[bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs
marilynscade at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 30 12:36:16 UTC 2013
Andy, thanks for this. I think we originally considered 90 days. I would need to defer to others who are heavy users of the TMCH on the impact of your suggestion, but it makes sense to me.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: Andy Abrams <abrams at google.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:58:00
To: <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>; <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>; <bc-gnso at icann.org>
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs
Many thanks to Elisa, J. Scott, Marilyn and Steve for drafting a proposed comment (attached) to the recent revisions in the RPM requirements. I wanted to see if there was interest in further discussion on the first point made in the comment - the proposal on notice of sunrise period. Specifically, I would be in favor of a minimum 60-day combined sunrise/notice period as opposed to a minimum 30-day notice period and minimum 30-day sunrise period. I believe that allowing for greater flexibility in the notice/sunrise timing would encourage more registries to extend the sunrise period, thereby achieving in many cases the minimum 60-day sunrise originally requested by the BC and IPC during the Strawman discussions. A longer sunrise is beneficial to brand owners, as it gives us more time to plan, budget and correct any errors in the registration process. In addition, since many new gTLD registries may have "anchor-tenant" or other cross-promotional opportunities for brand owners, having extra time during sunrise could facilitate such negotiations.
I understand that the primary argument for fixing a lengthy notice period is to perhaps give businesses more of a last-minute chance to enter the Clearinghouse prior to a particular registry's launch. However, I respectfully believe that this is a bit of an edge case, and we would be better served advocating for a longer sunrise period. There is one central Clearinghouse for all of the new gTLD registries, so there is no advantage to trying to strategically "time" the submissions, and last-minute national trademark applications would be ineligible for sunrise protection anyways, as it is required that all entries relate to trademark applications filed before ICANN announced the applications received (i.e., June 13, 2012). I acknowledge that further education may be necessary to ensure that brand owners submit their Clearinghouse entries in a timely fashion, so it may be useful to encourage ICANN to team up with various trademark organizations (such as INTA) to publicize that the Clearinghouse is now open.
I do agree with the current draft's criticism of the ability to allocate names 30 days from the date of notice, no matter how much time is left in the official sunrise period. All requests for sunrise registration should be compiled at the end of sunrise, and then analyzed for competing, identical requests.
I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. Thank you for your consideration.
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>
More information about the Bc-gnso