[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 16 January 1800 UTC

Wed Jan 16 20:53:36 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 16 January 2019 (18:00-19:00 UTC).  Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes.  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/2019-01-09+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Data+Review. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:
Schedule the call on 23 January for 90 minutes (DONE).
Sub Team Homework (see separate email for instructions: By Tuesday, 22 January 2019 at 18:00 UTC, the Sunrise Sub Team is tasked to provide input in the Google Docs set up for:
Sunrise Charter Question 7:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/16aDHI9a5HdStzw0t5RG3xs0kCiRXK5qVr5nHucTXNVs/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 8: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1mKDObpwPUDjn2-uhKENIEL6mZIwVC_wZX2VxVuvQqag [drive.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 9: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SuRmmmORn9CKT6946wYpjpjGjJ_3F8UCIfNzU1dWh8E/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15CeX6Ky2Y070drQ6NeHX8H-kTPopsnkH43v_OlRWVi0/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 11: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NwYDeR1ICnwTQbGtW0lN9DW658DrdA6TvPLtJJOlTo8 [drive.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 12:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Kwy-c7xAxVIrknsIOzGYmB7PIK9u0PJIFdjYu5dV7Iw [drive.google.com]
 For those who would like to provide additional input/comment for the Sunrise Charter Questions already discussed, the Google Docs are unlocked.
Sunrise Preamble Charter Question: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fw2j0gTvXi8lKlt5qELD6i1Ifg7-_9-jFSup8MEmH80/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 1:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J3URFVIhknwU53IZDyF4GMrJ-VKnEsgXk2e2Dd0Fcv8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 2: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1uwNtzemdC65DWMcVkJ2HfWFIHyCvtJzqMgaarLn2nsM [drive.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxPbe4gApZO6USTfDI-xMp3lIeS7hIxozX_0ad_xfl8/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 4: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-rpRnMArtFoS8_6Sx99aBY3FAJRWhfyyPY-bc6CR6DI [drive.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 5(a): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cHtWXXy9jh5JsoieFE7VinddaWvGTlaAE58E4ujn_ao/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 5(b): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1t_R-Ceo_aTnb3zI6AZw4kYJVJJfCIvCkIMGBxViEo8o [drive.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 6: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fDahBHB3JiMg0EHPZa4h5H_SVXrADKSnsneQe1MIJOA/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] 

Notes:

1. Update to Statements of Interest:  No updates provided.

2. Continue survey analysis:

General Discussion:

-- Ensure that all have read the Proposed Process.

-- Currently reviewing survey data.

-- Then move to review of previously collected data.

-- Then to review of individual proposals.

-- End of April recommendations to full WG.

-- Can suggest recommendations as the sub team discusses the data against the charter questions -- not necessarily a linear process.

-- 90 minutes scheduled for this call, but if we are ready to stop at 60 minutes we can do that.  If we need more time we can proceed to 90 minutes.

Additional input/comment on Sunrise Charter Question 5(a) and Preamble Charter Question:

-- Here we are talking about Sunrise pricing, not general registry pricing.

-- More about using Sunrise pricing in a disparate manner.

-- There are pricing and other data that there are things that are taking place that are undermining.

Sunrise Charter Question 1:

George Kirikos' comments (see full comments for details):

-- Couldn't find anything in the survey that addresses charter question 1(b) .

Griffin Barnett's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Generally agrees with George's points.

-- Survey data doesn't substantially assist in answer the question.

-- Not suggestion opinion as to expansion or not.  C

Discussion:

-- Anyone using trademark protection is doing so for that purpose.

-- An issue that does not seem to be answered -- where someone has a legal right to use a name that doesn't derive from TM rights.  Could be addressed in sub team or individual proposals.

Sunrise Charter Question 2:

George Kirikos' Comments (see full comments for details):

-- Do have some data with specific numbers on pricing.

-- Fairness/unfairness is somewhat subjective.

Maxim Alzoba's Comments (see full comments for details):

-- Per new gTLD RAA pricing cannot be adjusted via policy mechanism.

Griffin Barnett's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Issue of disparate pricing between Sunrise and other registry pricing.

-- Experience of brand owners (75%) was sometime, very often, or always a factor in a decision to make a Sunrise registration.

Sunrise Charter Question 3:

George Kirikos's Comments(see full comments for details):

-- Didn't find data that was directly on topic.

Discussion:

-- GEO Tlds had to use Reserved names due to low QLP numbers (100) to be able to deliver street names (in big sities more than 100), pubic service names, e.t.c. to the city (and ALP , which was thought to be used for GEOs was not usable)

-- Remind everyone that there are many TLDs with many different business models.

-- The way a registry operator as a TLD could vary.  

-- .makeup was looking for people with links to the industry, but not requiring people to register a domain name.

-- Could talk about different registry types and making sure that whatever we come up with for Sunrise allows flexibility of different TLD types (such as geos).

Sunrise Charter Question 4:

-- A lot of the answers seemed to be self-serving.

-- No need to force publication of reserved name lists.

--  In case of profanity language in reserved list - publishing might cause violation of the law.

-- Add that some sort of notice would be a useful requirement.

Sunrise Charter Question 5(b):

George Kirikos's comments (see full comments for details):

-- Could be combined with question 5(a).

-- Not representative of all TM owners.

Kathy Kleiman's comments (see full comments for details):

-- The sunrise period is causing trouble -- from GEOS, etc. (see the comments).

Discussion:

-- Re: Kathy's comments - F51 is 4 out of 11, rather than over half.

Sunrise Charter Question 6:

Discussion:

-- George Kirikos and Griffin Barnett both agreed that the survey data didn't seem to answer this question.

-- Surveys did not discuss SDRP, but results suggest possible recommendations or fixes that could be implemented through SDRP.

-- Could it be useful in solving some of the Sunrise problems. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190116/d1387111/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4630 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190116/d1387111/smime-0001.p7s>