[council] FW: GNSO Council discussion Spec 13

Tue Apr 15 15:13:53 UTC 2014

Volker,

Thanks for copying Philip and Martin on this.  I will await their response!

Berard

-----Original Message-----
From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann at key-Systems.net>
To: John Berard <john at crediblecontext.com>
Cc: philip <philip at brandregistrygroup.org>; martinsutton <martinsutton at hsbc.com>; council <council at gnso.icann.org>; jrobinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 7:40 am
Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO Council discussion Spec 13

    Hi John,

    assuming .HSBC opts for the spec, registers a bunch of domain names    where there are TMCH records by other parties and later decides to    go open, should they get to keep the domain names that they have    registered circumventing the Sunrise requirement by using the Spec?    

    Volker

Volker,

You have confused me.

Are you saying, for example, .HSBC (using Martin        Sutton here!) launching as a dotBRAND might distribute names        that might otherwise go in a Sunrise for trademark holders? 

And if .HSBC switches to general availability down        the road, those names will have been registered in circumvention        of a Sunrise?

But if HSBC allows its customers use of their name        (e.g., BBC.HSBC or Orange.HSBC) aren't they the proper        registrants in any regime?

I am having a hard time finding the problem to be        solved.

Help me understand.

Berard 

On Apr 15, 2014 1:36 AM, Volker Greimann        <vgreimann at key-Systems.net> wrote:

                    As obligatory Sunrise is the baby of the IPC and BC, I had          expected them to pick up on this issue as well. 

          IIRC, if a dotBrand gives up exclusivity, it loses the          dotBrand status and the benefits of the spec. If would have to          allow all registrars to get accredited and execute a sunrise.          However, at that time, the damage may have already been done          as the delayed sunrise may have become a farce if the RO          already registered to its name all names that would be          eligible for sunrise prior to giving up exclusivity. It would          be akin to something that ICANN has been denying to other          applicants, such as geoTLDs, essentially allowing the registry          an unlimited period of exclusivity to reserve domain names to          itself and a select circle of affiliates and licensees before          a sunrise would be applicable.

          I am not opposing the spec as it stands today, but I am          pointing out the loopholes that may lead to abuse.

          Volker

Am 15.04.2014 09:01, schrieb            Jonathan Robinson:

All,

Please                  see note below from Philip Sheppard.

Jonathan

From: BRG [mailto:philip at brandregistrygroup.org]                      
                      Sent: 14 April 2014 17:03
                      To: jonathan.robinson at iprota.com
                      Subject: GNSO Council discussion Spec 13

Jonathan,

I                    noted that Klaus on the Council list asked this                    question:

BTW: what happens if a brand                    gTLD decides down the road to give up exclusivity                      and become available for general use, at some                      point that might make perfect business sense.

As                      I cannot post to Council, perhaps you would do so                      for me.

Its                      a legitimate question and one also asked by ICANN                      legal staff.

The                      answer is in other provisions of Spec 13. In the                      circumstances described by Klaus, all of Spec 13                      would immediately no longer apply, and the default                      RA would apply instead.

Philip

Philip                  Sheppard

Director                  General

Brand                  Registry Group

www.brandregistrygroup.org                

Skype                  phsheppard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20140415/7b7bd90f/attachment.html>