Page History

Notes/ Action Items

Action Items:

1. Staff will ask Sub Team members whether there are any objections to moving next week’s call to 02 May at 18:00 UTC.
2. Staff will start up discussion threads based on the call and in coordination with the Sub Team Co-Chairs.
3. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript/recording from the meeting.
4. 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.