Page History
...
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/y2v7uv66
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 8 May at 18:00 UTC:
Resource 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
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 in the homework assignment:
Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team:https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
GNSO transcripts are located on the GNSO Calendar |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies:None Maxim Alzoba, Petter Rindforth, Zak Muscovitch, Kristine Dorrain |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items:
Brief Notes:
2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations: Continue discussion ofa. Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6, in conjunction with Proposals #2 & #48 -- 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 When we talk about whether it’s serving its intended purpose maybe it is obsolete, but maybe it could be made more useful.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;
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
-- 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. There were some limited comments in the data, but don’t think they relate to the LRP. Some issues around launch programs generally. -- Limited uptake of ALP. -- People need to be clear what they are talking about. Make sure this is clear in the discussion thread. -- The responses said that some registries noted issues with the improved launch program, which is completely different. -- Staff will revise the summary table by reviewing the source material. b. Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9, in conjunction with Proposal #13 -- Support for keeping the current rules. -- Let mark holders decide where to register the mark in Sunrise. -- Anecdote suggest problems -- scenarios where people gamed the system. -- Solution penalizes the vast majority of genuine brand owners. -- Don’t develop a system that goes further than it should. -- Not every TLD is category-specific. Proposal #13, Michael Karanicolas: -- Where a top level domain is suggestive of a category of service, then the TM holder would have to prove use in that category of service. -- The proposal doesn’t go far enough. -- Could look at how SDRP could address the problem or some variant |