Please review ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2016-06-28-en.

That's because you had me on mute on your end~!

I really tried !

I have a comment to make after your introduction, just before we get into substance.

Did anyone else lose Julie's audio?

I can hear Julie

Audio still good, via phone

@Brian it appears the audio on your end is disconnected.

Thx - sorted on my end !

Perfect!

Some of the individual proposals didn’t seem to have the same level of scrutiny do you think they warrant more scrutiny Phil?

Tx you, David!

I would support David chairing if he is willing!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xMehg9o44bdz85ry0LJvhzoOaKdmJ6SwIrLneMx0Ixc/edit#gid=1163822586

Thanks

@Paul--this sub group will only be considering WG recommendations, not individual proposals -- they will be discussed by the full WG, and we can discuss our approach at that time.

Thanks Phil

My personal view, as I have stated several times, is that few of the individual proposals have a realistic possibility of becoming recommendations to be considered during the consensus call -- but I have not yet reviewed community comments to see if any individual proposals received broad support.

Once I got into the rhythm of reading this tool I found it quite useful, thank you staff members

Yes, the tool is very helpful

Hearing Kathy, it is notable, I think, that on TMCH Rec #1 the support, no opinion, and no response are over 64%.

when added together

Brian, I have the same problem, and downloading does not help

This makes using a laptop at home, as I do, sort of an issue

@David, but if you read the actual comments it seems clear that commenters did not really know how to categorise their support level response. There are "support" "significant change" and "do not support" all actually making the same points of aspects of the recommendation they disagree with

The problem is it's in view only mode.

@Ariel, perhaps you can use the group function instead?

Reminder that the Sub Group’s work on these preliminary recommendations is to determine whether to maintain its agreed preliminary recommendations based on comments received. To the extent comments repeat what the WG has already discussed and agreed (or not), that should not be overly difficult unless new data or substantive arguments not previously considered are raised.

you can download a copy

I think this might be something for staff to consider in future public comments - maybe there needs to be more guidance on how to categorise

Ariel, can we set the upper section to scroll through? We should be able to read the recommendation too.

Susan, I agree that comments tend to wander a bit amongst categories but think the overall point is still valid

@Justine - I will check after the call. Did you mean giving members edit access to the spreadsheet?

@Phil, yes - and as you and the leadership team have noted, the current exercise is not intended to re-open old discussions.

@Kathy - you can still double click the blue row on the top and see the full text of the recommendation

@Ariel, I didn't consider if grouping would work in view-only mode. Let me check after the call.

In addition to what Julie mentioned concerning the order (each could have different levels of complexity), I wonder if we are better to stick with the existing order as this allows people to plan.

I can do the universal change after the call

Ariel, could you page down a bit?

4th column is "subgroup response"

I think Rebecca said it well - not to necessarily go through comments in detail but to allow folks to voice concerns and point to new info/issues that were brought up

Adding to my remarks about the comment tool, I found it very efficient -- I was able to review comments on all 3 of today's recommendations in just under one hour.

@Rebecca @David - yes exactly. As Julie has noted, what staff does is not to read or go through the whole document. We just need to make sure that the Sub Group has the opportunity to discuss any new issues or substantive arguments - as mandated for ICANN’s accountability and transparency purposes.

What is the 3rd item?

3. Whether, where a trademark contains dictionary term(s), the Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs should be limited in their scope such as to be applicable only in those gTLDs that relate to the categories of goods and services for which the dictionary term(s) within that trademark are protected.

Thanks Mary, agreed

Correct, so they misunderstood this as a recommendation, when in fact it merely states a question the WG considered.

Also, what is the "realm" of a dictionary word?

This question and description is something the Working Group discussed extensively - including how to best describe it clearly.

Agree Brian - the recommendation states that the status quo on these issues would be maintained, so not sure why there was a thought that something was proposing a change

+1 Phil

If I recall, there is additional context in the report

Q3 maybe could use some clarity, but it has become moot since the Q was for public comment purposes. What is very clear is the Recommendation that was put forward which is that the status quo holds.

Agree with Paul

Please note that staff highlighting concerns voiced by commentators doesn’t mean the concerns themselvesare new arguments. We just need to be sure that all the comments are considered by the group.

@Paul - I don't think this was a Q for the public comment. The WG is identifying the charter Qs it considered and confirming it decided to maintain SQ on each

Good question Paul

Same question pertains, Paul, with respect to support conceptually IMO

I'd like to speak to this

@Phil, @Staff, thank you for the clarification.

correct

I think this discussion is useful background for a good start but am also hoping we will touch on Sunrise Recs 1 and 2. It strikes me on TMCH #1 there is status quo going forward, at least IMO

consdier them to dispose of them?

I'm staying on the line but need to go on hold to attend a status conference with a Judge. It likely wont be 30 mins.

I appreciate that staff has laid out ALL the comments for our consideration, and also being able to highlight anything that might be an outlier comment that we haven't already debated to death.

Good point Mary

@Julie, Mary, Brian and Phil. Thank you for the clarification about why the process is important.

@Phil - I agree, but laying out the ground rules at the very beginning was important. I think the rest will go more quickly.

Support, no response, and no opinion are about 87% on Sunrise rec #1

Can someone explain the idea more fully? Sorry to be too slow.

It’s a formulation of the “spanning the dot” approach to Sunrise - allowing the mark (e.g. Real Madrid) to be able to span the dot for purposes of a Sunrise registration, e.g. where the TLD forms part of the mark can you get a Sunrise reg for REAL.MADRID rather than just REALMADRID.MADRID for instance

This commenter suggested this approach be permitted but just limited to community and geoTLDs

Thanks Griffin

Hopefully that is helpful lol

@Rebecca "radio"? not geographic

I think Radio is a community TLD

I guess my point is that I believe BBC actually has a trademark in BBC, so it doesn't exactly need that in the way Real Madrid might, which really doesn't have rights in "Real" standing alone

I also vaguely seem to recall generally the spanning the dot Sunrise issue but my recollections of the discussions and results are super foggy

I recall discussion as well - may have been in Sunrise sub team

@Phil, but why is that different to "online" or "doctor". suppose your TM is "drain doctor"

The WG had a discussion with ICANN GDD in Nov 2018 where how the TMCH deals with “spanning the dot” was raised.

Thanks Griffin.

Registry Operator is able to do this as a secondary sunrise if they want to

@Susan, yes - if it’s something the registry offers during their Sunrise period.

Thanks Julie and Mary for the additional info

Very helpful

@Susan -- agree it is not different, which suggests that any discussion would wind up being broader than geos and communities

Support (32+%), no response (29+%), and no opinion (7+%) add to over 69% - non-support here is up from others we considered so far today to 20%

on Sunrise Rec #2

Seems that most of the comments would be useful implementation guidance, but not necessarily require a change to the recommendation itself

I'm back

I agree with Phil about absolute need for more precise language and also that this should not, if approved, be left to implementation team

+1 Phil -- it would be interesting to see the "context" on this recommendation. Could Staff provide that link?

@Kathy - sorry, we missed that remark. Which link did you have in mind?

Here is the link: https://community.icann.org/x/wCGJBw (note all recommendations/proposals with their context are listed here: https://community.icann.org/x/XCCJBw)

Tx Ariel!

I scroll to the IPC comment

Which mentions the TM-PDDRP related suggestion

Context:The Working Group is uncertain about the scope and extent of abuses of the Sunrise Period.Some Working Group members noted abuses such as discriminatory pricing and unfair business practices related to Registry Operators, as well as anecdotal evidence of trademark owners using questionable means to gain priority for the Sunrise Period.Some Working Group members suspected that trademark owners may have the potential to abuse Sunrise due to TMCH’s acceptance of non-standard character claim marks and common/dictionary words, as well as the broad scope of registration within the TMCH. However, there is a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate the suspicion.

Because the recommendation is not contractual language - obviously it cannot be enforced in its current form, that was never the intention

+1 Griffin

I guess I don't understand how not circumventing ICANN policy is a major ask...

@Michael - that's why we have a PDP - for the CPs to engage in the development of recommendations and implementation thereof!

Thanks Julie and Ariel for leading this call

Good meeting/thanks to everyone

Thanks very much staff - great work in getting these comments organized the way you have

thanks all, bye

Full house!

Thanks everyone!

Thanks

Thanks all, see you next time