2019-04-10 Sub Team for Sunrise Data Review

Notes/ Action Items

Actions:

1. Staff, as a continuation of the action item from the 03 April call, will continue to compile into the summary table draft language for preliminary recommendations as suggested in the Sub Team discussions.  Staff will initiate email threads on charter questions under discussion and associated draft preliminary recommendations for Sub Team members to review and discuss.
2. Sub Team members: Complete the homework (see separate [HOMEWORK] email with PDFs) in preparation for the next meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC:
1. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10;
2. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11;
3. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9;
4. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a).

Notes:

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

1. Development of Preliminary Recommendations:

Overview:

-- Focus attention on the work between now and mid-May (6 meetings).

-- Supplement what we are doing on the calls with work on the list.

-- Thinking of creating email threads per charter question.

-- Staff is encapsulating potential preliminary recommendation language to share with the sub team for review.

-- Only forwarding to the WG the proposals that have broad support.

-- Consider moving to 90-minute meetings.

1. Discuss individual proposals relating to question 3 (see individual proposals at: https://community.icann.org/x/R6EWBg) -- #10

-- Seems like this could be an outlier behavior.

-- Where you have generic words or non-fanciful/famous marks that is one case; fanciful/famous marks is another case.

-- Registry operators usually have a basis /case for why they are placing a premium pricing or reserve on a name -- usually to protect the TM holder.

-- We do have the issue of pricing, which is out of scope.

-- Might consider an informal approach, such as a best practice.

-- Registries cannot look into the TMCH for any name; they need to be able to verify against the TMCH list for necessary circumstance.

-- Maxim Alzoba: 1. As I understand the 'not fair' point happens where Sunrise has differentiated pricing (and not just - any word = same price), but this can be used only as a good practice suggestion (outside of picket fence)

-- Maxim Alzoba: 2. TMCH subscribers need to be verified by TLDs, in case of this hypothetical procedure (currently Registries are prohibited from looking into TMCH)

-- Maxim Alzoba: 3. the hypothetical process (if we go there) should have safeguards from not very good actors (like parties lost URDP too often), and parties registering TMs on basis of how word is good in the dictionary , (I am not talking about good TM owners, who protect their business and ventures)

-- Helpful to get input from Compliance.  But they can enforce only what is in the contract, around the contract, and policies.

1. Begin discussion of preliminary recommendations and individual proposals for question 4 -- #11

Individual Proposal #11:

-- On picket fence and pricing: there can be pricing provisions in the registry agreement.

-- Seems that this would be a highly subjective process to come up with a formal system for how to adjudicate these.

-- What about a general policy recommendation that pricing policies should not circumvent other policies (e.g., RPMs)?

-- Registry Agreement Spec 1 is one approach, PICs are another.

-- Doesn't seem a big a risk for the PIC process to be abused.

-- TMCH has been abused.