The call for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations is scheduled for Friday, 09 June 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60-minute duration.
07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 London 16:00 CET
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yb4ycukh
PROPOSED AGENDA:
- Roll call
- Sub Team discussion of latest version of the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9dBE4/edit[docs.google.com]
- Next steps (including estimate of completion date) and next meeting
Documents:
1. Sunrise Registrations Table - 9 June 2017
2. Draft Updated Workplan - 6 June 2017
3. Sunrise Registrations Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9dBE4/edit
Dial out: Lori Schulman, Amr Elsadr (Staff)
Apology: Matthew Mlsna, Roger Carney, Susan Payne
Action Items:
- Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
- Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
- Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
- Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
- Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
- Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
- Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
Notes:
- Roll Call and Updates to Statements of Interest
- No Updates
- Overview of Current Table used by the Sub Team
- Sub Team using a table with a column containing the original Charter questions, and a second column to provide possible changes/refinements to the questions
- Sub Team will not be using footnotes, so that work product of the Sub Team is clear to Working Group members
- A column will be used to clarify the changes made, and a column to be used to suggest data required to answer the questions
- New notes added by Kathy Kleiman, Kristine Dorrain and Jeremy Malcolm
- All recommendations made by the Sub Team are subject to the agreement of the full Working Group
- New notes include cross-references to original Charter questions
- Color-coding used to clarify which questions were batched as one of the preliminary tasks of the Sub Team
- Would be helpful to add a key that explains the color-coding
- Discussion on Data Requirements for Questions 15 – 22
- Question 15: This question was deleted due to batching
- Question 16:
- WG will need to review the type of evidence that constitutes a proof-of-use, which allows TMCH registrants to take advantage of Sunrise
- Action Item: Maxim to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
- Does this question of proof-of-use go to the TMCH review in general, as opposed to Sunrise Registration? Is it limited to Sunrise only, or is it applicable to broader aspects of the TMCH? Should it be addressed by the Sub Team, or the full WG?
- Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
- Definition of “reserved names” is present in the Registry Agreement
- The context of proof-of-use comes in to the applicability of Sunrise, so makes sense to deal with it in the Sub Team
- Proof-of-use is not required to get into the TMCH – only required if one wishes to purchase Sunrise Registrations services – more logical to address it in the Sunrise Sub Team
- Previous concern raised regarding gaming the system to benefit from Sunrise
- One of the remits is to look at the how the system is built today – is it working as intended, and does it need to be altered?
- Question should be enhanced to be more neutral
- Action Item for Staff to reword the question to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
- Question should capture both legitimate and abusive use of Sunrise
- What data would be required: Examples of proper and improper use?
- Is there a mechanism for a third-party (challenging registrant) to see and challenge the proof-of-use, when someone has the Sunrise registration for a domain name?
- There is no current method to revoke a domain name after registration, for example in the event that a trademark is lost – no data point on continuous proof-of-use
- It’s not specifically called out, but the TMCH’s Dispute Resolution Policies allow a third party to challenge records accepted into the TMCH
- Specific registry Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies may also have additional provisions about this
- Each registry operator has its own Sunrise dispute policy in addition to what the TMCH does
- The TMCH dispute policy does not provide access to the proof-of-use submitted by the trademark holder – how would a third-party registrant logistically go about challenging it?
- From AC Chat: Should we link #16 and SDRP questions below?
- Question 17:
- Do we know if there are currently RPMs offered in languages other than English? How are they working? (Possible data to be collected)
- All the question regarding languages are not only specific to Sunrise Registrations – important to consider in all the RPMs
- Suggestion: Adjust all the questions to specifically address Sunrise Registrations
- There needs to be one or two overarching general questions, that lead to very specific features of Sunrise or specific features of Sunrise that registry operators are using
- Action Item: Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
- From AC Chat: For questions 17 – 22 substitute Sunrise for RPM and note to reorder them to be the first questions asked.
- Question 20:
- Suggestion to defer discussion on GIs until the full WG members have completed a poll asking whether the RPMs Review should address GIs
- These questions are being considered due to input on the Charter questions by the broader community – Sub Team to determine if answering them has been superseded by other events
- Question 22:
- Examples in reworded question may be helpful in evaluation of the question
- Original question is not worded in a neutral manner, and should be reworded
- Reworded question removes some of the bias suggested in the original question – can be edited/refined further
- Should a registry operator of a geo-TLD be forced to offer Sunrise registrations, which may conflict with the purpose of its specialized TLD?
- Are there certain registries that shouldn’t have a mandatory sunrise?
- Action Item: Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
- One of the options to consider (to address actual problems) is a hybrid option – a registry could be allowed, based on its policy, LRPs first followed by a general Sunrise
- Sub Team encouraged to wrap up its work by next week
- Action Item: Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
- Action Item: Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
- Further edits to the table in the google doc to be made in suggestion mode
