2. Status of the RPMs PDP Susan Payne IPC Member and WG participant
ICANN60
31 October 2017

3. How did we get there? October 2011: UDRP Final Issue Report:
Not before URS in operation for at least 18 months
December 2011: GNSO Council requested Issue Report on state of ALL RPMs
18 months after delegation of first New gTLD
September 2015: Final Staff Report on RPMs published
January 2016: Final Issue Report submitted to GNSO Council
February 2016: PDP initiated; request for participants
April 2016: First meeting of the PDP working group

4. Structure of the review
Phase 1 – New gTLD-specific RPMs
Trademark Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP)
Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)
Sunrise
Trademark Claims
URS
Current timeline: Final Report on Phase 1 approx. August ambitious
Phase 2 – UDRP

5. Approached being adopted
Approach being adopted:
Where is the evidence of harm / problem to be fixed?
Use of sub teams for “first-pass”:
Initial review of the issues identified in Charter: revision for sense and bias
Identify data requirements and possible sources to inform review
Sub teams for TMCH, Sunrise, Claims, Additional Marketplace RPMs, Data Gathering
All sub team output reviewed and agreed by full WG

6. Work to date: PDDRP April – November 2016 No PDDRP cases to date
Issues considered included:
Why has it not been used? Not necessarily indicative of failure
Would pre-action mediation be beneficial?
Can multiple claimants consolidate / join forces against a single defendant?
Sought feedback from brand owners and polled WG members

7. Work to date: Trademark Clearinghouse
Topics subject to particular debate, and use of strawperson proposals:
How are (and should) design marks be handled:
Challenge to agree terminology
Should the TMCH only accept trademarks registered as plain block capitals? Stylised script? Word plus device element?
What about disclaimers?
Should TMCH accept geographical indications & designations of origin:
Was this what was intended by “marks protected by treaty or statute”?
Only if also registered as a trademark?
Should the matching rules be expanded for Trademark Claims? i.e. mark +

8. Work to date: Sunrise and Claims
Request made to GNSO Council for resource to seek to gather extensive data
Includes professional surveys of various target groups:
Registries; registrars; trademark owners; other domain name registrants & potential registrants; public interest groups and trade associations
Both quantitative and anecdotal evidence
Data Sub Team working to provide input and guidance into the RFP for a supplier

9. Work to date: Sunrise and Claims
Topics the WG hopes the surveys will inform include:
Impact of Sunrise and premium pricing, and use of reserved names, on TM owners’ ability to participate in Sunrise
Should Sunrises be standardised; and should some types of registry have special rules, e.g. community or city TLDs
Is the Claims service having the intended effect of deterring bad faith registrations; are there unintended consequences, e.g. deterring good faith ones

10. During ICANN60 Abu Dhabi
Continuing work of the Data Sub Team: face to face working session
Beginning review of the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) by the full WG
Next meeting Thursday 2 November – Capital Suite 1:
Community feedback session on experiences of the URS