[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9

Thu May 23 03:01:46 UTC 2019

Zak,

I would concur, but I don’t see eliminating Sunrise and keeping it place as
two equal sides of the same coin, which results in that solution not really
being a ‘middle ground’ between them.

There has been no compelling evidence presented that justifies eliminating
Sunrise in its entirety (putting aside the philosophical differences that
some may have about its implicit proprietary), compared to the vast array
of reasons that reflect the continued need and importance of the RPM.

For example, by certain measures cybersquatting in new gTLDs is equal to or
exceeds the pace in legacy domains, even though legacy domains have vastly
more legitimate commerce and use (think .com), and even though new gTLDs
have some additional RPMs in place (such as the URS).

This outcome occurs for several important reasons, including the fact that
some new gTLDs sell for as little as one penny per registration. Prices at
that level make those domains even more of a juicy target. And in legacy
domains the trademark owner often has their exact match domain registered
(along with countless number of typo variations) whereas new gTLDs are
fresh grounds and prime real estate for cyber-squatting because the exact
match domain is still available for registration, including in TLDs that
are completely unrelated to the brand.

The balancing act that took place on the last round resulted in IRT
proposed RPMs being watered down or eliminated in their entirety. This is
what prompted the drawn out process and the GAC stepping in for public
policy reasons. It was much harder for the Board to reject recommendations
from the GAC. In the current day and age, the Sub Pro WG is working on
moving forward with another round as expeditiously as possible.

I remain open to compromise solutions. I think Greg put a few good ones
forward on today’s call and we should continue looking for additional
options.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com> wrote:

> Seems to me that the important balance that was originally struck in terms
> of creating Sunrise to address the release of new gTLD’s, as described by
> Kristine in today’s call, could stand to be finer tuned in light of the
> known by-product results to-date, while still maintaining Sunrise as a tool
> for trademark rights holders.
>
> Accordingly, proposals such as Michael’s would potentially enable those
> that want Sunrise to continue, to be satisfied, while offering up some
> modest improvements to satisfy those that want better protections for
> people other than trademark holders. I therefore agree that this proposal
> has merit, and think that this proposal should be negotiated within the
> context of the debate about whether to continue or discontinue Sunrise, as
> a possible partial compromise thereto.
>
> Zak Muscovitch.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
> of Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 22, 2019 8:44 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
>
> This working group has hit on numerous problems with the Sunrise regime,
> with harms falling disproportionately on non-commercial and small business
> registrants. Michael K. has proposed a narrow solution to one of these
> problems, and I think it deserves serious consideration.
>
> Quite simply, Sunrise as it exists is an expansion of trademark rights.
> Allowing priority registration without regard to the actual goods and
> services to which a mark pertains turns a trademark from a source
> identifier into a global dominion over a word or phrase. We have ample
> evidence that Sunrise is being abused in just that way. Looking beyond
> obvious abuses, there is little or no justification for giving trademark
> holders priority registration in TLDs that are clearly orthogonal to any
> product or service the mark-holder offers.
>
> At scale, having that priority absolutely harms the free expression rights
> of others. To use a simple example, Apple is a distinctive trademark in
> consumer technology but a generic word in many other circumstances. There
> are any number of individuals and organizations who should be able to
> express themselves with a domain name containing Apple, in ways that raise
> no possibility of trademark infringement or cybersquatting. All of these
> potential users should have equal opportunity to register "apple" in new
> TLDs that don't raise an association with technology products.
>
> Moreover, we need to be consistent about questions of scale. If sunrise
> registrations are used often enough to provide benefit to trademark
> holders, then they are also being used often enough to interfere with the
> rights of noncommercial users. And if they are not used very much at all,
> then we should be jettisoning the program as unnecessary. If Sunrise is to
> continue, Michael's proposal is a straightforward way of making it conform
> to the actual legal rights it's meant to protect.
>
> Mitch Stoltz
> Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
>
> On 5/15/19 8:09 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> As a co-chair, I'm a little surprised by the vehemence of the debate. Many
> of us are lawyers and we're used to talking about important issues in
> dispassionate ways. I think we should do so here.
>
> As an ordinary member, I participate in these discussions, as you and
> Brian do, and in that capacity, I note that we have a problem.  I also see
> the seeds of the solution in your answer below.
>
> In 2009, we foresaw that there might be gaming of the Sunrise period --
> people registering trademarks for ordinary words to get priority during
> Sunrise. We now see it happening. Journalists, reporters and bloggers have
> done the work for us -- and no one seems surprised by their results.  I
> list some of the articles we (as a Subteam) collected below. Links in our
> Sunrise Summary Table under Q9 - https://community.icann.org/
> download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%
> 20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2
>
> Nothing in the MK proposal is burdensome, or unusual. It's
> narrowly-tailored (too narrowly-tailored in my view) to prevent gaming and
> to use systems already in place.
>
> As you note below, the cost of the vetting is part of the process for many
> gTLDs and ccTLDs -- whether it is providing residency in Japan or the
> objective standard for .bank or .insurance or .attorney or .cpa. It's
> already built into our processes -- and not burdensome -- and easily
> extended to Sunrise.
>
> We know there is a misuse and even abuse of the Sunrise system. The MK
> proposal is an easy fix, and one that actually protects and preserves the
> balance of rights. We are being asked to solve problems -- and this is a
> big one.
>
> Best, Kathy
>
> *Articles in our gathering data (links in Summary Table):*
>
> *● How one guy games new gTLD sunrise periods*
> *● Fake Trademarks Stealing Generic Domains In New gTLD Sunrises*
> *● The Trademark ClearingHouse Worked So Well One Company Got 24 new gTLD
> using The Famous Trademark “The"*
> *● How common words like Pizza, Money, and Shopping ended up in  the
> Trademark Clearinghouse for new TLDs*
> *● The numbers are in! Donuts sunrises typically get 100+ domains, but
> they also got gamed*
> *● Digging in on Donuts’ Sunrise: Amazon tops the list, gaming, and top
> registrars*
> *● .Build Registry Using Questionable Swiss Trademark Registration To Grab
> “Build” Domains In Sunrise*
> *● How Did RetailMeNot Get 849 .Codes Domains In Sunrise Without
> AnyTrademarks?*
>
> On 5/15/2019 10:10 AM, Corwin, Philip wrote:
>
> Kathy:
>
>
>
> I presume that these are your personal views, just as the email I posted
> last week raising serious doubts about Michael’s proposal were clearly
> labeled as personal. Likewise, what follows is an expression of personal
> views.
>
>
>
> Not to repeat myself, but to the extent there is gaming based on weak
> marks it should be a focus of discussion when we review requirements for
> mark recordation in the TMCH. But I have seen no substantial evidence that
> legitimate trademark holders are seeking to utilize sunrise registrations
> in gTLDs other than those for which they have a good faith belief that
> registration is necessary for brand protection. Even where a sunrise
> registration might arguably be abusive, I do not see that as placing any
> burden on the speech rights of others who wish to register a domain name
> that bears some resemblance.
>
>
>
> I also described why I believe adoption of this proposal will require a
> costly bureaucracy to yield reasonably consistent applications of what will
> always be a subjective standard subject to interpretation. I do not see
> this as the same as the objective standard for a .bank or .insurance domain
> (where the cost of vetting is built into the registration fee, and the
> requirement is satisfied by furnishing a certificate evidencing that the
> applicant is a regulated institution) or even ccTLDs, where some have
> objective criteria to demonstrate being domiciled or doing business in a
> particular jurisdiction. While I don’t believe that Michael has the
> responsibility to provide a full-blown implementation scheme, I have not
> yet heard a credible explanation of how adoption of a relationship test
> will be consistently administered in a cost-effective way.
>
>
>
> Finally, and more broadly, we are in the process of considering proposals
> to recommend to the full WG for inclusion in the Initial Report for public
> comment. While that does not require a demonstration of consensus at this
> point, it should require some reasonably strong support within the sub team
> and, following that, the WG;  and some prospect that the proposal can
> achieve consensus down the road within the WG (for the Final Report) and
> Council. Frankly, I don’t see that reasonably strong support for Michael’s
> proposal within the sub team but rather a sharp divide over whether there
> is even a problem that requires addressing. And, while I have no crystal
> ball, I feel reasonably confident that in the end contracted parties will
> oppose it for administrative and cost reasons, among others, and that BC
> and IPC members will oppose it as putting yet another burden on sunrise
> registrations – so I don’t see any prospect of consensus.
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin
>
> Policy Counsel
>
> VeriSign, Inc.
>
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0AReston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g>
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> 703-948-4648/Direct
>
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
>
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org>
> <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:04 AM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise
> Q9
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I think the discussion is an important one because it is brings up issues
> across categories.
>
> a) Michael's proposal addresses a problem we have found in our data-driven
> analysis. There are gamers out there who are registering trademarks in a
> certain category of goods and services, and then using them to register an
> array of domain names in Sunrise having nothing at all to do with the
> categories of their trademark registration.
>
> We committed at the outset of the RPMs -- in the 2009 era - that we would
> not be expanding trademark rights. That's exactly what is happening in
> these situations and registrations.
>
> b) The SDRP is broken - barely used because the Trademark Clearinghouse
> was supposed to be public, during implementation it was turned private, so
> challengers cannot get the information they need to challenge. Plus, it's
> not the job a challenger to police the basic principle of the entire RPM
> process.
>
> Brian, you have mentioned your "suggested improvements to the SDRP" from 2
> years ago several times, but that was 1000s of emails ago, and we worked
> hard to compile the data and solutions that we are looking at today. Per
> the rules that we agreed to as Co-Chairs and as a WG, we created a new
> table, atop extensive data gathering, and things must be reintroduced from
> prior to our URS break. If you could do so, that would be very timely.
>
> I've suggested changes to the SDRP that would give challengers some chance
> to use it -- although only for the narrow purpose intended. The SDRP was
> not intended to solve a broad gaming problem -- because we did not
> anticipate one. We know know it exists; and a policy/operational fix
> resolves it.
>
> c) Michael suggests a narrowly tailored solution for a gaming problem that
> we now know exists. His solution is completely consistent with how
> registrars, in many of these gTLDs, already handle General Availability
> (e.g., required proof to register in .BANK). It's not a new process -- just
> a way to use existing process to avoid gaming and preserve the principles
> we agreed to in this process.
>
> Best, Kathy
>
>
>
>
>
> On 5/9/2019 12:04 PM, BECKHAM, Brian wrote:
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> I would personally prefer not to get into a Google search race for some
> kind of “exceptions to prove the rule” and also because “tattoos” is not
> a class of marks
> <https://trademark.eu/list-of-classes-with-explanatory-notes/>, but these
> articles could be of interest in terms of explaining why they may seek such
> a defensive sunrise registration:
>
>
>
> https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/
>
>
>
> https://metro.co.uk/2011/01/25/andreas-muller-has-mini-
> tattooed-on-penis-to-win-car-632961/
>
>
>
> Also, while MINI may not make motorcycles, their sister company BMW does,
> so they could well branch out into that product area (including related
> services).
>
>
>
> I have already suggested improvements to the SDRP on several occasions,
> going back almost 2 years now (those were apparently parked in preference
> of various data seeking exercises), so would respectfully suggest that
> others take the baton from here.
>
>
>
> As I said, I believe there is a genuine willingness to explore such
> solutions.
>
>
>
> At the same time, it seems unlikely that the current proposal No. 13 is
> likely to garner consensus, and will defer to the Sub Team Co-Chairs to
> address that at the level of our present discussions.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:50 PM
> *To:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> *Cc:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> <ariel.liang at icann.org>;
> gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
>
>
>
> Interesting, thanks for sharing. I checked whether Mini made motorcycles
> before I sent my proposal in... I didn't think to check whether they made
> regular bicycles!
>
> By any chance, were you able to find any examples of the company branching
> into the tattoo business as well (http://mini.tattoo)?
>
> I'm not sure if this presents a "nuance" in trademark classes. I don't
> think it's much of a revelation that "bikes" can refer to motorcycles or
> regular bicycles. All this represents is a product line I was unaware of.
> And under my proposal, all Mini would have to do would be to include the
> link you provided when they register the domain under sunrise, and that
> should be that.
>
> Personally, I don't see how the SDRP challenge process could be retooled
> to turn it into something that adequately represents the interests of
> potential future registrants without injecting massive amounts of
> transparency into the sunrise and TMCH processes... but I would be
> interested to hear your thoughts as to how this might work.
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:38 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ariel,
>
>
>
> Copying here, my full email to the Sunrise List from earlier today as it
> relates to proposal No. 13:
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Thanks Julie,
>
>
>
> Just for fun (as I am aware the example was merely anecdotal), further to
> our hypothesizing last night, indeed, MINI does have a range of folding
> bikes:
>
>
>
> https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/
>
>
>
> This does however illustrate in some ways the nuance in trademark classes
> and TLD typology that may escape proposal No. 13 in its current form.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned on our call, I believe there is a shared willingness to
> address the issue Michael has raised, but via the SDRP challenge process,
> and not via claims exclusions.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Ariel Liang
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:36 PM
> *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
>
>
>
> Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
>
>
>
> As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list
> discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 9*, including *Proposal
> #13*.
>
>
>
> We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and
> provide any additional input you may have to the “*proposed 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 22 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 36-40)*
>
> 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 9** (Page 36)*
>
> The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 9 on 08 May 2019,
> hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions,
> the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
>
>
> * Q9 In light of the evidence gathered above, should the scope of Sunrise
> Registrations be limited to the categories of goods and services for which?
>  *
>
> *Proposed Answer**: *TBD
>
>
>
>
>
> *Individual Proposal*
>
> The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #13 on 08 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 #13*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/
> 102146375/Proposal%2313.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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
>
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
>
>
>
> [image: Image removed by sender.]
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing listGnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.orghttps://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/20190522/bb6fe303/attachment-0001.html>