** Members who CANNOT make this meeting should RSVP accordingly so that a decision to go ahead or not can be made if a substantial number indicate they cannot attend.
Please send notice of apologies to: gnso-secs@icann.org
The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations is scheduled for Friday, 19 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minute duration.
07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London 16:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/mhbkzhm
PROPOSED AGENDA:
1. Discuss Google Doc revisions
2. Discuss Work Plan
Documents:
Attending but leaving early: Matthew Mlsna
Apology: Lori Schulman, Susan Payne, Phil Corwin
Action Items:
Notes:
-- Question 1:
- 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.
