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

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

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 2018 - ambitious Phase 2 – UDRP

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

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

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 +

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

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

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 13.30 – 15.00 Capital Suite 1: Community feedback session on experiences of the URS