[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Preamble Q

Sat May 25 00:34:31 UTC 2019

I have a start here.  I tried to stay with the principles I outlined for the Claims subteam:  Short and sweet, unemotional, and with direct asks. I think we might need to flesh this out as we review proposals, but it’s a start for people to throw darts at.

Best,

Kristine

Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose?
Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period is serving its intended purpose.  There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis).

1.      The Sunrise period assumes that a TM holder’s rights are more valuable than another customer’s and extends trademark rights beyond those granted by relevant laws – it should be discontinued, or, at a minimum, optional.

2.      The Sunrise period was part of a balanced system designed to offset the disproportionate cost of cybersquatting that the new gTLD program would create and, while it’s imperfect, it does appear to be serving its intended purpose.

Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects?
Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period has had unintended effects.  We generally agree it’s imperfect, but for different reasons. There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis).

1.      Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: perceived “price gouging” by registries and registrars, confusion about why some TMCH marks were unavailable during sunrise, confusion related to tracking multiple sunrise periods for many launching TLDs and inadequate protections because of “exact match” requirements.

2.      Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: the TMCH contains some marks of dubious authenticity and several words with both TM and dictionary meanings – the TMCH is a string comparison tool and cannot consider potential non-infringing uses.  The instrument is too blunt.

An additional question relates to the balanced system.  Is the fact that “both sides are dissatisfied” indicative of a successful outcome?

Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)?
Proposed Answer: The WG generally found the TMCH was properly validating “use” according to the rules.

Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners?
Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party.  We found evidence that a few TMCH entries, though they complied with the rules, appeared to have been registered solely for the purpose of entering the TMCH and getting first access to valuable dictionary words.  Question for the community: The TMCH rules are fairly straightforward.  How much “gaming” of the system is tolerable? Have you seen evidence of such “gaming” that is so egregious as to warrant complex rule changes?

Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants?
Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party.  Registrants are trademark owners during Sunrise, so see above.  Arguably, the issue pointed out above is actually an abuse by “registrants” since the purpose is to obtain a mark simply to enter the field sooner, not to enforce trademark rights.  We invite the community’s comment on this, particularly related to the magnitude of the problem.

Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars?
Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party.  Some members point to sunrise pricing and opaque reserved name lists as “gaming” of sunrise and believe some RY/RR practices circumvented the Sunrise period.  Keeping in mind the “picket fence”**, what suggestions do you have for preserving not just the letter, but the spirit of the Sunrise Period?
**Contractual restrictions regarding what aspects of registry operations ICANN can and cannot regulate.

From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:10 AM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Preamble Q

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,

As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Preamble Charter Question, including Proposals #1, #3, #8.

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 29 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 3-8)

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 Preamble Charter Question
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Preamble Charter Question on 22 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.

Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Individual Proposal

The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #1, #3, and #8 on 22 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 update.

Links to the individual proposals are included below.
Proposal #1: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?api=v2
Proposal #3: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf?api=v2
Proposal #8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190525/8b25e06c/attachment-0001.html>