[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Follow up on two staff action items from Sunrise Sub Team requests

[Mary Wong]

Dear all,

We are pleased to provide you with updates on two action items on the staff side from the last two Sub Team calls.

The first relates to documented rationale for a Sunrise RPM. As mentioned during the last Sub Team call, we were not able to find specific text in either the IRT or STI final reports that directly addressed this question. However, in a 2005 paper on intellectual property considerations in introducing new gTLDs, WIPO’s Arbitration & Mediation Center had made a few observations that we thought might be possibly helpful, particularly in relation to its examination of how previous gTLD launches had dealt with Sunrise. An extract from that 2005 paper is attached, and includes a link to the full paper for your reference.

(FYI you may also be interested to know that the IPC had produced a booklet on “The Perfect Sunrise” in 2008 where you can find a summary of the Sunrise mechanisms adopted by some of the gTLDs launched in the 2004 round (.aero, .asia, .biz, .mobi and .museum): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/perfect-sunrise-jun08-en.pdf (from pages 10-26).)

The second staff action item was for us to recirculate the information that Deloitte had provided to our Working Group in relation to SMD files and the TMCH:


·         Here is the question that our TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team asked Deloitte and Deloitte’s answer (in January):
“Q: How many SMD files has the TMCH revoked as a result of cancellation or expiration of the underlying trademark(s)?  How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for trademarks that are cancelled/expired?

A: Please note that are numerous reasons why a SMD file is revoked. A SMD file, as requested by the community, contains the trademark information and the contact information. This entails that each change revokes the current SMD file and a new SMD file is generated. In addition, a user can opt out of the sunrise services at any time which revokes the current SMD file as well as the fact that the information of trademark record is no longer accurate.

Consequently, we do not keep track of the reasons why a SMD file is revoked as this is technically linked to the different stages and interactions with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Due to this and the mere fact that this was never imposed by the community, the validity of a SMD file is not a reason for dispute with the TMCH.”


·         In Copenhagen, Deloitte provided an updated report on TMCH numbers where it also explained what a deactivated TMCH record means: “What happens if a trademark record goes to invalid? Does it need the database? So for trademark clearinghouse purposes it was always requested that no data would be deleted. So that's why it … becomes deactivated. So in the event that a client wishes no longer to have anything to do with the clearinghouse those trademark records will indeed become - I mean, will have the deactivated status now.”


·         This followed from Deloitte’s response to the additional questions it had been sent by our Working Group, noting that when a TM holder informs the TMCH that a mark has been cancelled, the TMCH record becomes deactivated and Sunrise services are cancelled within 24 hours.

We hope the above is useful.

Thanks and cheers
Mary


From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>
Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 22:33
To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017

Dear Sub Team Members,

Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_Ow3fAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=Smb6RAV89fz8jmI1BGAHSyuwMOYju0VN2-yVzBEoGnU&s=gdGX74faLkLu29z6E1zE6kT6PmlJt45-dKgYsD9l15Q&e=>

Action Items:


1.      Changes to the table in the Google Doc

a.      Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16)

b.      Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection

c.       Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up

2.      Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week:

a.      Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing)

b.      Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list

c.       Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion

d.      Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons)

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170515/0f613e73/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Extract on Sunrise from WIPO 2005 Paper on New gTLDs.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 126520 bytes
Desc: Extract on Sunrise from WIPO 2005 Paper on New gTLDs.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170515/0f613e73/ExtractonSunrisefromWIPO2005PaperonNewgTLDs-0001.docx>