[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 23 January 1800 UTC

Thu Jan 24 18:47:44 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 23 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/2019-01-23+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Data+Review. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions: 
Sub Team Homework on previously collected data (see separate message for instructions): By Tuesday, 29 January 2019 at 17:00 UTC, the Sunrise Sub Team is tasked to provide input in the Google Docs set up for:
Preamble Sunrise Charter Question: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ph-QXnQLWPVXCDVtM8l51r8Nt0Xojil-CR0fU6cupiU/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 1:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zi5rDXEkLGMuuRdSgXncOoPVO3vR783yQQ1JYMHqQz0/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
Sunrise Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8SXcZRSzluqAVkTxYJL63qbBt_A8e9vZNdoKJp8tFc/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 3: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10npR7b_6WWJZ6J20583GNq2OLM4jBp-sS-Yeq564GwM/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Sunrise Charter Question 4: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecm9e0jiA6dPsUcACNlHOLgFD5tZPgU3PzF3WtDOdqY/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
See also the analysis tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SzvdmVhY8dZ4I_ZGVoN5lOSueHNzbm1jQErssAJI8QQ/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]  
Review the input/comment for the Sunrise Charter Questions already discussed relating to the survey data, the Google Docs are locked for further input:
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. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates were provided.

2. Continue survey analysis of Sunrise Charter Questions 7-12:

2.1 Sunrise Charter Question 7

-- Nothing relevant in the survey on this question.

2.2 Sunrise Charter Question 8

-- On Cell F52 -- If you look at how others answer the survey, they aren't looking at it in a binary way.

-- Point is that registries and registrars are not in a position to opine on whether marks are overly generic.  Assuming it's a valid TM it isn't for the Ry/Rr's call to say if it's a valid TM.  It is up to the policy or not.

-- Cell F52 -- registry operators -- any unanticipated issues with these programs (LRPs, ARPs, and QLPs).

-- What we are thinking about here for registries that have a particular aim, intention, target audience and whether they need some different rules or changes.

-- Data seems to illustrate this problem: need a better understanding of the LRP, ARP, and QLP are -- and how timing of Sunrise interacts with those.  We will be talking about recommendations soon.

2.3 Sunrise Charter Question 9

-- TSusan P: It is not gaming, depending on the field of operation of the brand, and how concerned you are regarding confusion. 5 is not really gaming depending on how big you are and your field of activity. The point of Sunrise is to allow brand owners to form the level of protections.  My point is that if you are operating in a particular field then you might consider it appropriate to cover all the TLDs directly relevant to your business area plus some other "generic term  TLDs like online, shopt, etc".  Some with a different attitude to risk might register fewer and decide they'll rely on the URS/UDRP for the rest

-- If we limited to only relevant TLDs they don't match with goods and services -- you can't just say an exact match to a list of goods and services.

-- Michael Karanicolas: Seems to support concerns of gaming, but the way the responses are clustered and if you look at the top end of the spectrum there is a clustering at the high end for people registering domains but not for TMs.  Suggestive of the need for this kind of solution -- a categorization approach.  Can't register a completely generic term.

-- Go to TM Owner Q10 tab -- has some data.

2.4 Sunrise Charter Question 10

-- Need more data than is in the survey to answer this question.

-- In the staff report a number of brand owners did give examples of practical problems, but not sure how it applies to this question.

-- Might need to see how this question is addressed when we move to TMCH structural questions.

2.5 Sunrise Charter Question 11

2.6 Sunrise Charter Question 12

-- Do have some data that addresses the question and relates to other questions.

3. Continue survey analysis of additional input/comments on Sunrise Charter Questions 3, 4, Questions 5(b), and Question 6: 

-- Sub Team members should review the new input/comments as provided from last week.  The documents are locked for new comments.

-- There will be time at the beginning at the call next week on 30 January 18:00 UTC in case there are any issues Sub Team members wish to raise on the input/comments. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190124/d3aed545/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/20190124/d3aed545/smime-0001.p7s>