[GNSO-RPM-WG] Transcript re: Notes and Action Items - RPM PDP WG Meeting at ICANN64 - 10 March 2019

Wed Mar 13 08:37:50 UTC 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see the attached transcript for the WG meeting on 10 March.  This document also is posted to the wiki.

Kind regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Monday, March 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items - RPM PDP WG Meeting at ICANN64 - 10 March 2019

Dear Working Group members,

Please see below the notes from the WG meeting at ICANN64 in Kobe on 10 March 2019. These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat, which will be posted at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-03-10+ICANN64+Kobe+-+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.

Please also see the attached referenced slides.

Kind regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

Notes and Action Items:

Actions: Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder.

Notes:

TM Claims Sub Team Presentation:
-- Important to note that we can’t say “registry operators want X” we are basing this on a very limited response rate to the Analysis Group surveys.
-- There was a lot of data, but some that had very few responses.
-- As we look at developing preliminary recommendations, we’ll have to note the limited responses.
-- Survey was meant to get outside of our circle – the WG has a lot of people involved in these issues; we have a lot of expertise in the WG too.
-- One group that is not well-represented is potential registrants, which is why we reached out to them in the surveys.
-- On Question 4: Middle column – previously collected data.  What does it mean, “marks in the TMCH may not be the basis...” it is a summary of a summary – details provide more context.  Ariel Liang: Re Susan's question about the previously collected data in response to Claims Q4 (b)(i), this is the text included in the summary table: (b)(i) The marks in the TMCH may not be the basis for an expansion of matches for the purpose of providing a broader range of Claims Notices. The reasons include the relatively few abused labels indicated in the Deloitte TMCH Report, as well as the doubled amount of domain names/labels derived from the trademark records.
-- On the question of whether the notice deters potentially infringing/non-infringing the data doesn’t really dictate, so we are back to policy.  Data collection was not built into the new gTLD program, so hard to get the data.

Sunrise Sub Team Presentation:
-- This WG can’t do anything about premium pricing – it is out of scope.  ICANN made no pricing policies for new TLDs.  Any authority to recommend policy with respect to pricing lies with the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures WG.  Question: Is there liaising between the two WGs?  Could we refer this question to them?  Answer: If this WG were to put out a recommendation that ICANN should adopt some type of pricing limitation for marks in the clearinghouse and if that made it into our final report the SubPro would know that we put that out for comment.  Our liaisons can coordinate.
-- On Question 3: Concerns from registry operators with the revelation of proprietary data.
-- On Question 5(b): On geos have sunrises – as we dive down should registries be able to choose a combination of rights protections.
-- On Question 5(b): Third column – potential abuses of sunrise – on question about whether TM should even be able to be recorded in the TMCH to game the sunrise period.  The remedy does not lie in the change to sunrise, but in the TMCH.
-- On Question 5(b): First column – the data said TM owner’s preference.  These are slightly nuanced, so not quite the same as having the same sort of preference.
George Kirikos 2: <COMMENT>To followup on Kathy's point, it's important to note that we're developing policies for the next round of new gTLDs, and the most desirable extensions will have already been launched in the past round. Thus, the next round of TLDs will likely have more "niche" or "long tail" extensions, where a different decision calculus might apply.</COMMENT>
-- On Question 9: Doesn’t seem correct to refer to “anecdotal” data, may not be applicable in all instances.

Timeline/Next Steps:
-- Preliminary recommendations will be based on data analysis among other inputs.
-- How do the preliminary recommendations take into account the individual proposals?  Because Sub Teams are a fraction of the members in this case the individual proposals will be vetted by the Sub Teams.
-- Staff will resend the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams and the timeline as a reminder.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190313/7ac64e45/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RPM PDP WG Transcript 10 March 2019.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 268402 bytes
Desc: RPM PDP WG Transcript 10 March 2019.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20190313/7ac64e45/RPMPDPWGTranscript10March2019-0001.pdf>