[Gnso-rpm-trademark] Actions & Notes: RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team Meeting 23 January 2019 1700 UTC

Thu Jan 24 18:39:19 UTC 2019

Dear All,

Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Trademark Claims Sub Team meeting held on 23 January 2019 (17:00-18:00 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+Trademark+Claims+Data+Review. 

Best Regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

==

NOTES & ACTION ITEMS

Actions:

Sub Team Homework (see separate message for instructions):

By Tuesday, 29 January 2019 at 17:00 UTC, the Trademark Claims Sub Team is tasked to provide input in the Google Docs set up for:
Claims Charter Question 1:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xIdqJc89FkVStHuceMBeShWVWD0JRD185FY5ZUjySLo/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]
Claims Charter Question 2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P2mckW_nLHiyffxLhT6h2NCWfpjwAcXQ4zjG1-c2sac/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]

Notes:

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

2. Continue survey analysis:

2.1 Claims Charter Question 5

-- On Kristine's comments on sunk costs -- we are looking both backwards and forwards.  There are sunk costs, but we have to look to the future and new entrants to the registry market wouldn't have those sunk costs.  Future registry operators wouldn't be the same as current registry operators.  Perhaps ICANN could offer open source software so there is no advantage to existing registry operators.

-- Noting that the survey was of current participants/registry operators.

-- Seems that respondents want to choose (registry survey).

-- From a registrar perspective the registries might want to be different, but it's difficult for registrars to explain those differences to registrants.

2. 2 Claims Charter Question 2

-- From the registry and registrar tabs, whether the period should be extended.  Data seems to suggest eliminated or shortened.  For (d) didn't find anything in the survey.  For (e) hinted that it would be desirable.  Registries expressed concerns.

2.3 Additional Comments on Claims Charter Question 1

-- Tend to agree that there seems to be a bifurcation in the survey between the ICANN-promoted sample and the panel.

2.4 Additional Comments on Claims Charter Question 3

-- Generally agreed that the claims notice could be improved.  Kristine's point is that the claims notice is meeting its intended purpose in deterring, and it may be discouraging other people who would have a right to register.  It has possibly reduced cybersquatting.  You could answer "yes" to 3(a) and still say it could be improved.

-- Agreement in the Sub Team that current language of the notice can be improved.  If the WG makes a recommendation we don't have to agree on the language of the notice, but guidance on how it could be improved.  How it could be improved could depend on how we deal with other questions.

-- Can be improved, but answers of some respondents indicates that the notice is confusing or unclear.

-- Re: 3(b) -- Seems the question has an inherent bias as worded/confusing.  Need to figure out the intent.  The question here is if we are obligated or want to address the problem that registrars discovered -- practicalities of a claims notice and timing out -- consider whether to address or not.  Is this a problem we want to address.

-- Re 3(b) -- Question 12 -- 15 of 17 respondents (registrars) offer pre-order systems for new gTLD domain names and are affected by the issue of timing out.  Points to this being a problem to solve.  

-- G75 of Registry & Registrar tab talked about it from the order flow (answers from Registrars).  How the current state of the order flow in terms of the Registrars implementing the notice, but not how they would like it in future.

2.5 Additional Comments on Claims Charter Question 4

-- Kristine's comments: It's about balance -- some matches are deemed worthy of preventative tools, like the claims notices, some are relegated to curative.  The STI and IRT was a balance of what you got versus what you gave.  Be careful not to tip the balance.

-- Little if any data for 4(b), (c), (d) from the survey.

-- Re: (b)-(d) we have a proposal from Shatan/Winterfeldt/Graham re expanded matches.  Not sure if the proposal is technically feasible.  TM owner survey asked about issues with exact and non-exact matches. 

3. AOB:

3.1 Next meeting 30 January  - Homework assignment will be to begin the review of the previously collected data. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/attachments/20190124/12cff537/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-trademark/attachments/20190124/12cff537/smime-0001.p7s>