[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

[Mlsna, Matthew]

I agree with the revised definition of premium pricing below and removing the last two sentences of that definition.

Thanks,
Matt

Matthew Mlsna
Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property
Best Buy - 7601 Penn Avenue S, Richfield, MN  55423
T: 612.291.4493 l F: 952.430.2562
E: Matthew.Mlsna at bestbuy.com<mailto:Matthew.Mlsna at bestbuy.com>

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:08 AM
To: Lori Schulman; Dorrain, Kristine; Amr Elsadr; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

And for clarity,

Here we are now with the drafting:

Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).

Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”

Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name.  Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market”


Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink at amazon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

Thanks Lori,

I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it.  I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something.
But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary.

Thank you,

Kristine

From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman at inta.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM
To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink at amazon.com<mailto:dorraink at amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

Hi, Kristine,

Thank you for your points.  I agree with the references in red.  As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful.  Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks.  I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact.   I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay.   Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or  whether the string has other meaning in the market.”

I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process.  My proposal would be to:


1)      Remove last 2 sentences entirely

2)      or revise as  “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”

Would that work for you?
Any thoughts or suggestions from others?

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink at amazon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

Thanks Lori.  Here are my thoughts:

Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement.

As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion.  At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks.  Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias.  If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.”

Thanks for kicking this off, Lori!

Kristine

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing

I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point.  I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday.

Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).

Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”

Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name.  Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.”

Lori

Please send you
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017

Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members,

Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw.

Thanks.

Amr


Action Items:

1.       Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
2.       Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
3.       Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
4.       Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
5.       Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
6.       Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
7.       Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170613/401f0acb/attachment-0001.html>