[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 24 April 1800 UTC

[Julie Hedlund]

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 24 April 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC).  Staff will post them to the wiki space.  Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-24+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Data+Review.

Best Regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190424/3fc0e0bb/attachment.html>