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

Wed May 29 00:44:44 UTC 2019

To David and Greg:  since the Sunrise Preamble text was blank when 
circulated by Staff on 5/23, shall we keep this Preamble thread open?

Kristine, tx for kicking this off!  Two edits (in CAPS) for easy of 
review below.

Best, Kathy

-------------

On 5/24/2019 8:34 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise wrote:
>
> */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: PERCEIVED 
> "GAMING" --- 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 (BUT ASKS: ARE THE RULES 
> SUFFICIENT?).**
>
> **
>
> */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 Teamjustdiscussed 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’sdiscussions, the 
> transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
>
> Linksto the individual proposalsareincluded 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190528/d8948a1b/attachment-0001.html>