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

Thu May 23 21:49:12 UTC 2019

Maxim,

These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily
incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG
recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Ariel,
>
> I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion
> to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one,
> we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in
> the process
> (for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank
> allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures
> to be the registrants in that TLD,  and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM
> might be undermining the policies of the TLD
>  by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank)
>
> short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA
> (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN
> policies (list of ICANN reserved names)  , local laws (cases where some
> names could be violate local
> legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or
> policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or
> does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples
> of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet
> WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )'
>
> or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for
> clarity only).
>
> .
> if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of
> ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not
> cause danger to security or stability of the internet.
> .
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
>
> On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
> Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal
> #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the
> detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24
> April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the
> Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread
> did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal
> #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.
> As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of
> Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are
> proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be
> included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
>
>    1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span
>    trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered
>    as part of the RPM work.
>    2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not
>    garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary
>    recommendation.
>    3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team
>    chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and
>    confirming that the issue was discussed.
>
>
> To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including
> Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of
> wide support within the Sub Team.
>
> Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the
> Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well
> as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this
> Discussion Thread.
>
> Thank you,
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> on behalf
> of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
>
> Tx Claudio for posting.  I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from
> the subteam on this proposal.
> This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community
> for public comment as such in our Initial Report.  Claudio, as you have
> shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and
> structural ones.  They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately,
> I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from
> the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and
> incorporation of some of the feedback already received).
> Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)
> On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for this Ariel.
>
> David, Greg,
>
> In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
>
> After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the
> input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under
> the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in
> principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed
> questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to
> implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the
> effort to make modifications.
>
> However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received
> several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for
> public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but
> to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more
> perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was
> submitted to us from another PDP).
>
> Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in
> this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post
> the proposal for public comment?
>
> Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> Claudio
>
> On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
>
> On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message
> following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the
> agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely
> related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has
> been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro
> PDP Working Group’s referral.
>
> The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s
> report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
>
>    1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span
>    trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered
>    as part of the RPM work.
>    2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not
>    garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary
>    recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is
>    now closed.
>    3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team
>    chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and
>    confirming that the issue was discussed.
>
>
> The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments.
> In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub
> Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
> *From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM
> *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at verisign.com>
> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <
> gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
>
> 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 [newgtlds.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb_trademark-2Dclearinghouse-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=I0zLyhOjEMBO6guajQkKd4h4bbZA-sYR1_oXIWXkUUI&s=qsndaGGOZVwypH_jSYo45tfTwMFGsx5wjfgWEuIIo1s&e=>,
> 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
> [uniregistry.link]*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2015_07_SEPRP.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=I0zLyhOjEMBO6guajQkKd4h4bbZA-sYR1_oXIWXkUUI&s=fz5yNHH0aMpcqqg4LUYRn-VLMrfuYar4Mt_xSxDbmaw&e=>
>
> 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 29-30)*
> 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.
>
> *Q6(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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190523/039865f0/attachment-0001.html>