • Should the order of questions be revised before the Sub Team sends proposed updates and refinements of the Charter questions to the full Working Group?
  • Proposed Final Question 1:
    • Keep question as it is currently worded
    • No data collection recommended for this question
    • Working Group can determine whether it has already answered this question
    • Questions on expansion of Sunrise (such as beyond applicability to exact matches to records in the TMCH) - possible to batch Q1 and Q13/Q18 to address how expansion may affect third-party registrants ability to register domain names
    • Alternatively: Add an additional question that would cover concerns regarding the impact of Sunrise on registrants
    • Current formulation of questions cover concerns of brand owners more than registrants - Every question needs to have a balanced approach to effects on both trademark holders and registrants
    • ACTION ITEM: To cover concerns to registrants, Sub Team to suggest possible rewording of Q1, batching it with other questions, or possibly suggest an additional question
    • Suggestion: To add cover note pointing out that all Sunrise Charter questions require answers that take into consideration concerns of both trademark holders as well as third-party registrants
  • Proposed Final Question 2:
    • Updated Q2 is a consolidation of 3 Charter questions
    • Reworded Q2 is not meant to suggest that ICANN should regulate pricing of domain name registrations during Sunrise
    • Intent of question is to clarify whether current practices make it difficult for brand owners to participate in Surnise
    • From AC Chat: if ICANN does not have right to regulate prices, then any kind of policy related to price regulation can not be implemented
    • There may be a need to call for data (examples) to answer this question - Follow up with Lori on INTA survey results/report (ACTION ITEM)
    • From AC Chat: we might need to reword question Q2 (to show that was it a pricing or any other reason which prevented you from Sunrise registration?)
    • Outstanding action items for the Sub Team to suggest definition for "premium names", among others
    • Important to keep the intent of the original Charter questions, but rephrasing/rewording should be helpful in ensuring that Charter questions are not suggestive of a specific answer
    • From AC Chat: Or perhaps we add a sub-question saying "Were there other registry practices other than pricing that chilled brand owner participation in Sunrise?" or something along those lines (ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to consider adding this question as a fourth bullet)
  • Proposed Final Question 3:
    • Outstanding action items for the Sub Team to suggest a definition for "reserved names"
    • Data/anecdotes needed to support allegations suggested in Charter Q4/Reworded Q3 regarding the frequency of reserved names being registered in the TMCH
    • From AC Chat: I'm not sure "chiling effect" is the right terminology....the question is really getting at whether reserving names that match TMCH-recorded marks circumvents Sunrise when the reserved name is later released after Sunrise
    • Any suggested change to the practices currently in the Applicant Guidebook of how reserved names works will affect how geoTLDs and QLPs function, and their availability for use by affected cities and municipalities - needs to be taken into consideration
    • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to consider rewording of updated Q3 to reflect that the effect of reserved names being registered in the TMCH on geoTLDs and QLPs needs to be considered
    • How does the presence of reserved names in the TMCH affect brand owners' ability to register domain names relevant to their trademarks in Sunrise - consider balanced approach regarding the interests of trademark holders and gTLD registries
    • From AC Chat: since reserved names + release+ QLPs are quite tied, these needs to be discussed together, to avoid destruction of current GEO model.
  • Proposed Final Question 4:
    • Registry Operators have no access to records in the TMCH, so cannot publish a list of reserved names that corresponds to them
    • Some registries may be prohibited from publishing their list of reserved names, depending on applicable law/jurisdiction to each registry
    • Applicable legal requirements for each registry operator supersedes policies developed by the GNSO
    • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to revise reworded questions to ensure that they incorporate the original Charter questions, and are asking questions that are practically answerable
  • Proposed Final Question 5:
    • No Comments made
  • Proposed Final Question 6:
    • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to look over the reworded question, which addresses the intended effect and effectiveness of Sunrise, and consider if it requires further refinement
  • Proposed Final Question 7:
    • Reworded question about improving the transparency of Sunrise procedures, including the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process
  • Proposed Final Question 8:
    • Is this question still necessary considering response already provided by Deloitte?
  • Proposed Final Question 9:
    • This question has not been discussed thoroughly by the Sub Team
    • Suggestion for edits to this question, if needed
  • Proposed Final Question 10:
    • No Discussion
  • Proposed Final Question 11:
    • Does the Sub Team agree with the suggested rewording (provided by Susan Payne)?
    • From AC Chat: To the Notes, please add concern about phrasing, wording, need for balance, and consideration of TM owners, registries and registrants in the questions.
  • Original Charter Question 14:
    • The suggestion by the Sub Team was to defer this question, until the full Working Group has completed discussion of the TMCH structure and operations
  • Suggestion from staff for the Sub Team to start looking at questions that have not been previously discussed during upcoming calls and on the Sub Team mailing list
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate previous versions and current version of the google doc tables, so that Sub Team can track changes made
  • Keep question as-is - WG can determine whether it has already been answered - no data collection recommended for this question
  • Questions on expansion of Sunrise (such as beyond applicability to exact matches to records in the TMCH) - possible to batch Q1 and Q13/Q18 to address how expansion may affect third-party registrants ability to register domain names
  • Alternatively: Add an additional question that would cover concerns regarding registrants - impact of Sunrise on registrants
  • Current formulation of questions cover concerns of brand owners more than registrants - Every question needs to have a balanced approach to effects on both trademark holders and registrants
  • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to suggest rewording/batching of Q1 and others to cover concerns to registrants, or possibly to suggest an additional question
  • Suggestion: To add cover note pointing out that all Sunrise Charter questions require answers that take into consideration concerns of both trademark holders as well as registrants

    -- Question 2:

  • Updated Q2 is a consolidation of 3 Charter questions
  • Reworded Q2 is not meant to suggest that ICANN should regulate pricing of domain name registration during Sunrise.
  • From AC Chat: if ICANN does not have right to regulate prices, then any kind of policy related to price regulation can not be implemented
  • There may be a need to call for data to answer this question - Follow up with Lori on INTA survey report (ACTION ITEM)
  • From AC Chat: we might need to reword question Q2 (to show that was it a pricing or any other reason which prevented you from Sunrise registration?)
  • Oustanding action items for the Sub Team to suggest definition for "premium names", among others
  • Important to keep the intent of the original Charter questions, but rephrasing/rewording should be helpful in ensuring that Charter questions are not suggestive of a specific answer
  • From AC Chat: Or perhaps we add a sub-question saying "Were there other registry practices other than pricing that chilled brand owner participation in Sunrise?" or something along those lines (ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to consider adding this question as a fourth bullet)

    -- Reworded question 3:

  • Outstanding action items for the Sub Team to suggest a definiton for "reserved names"
  • Data/anecdotes needed to support allegations suggested in Charter Q4/Reworded Q3 - frequency of reserved names being in the TMCH
  • From AC Chat: I'm not sure "chiling effect" is the right terminology....the question is really getting at whether reserving names that match TMCH-recorded marks circumvents Sunrise when the reserved name is later released after Sunrise
  • Any suggested change to the practices of how reserved names works will affect how geoTLDs and QLPs function - need to be taken into consideration
  • Reword updated Q3 to reflect that effect of reserved names in the TMCH on geoTLDs and QLPs needs to be considered
  • How does the presence of reserved names in the TMCH affect brand owners' ability to register domain names relevant to their trademarks in Sunrise - consider balanced approach regarding the interests of trademark holders and gTLD registries
  • From AC Chat: since reserved names + release+ QLPs are quite tied, these needs to be discussed together, to avoid destruction of current GEO model.

    -- Revised Question 4:

  • Registry Operators have no access to records in the TMCH, so cannot publish a list of reserved names that corresponds to them
  • Some registries may be prohibited from publishing their list of reserved names, depending on applicable law/jurisdiction to each registry
  • ACTION ITEM: Sub Team to revise reworded questions to ensure that they are asking questions that are practically answerable

    -- Reworded Question 6:

  • Sub Team to look over the reworded question, and consider if it requires further refinement

    -- Reworded Question 8:

  • Is this question still necessary considering response already provided by Deloitte?

    -- Reworded Question 11:

  • Does the Sub Team agree with the suggested rewording (provided by Susan Payne)?
  • Suggestion from staff for the Sub Team to start looking at questions that have not been previously discussed.
  • ACTION ITEM: Staff to circulate previous versions and current version of the google doc tables, so that Sub Team can track changes
  • From AC Chat: To the Notes, please add concern about phrasing, wording, need for balance, and consideration of TM owners, registries and registrants in the questions.