[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q4

Wed May 15 18:38:06 UTC 2019

Dear Sub team members,

I am posting these proposals on Charter Question 4 (reserved names) in
response to our recent Sub team discussion on this topic.

Any questions or comments are most welcome.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Claudio

*Proposal 1*

1) If the Registry Operator chooses to reserve any names from registration
that are not required to be reserved under the Registry's agreement with
ICANN, then the Registry operator MUST create a "Reserved Names List" prior
to the commencement of its Sunrise Period, which includes any such labels
reserved by the Registry.

(2) Registry Operator MUST send its Reserved Names List to the TMCH
Operator prior to the commencement of its Sunrise Period.

(3) TMCH Operator MUST identify if any reserved names on the Reserved Names
List match existing Trademark Records in the TMCH;

(4) If any reserved names on the Reserved Names List match existing TMCH
Trademark Records, then the TMCH Operator MUST send a notification of the
match ("Reserved Name Match") to the trademark owner of record (and/or
their representative) as listed in the TMCH.

*Summary*: This process (1) restricts disclosure of reserved names and TMCH
records to the TMCH operator and the trademark owner and/or their agent;
and (2) provides transparency on the status of trademark-matching reserved
labels, which have been reserved from registration.

------

*Proposal 2*

(1) If Registry Operator chooses to unreserve a label on their Reserved
Names List after its Sunrise Period is over;

(2) Then Registry Operator MUST notify the TMCH that those labels have been
unreserved;

(3) If the unreserved label matches an existing trademark record in the
TMCH, then the TMCH Operator MUST notify the trademark owner (and/or their
representative) as listed in the TMCH, that the trademark-matching label
has been un-reserved.

*Summary*: This proposal provides notice to the trademark owner that their
trademark-matching reserved label (that was previously reserved before
Sunrise) has been un-reserved by the Registry after Sunrise, and before the
string is potentially registered by a third-party.

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:

> Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
>
>
>
> As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list
> discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 4*.
>
>
>
> We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and
> provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers &
> preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question.
>
>
>
> Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread
> will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input
> provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not
> be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
>
>
>
> *Summary Table (Pages 20-24)*
>
> The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant
> individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
>
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2.
>
>
>
>
> *Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4** (Pages 20-21)*
>
> The Sub Team discussed Agreed Charter Question 4 on 10 April 2019 but did
> not develop tentative answers or preliminary recommendations, hence the
> proposed answers are “TBD”. The Sub Team continued the discussion on 17
> April 2019. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes,
> staff will provide update via this discussion thread.
>
>
> *(a) Are Registry Operator Reserved Names practices unfairly limiting
> participation in Sunrise by trademark owners?*
>
> *Proposed Answer: *TBD
>
>
> * (b) Should Section 1.3.3 of Specification 1 of the Registry Agreement be
> modified to address these concerns?*
>
> *Proposed Answer: *TBD
>
>
> * (c) Should Registry Operators be required to publish their Reserved
> Names lists -- what Registry concerns would be raised by that publication,
> and what problem(s) would it solve?*
>
> *Proposed Answer: *TBD
>
>
> * (d) Should Registry Operators be required to provide trademark owners in
> the TMCH notice, and the opportunity to register, the domain name should
> the Registry Operator release it – what Registry concerns would be raised
> by this requirement?*
>
> *Proposed Answer: *TBD
>
>
>
> *Individual Proposal*
>
> As noted by Kristine Dorrain, Individual Proposal #11 is more relevant to
> Sunrise Q3. Please discuss Individual Proposal #11 in the discussion thread
> for Sunrise Q3.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190515/15d42a65/attachment.html>