[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

Thu May 16 00:04:14 UTC 2019

Dear David, Greg, all,

In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to
request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot
Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in
the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary
level.

More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit
public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with
the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in
developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we
can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this
topic last month.

On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that
will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same
topic from the Sub Pro WG.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
wrote:

> David, all,
>
> Thank you for kindly sending this around.
>
> On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month
> and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal
> for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words,
> not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group
> will consider based on the public comments received.
>
> If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our
> agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in
> more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> Claudio
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <
> gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter
>> Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair
>> capacity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email
>> below:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any
>> changes needed?*
>>
>> *Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
>>
>> *Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
>>
>>
>>
>> My *suggested answers*:
>>
>>
>>
>> I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here
>> on the thread:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
>>
>>
>>
>> As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any
>> usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing
>> documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark
>> Clearinghouse
>> <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/trademark-clearinghouse-04jun12-en.pdf>,
>> Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of
>> the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
>>
>>
>>
>> As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on
>> how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have several proposals:
>>
>>
>>
>> First, we have proposal #2
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2>
>> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
>>
>>
>>
>> *If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for
>> its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a
>> sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization
>> of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH
>> (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods
>> and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such
>> publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the
>> TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s
>> from Kathy Kleiman in her email
>> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html>
>> of May 8th. It says, in part:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated
>> with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name
>> to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association
>> or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that
>> business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or
>> someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to
>> bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single,
>> specific mark.*
>>
>>
>>
>> Third, we have proposal #4
>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2>
>> from George which says, in part:
>>
>>
>>
>> *If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its
>> elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be
>> included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of:
>> https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf
>> <https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf>*
>>
>>
>>
>> And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM
>> group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs
>> PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email
>> <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000058.html>
>> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to
>> the RPM PDP. In part it says:
>>
>>
>>
>> *Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution
>> Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed
>> for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we
>> encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span
>> trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We
>> would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a
>> registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR
>> determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and
>> Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks
>> registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not
>> otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use
>> of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to
>> reserve names or designate them as premium.  *
>>
>> *3.  We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the
>> entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered
>> trademark. *
>>
>> *4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be
>> permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise
>> period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either
>> registration.*
>>
>>
>>
>> My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for
>> sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think
>> otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is
>> there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised
>> in light of the Google Registry comment?
>>
>>
>>
>> *Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
>>
>>
>>
>> Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions
>> have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they
>> were created.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
>>
>>
>>
>> So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the
>> suggestion about Q6(b).
>>
>>
>>
>> For now, best regards,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> David McAuley
>>
>> Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
>>
>> Verisign Inc.
>>
>> 703-948-4154
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
>> Of *Ariel Liang
>> *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM
>> *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
>> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
>>
>>
>>
>> As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list
>> discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals
>> #2 and #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, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions
>> regarding the individual proposal:
>>
>> a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this
>> Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public
>> comment?
>>
>> b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the
>> current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
>>
>> c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to
>> the agreed Sunrise 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 29-32)*
>>
>> 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 **6** (Pages 2**9-30)*
>>
>> The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019,
>> hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions,
>> the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
>>
>>
>> * Q**6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are
>> any changes needed?  *
>>
>> *Proposed Answer**: *TBD
>>
>>
>> *Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
>>
>> *Proposed Answer**: *TBD
>>
>>
>>
>> *Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
>> *Proposed Answer: *TBD
>>
>>
>>
>> *Individual Proposals*
>>
>> The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence
>> there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April
>> 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes,
>> staff will provide.
>>
>>
>>
>> Link to the individual proposal is included below.
>>
>> *Proposal #2*:
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2
>>
>> *Proposal #4:*
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Where to Find All Discussion Threads*
>>
>> Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all
>> discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green):
>> https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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/20190515/848d9bc1/attachment-0001.html>