[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Item/Links & Agenda: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 02 Jan 1800 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear RPM Sunrise Sub Team members,

 

Please see below the draft agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 02 January at 1800 UTC for 60 minutes.

 

Please also see the following action item, references, and links from the meeting notes below.

 

Best,

Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie

 

ACTION ITEM: : By 1300 UTC, Wednesday, 02 January 2018, analyze whether / how the data in "Actual & Potential Registrants", “Registry & Registrars”, and “Trademark Owners” tabs answer the agreed question 5, sub question 5(a), and all the sub questions of 5(a), in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs1qmUuIjg/edit#gid=381275905 and add your comments/suggestions in the summary table (to be provided, see action item 2) [BY 02 Jan]  See:

 

Question 5  (Final Charter Questions for Sunrise & Trademark Claims RPMs for Which Data is Being Sought) 

(a) Does the current 30-day minimum for a Sunrise Period serve its intended purpose, particularly in view of the fact that many registry operators actually ran a 60-day Sunrise Period?

• Are there any unintended results?

• Does the ability of Registry Operators to expand their Sunrise Periods create uniformity concerns that should be addressed by this WG?

• Are there any benefits observed when the Sunrise Period is extended beyond 30 days? 

• Are there any disadvantages?

 

Draft Agenda:

 

1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest

2. Select Sub Team Leader

3. Begin survey analysis

4. AOB

 

 

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

 

Actions:

 
Staff will extend the nominations for Sub Team leaders/co-leaders to COB 21 December and also send to the Working Group for reference. [DONE]
Staff will create Google documents for each question to which Sub Team members can add comments/suggestions. [ONGOING]
Sub Team members: By 1300 UTC, Wednesday, 02 January 2018, analyze whether / how the data in "Actual & Potential Registrants", “Registry & Registrars”, and “Trademark Owners” tabs answer the agreed question 5, sub question 5(a), and all the sub questions of 5(a), in the spreadsheet at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs1qmUuIjg/edit#gid=381275905 and add your comments/suggestions in the summary table (to be provided, see action item 2) [BY 02 Jan]  See:
 

Question 5  (Final Charter Questions for Sunrise & Trademark Claims RPMs for Which Data is Being Sought) 

(a) Does the current 30-day minimum for a Sunrise Period serve its intended purpose, particularly in view of the fact that many registry operators actually ran a 60-day Sunrise Period?

• Are there any unintended results?

• Does the ability of Registry Operators to expand their Sunrise Periods create uniformity concerns that should be addressed by this WG?

• Are there any benefits observed when the Sunrise Period is extended beyond 30 days? 

• Are there any disadvantages?

 

Notes:

 

1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest: Susan Payne has taken the position of Secretary of the Intellectual Property Constituency.

 

2. Select Sub Team Leader:

 

-- ACTION ITEM: Resend the nomination announcement until COB 21 December, also send to the full WG.

-- Consider whether WG Co-Chairs could rotate.

 

3. Begin survey analysis

 

-- ACTION ITEM -- Tool: Look at the refined charter questions and the Data Sub Team questions -- structured on the original data request table.  Applies some structure.

-- Ask Sub Team members to point out where other data applies.

-- Cells F28 and G28 answer that, namely that only 4 TM owners missed the 30 day deadline.

-- Cell F31 argues for 'more time', but with no tradeoff/cost attached to it, it's somewhat a weak question

-- Registries and Registrars data also apply.

-- Question 5 is not the place to start.

-- See F28 and G28 responses.

-- Don't look at the Sunrise period on its own, look at the time before it sharts (G35 on registries and registrars tab).

-- F31 indicates that people believe that a 60-day period would be preferable.

-- Can look at brand owner, but also at registries and registrars.  Line: 33 onward.

-- Haven't decided the overarching question -- is Sunrise a good thing?  Is it a good thing?  Propose that we go to the summary table: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20181203/0f4ad243/TableoffinalagreedSunrisequestionsdataforreview-3Dec2018-0001.pdf.,

-- Need to start filling in the table.

-- From registrars find it too late -- don't participate.  Misunderstanding of 30 days versus 60 days (30 days sunrise and 60 days are both 60 days, for the first one is a 30 day notice period).  dding +30 (multiplied by something) days means registry can not start business , but paying bills.  There is no way registries could do 60 days because of the first come, first-served scenario.  The questions didn't provide clarity or there was no knowledge about this.

-- Could run it longer than 60 days -- the durations are a minimum.

-- Filter for the question was those registrars who participated in sunrise.

-- Registry/Registrar -- Q15 and Q4 tabs -- costs implementing sunrise periods.  Also, registry E29. 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20181219/35641561/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2057 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20181219/35641561/smime.p7s>