[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
Corwin, Philip
pcorwin at verisign.com
Wed May 29 18:09:30 UTC 2019
Michael:
Replying again in a personal capacity – if there are indeed widespread serious abuses of sunrise registrations taking place ( a contention with which I do not concur) then I would think that proponents of that view would want a fairly rigorous review process to prevent them.
But let me ask you this – I presume that if your proposal was adopted that rights holders seeking to complete sunrise registrations in vertical gTLDs that referenced a category if good or services would need to submit a statement explaining how the gTLD string related to goods and services associated with their marks.
So if Mini applied for mini.bike and submitted a statement that this related to their offerings of bikes and bike accessories<https://www.shopminiusa.com/MINI-LIFESTYLE/GIFTS-AND-GOODIES/BIKES> at what point in the registration process would that be submitted and what entity would evaluate it?
Similarly, if Nike applied for Nike.bike and submitted a statement that this was based upon their offerings of bike shorts<https://www.nike.com/w?q=women%E2%80%99s%20bike%20shorts&vst=bike> – same question?
Thanks, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:37 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>
Cc: mitch at eff.org; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
Obviously, I'm not proposing "letting all proposed registrations get in". I just noted that, in the cases that you mentioned, I wouldn't see a problem. You bring up geo names - which I'm not sure would even be included under this proposal since it's only meant to apply to categories of goods - but if they did, I would not argue for requiring a physical presence there. I'm not sure I fully follow your second question with regard to "the gTLD vertical" - but again, I'm happy for the broader and more inclusive approach.
The point of a low bar assessment is to target obvious cases of abuse, or a clear disconnect between a trademark and the domain under request, but to provide for minimal impairment of legitimate registrations, while minimizing all the administrative costs that you keep trying to build in by keeping the assessment relatively inclusive.
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:19 PM Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>> wrote:
Michael:
Again, speaking in a personal capacity – I must say I am confused by your response.
You say “The evidence that the system is open to abuse, and that abuse has taken place, has been amply demonstrated, and it follows that if we take no action the system will likely continue to be abused.”, but then you say, “I'm generally fine letting them all in. As I said - a low bar assessment, just to make sure the system isn't being obviously abused.”
If you believe that significant abuse has and will take place, then how does letting all proposed registrations get in under a low bar assessment address the problem you perceive?
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:06 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com>>
Cc: mitch at eff.org<mailto:mitch at eff.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
Hi Phil,
I appreciate you taking the time to look up the Wikipedia entries for so many different languages, but if your purpose was to make the case that there are a lot of different words out there, I'm not sure you needed to bother with the effort. I will concede that point.
But if your underlying argument is that none of this matters because there's so many words still available, and one is just as good as another because domain names don't really matter much... Well - what are we all doing here?
Seriously - why do people spend tens of millions of dollars on a domain name if one is as good as another? Why did Amazon just spend god-knows how much time and money trying to secure .Amazon, when they could have just shifted over to .AmazonCorp or .TheAmazonCompany if those are just as good and would have spared them the fight? The answer, as we all know, is that while there's lots of words in the English language, they're not all interchangeable, and some letter strings are better than others in conveying an idea. And this is why the registration of incredibly common words, ostensibly for the purpose of trademark protection. is so troubling, because it carves off a space that could, and likely would, be utilized for a legitimate purpose just because it has a tangential relation to an existing mark. The evidence that the system is open to abuse, and that abuse has taken place, has been amply demonstrated, and it follows that if we take no action the system will likely continue to be abused. If we just ignore this issue, which is fairly glaring, I think it will lead to problems down the line, as the working group seeks approval for its broader recommendations.
I agree that we need to work towards implementable guidelines, but I don't agree that it's the sort of insurmountable obstacle you are making it out to be, particularly if we adopt a relatively low bar, as I've been saying all this time. I believe you, in a previous post, spoke of "overkill" and a "needlessly complicated" solution - but you're the one pushing the proposal in this direction. I, personally, don't think the assessment needs to be done by a "neutral third, non-contracted party", and as to your other examples - I'm generally fine letting them all in. As I said - a low bar assessment, just to make sure the system isn't being obviously abused.
Best,
Michael
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:25 PM Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>> wrote:
This response is in a personal capacity.
First, I would note that the standard for a proposal to be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment is strong support within the sub team and subsequently the full WG. I do not perceive Michael’s proposal to limit sunrise registrations in at least vertical gTLDs to those related (a term that requires significant definition) to the goods and services to which a mark has been registered as having received that level of support. Indeed, I believe the sub team has become more divided on it as discussion has proceeded. (Of course, the sub team’s consideration of the proposal will, if my perception of support level is borne out, still be noted in the Initial Report and anyone will be free to comment upon it; it simply will not be endorsed proposal on which the ICANN community is specifically invited to comment.)
Second, I have stated my belief that, especially with higher sunrise pricing being a gating factor, rights holders have been judicious in their use of sunrise registrations. The fact that sunrise registrations have only averaged 150-200 per new gTLD documents that very selective use, and provides no evidence of significant abuse. (As for questionable marks being registered, that is a subject for review in our next and final phase, when we focus back on and conclude recommendations on the TMCH, including the requirements for recording a mark.)
Third, as we seem to be engaged in mathematical analysis, consider that according to the Oxford English Dictionary<https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language/>, “there are, at the very least, a quarter of a million distinct English words, excluding inflections, and words from technical and regional vocabulary not covered by the OED, or words not yet added to the published dictionary, of which perhaps 20 per cent are no longer in current use. If distinct senses were counted, the total would probably approach three quarters of a million”. Wikipedia<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictionaries_by_number_of_words>, for its part, notes that the 5th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language contains more than 370,000 words. English of course is not the only language written in ASCII characters (and therefore not IDNs) – again according to Wikipedia, German has 330,00 words, Italian 260,000, French 135,000, Spanish 93,000, Portuguese 442,000, and so on.
But sticking just to English, if we conservatively estimate that there are 300,000 distinct dictionary words, then even an average sunrise registration total of 200 words per new gTLD leaves 299,800 available to register by anyone (and that doesn’t include made up, non-dictionary words). Out of 300,000 available words, 200 represents less than 1/10th of one percent. So the burden of sunrise registrations on the availability of dictionary words as domain names is infinitesimal as, for English alone, 99.9% of all dictionary words remain available for general registration.
Fourth, the speech embodied in a domain name is minimal at best. Domain names function primarily as an Internet address, with an expressive function being secondary. Most domain names consist (and the ones we are discussing do so entirely) of a single term separated by a dot from the gTLD string label. Not much meaningful speech is made up of just one word plus a gTLD designation (e.g., ride.bike).
Fifth, the domain platform is the primary space in which meaningful speech is expressed, and a sunrise registration leaves ample (indeed, almost unlimited) latitude for those who do not possess trademark rights to engage in unfettered speech. The proposal under discussion cited as an alleged “abuse” BMW’s sunrise registration of mini.bikes. But that registration still leaves available a vast number of .bike domains that include the word mini to serve as platforms for meaningful speech – including minis.bike, miniraces.bike, minisafety.bikes, minifans.bike, minikids.bike, minidirt.bike, and on and on. So the availability of sunrise registrations has essentially no censorship effect on free speech.
Sixth and most importantly, even if one agrees with the proponents of the proposal (which I do not) that there is some problem in need of a solution, they have failed to describe any practical means by which the proposal would be uniformly and effectively administered, or estimated what such a process would cost. While there is no requirement to develop a full implementation plan until after a proposal receives consensus support, there should at least be some general description of what administration will entail (and I must say that I do not find statements such as “it’s easy” or “during the registration process” to be very convincing or assuring). If the proponents truly believe there is a significant problem to be redressed then they would want their solution to be administered in an objective, uniform, and effective manner by a neutral third, non-contracted party (noting also that registries and registrars would have commercial incentives to accept almost any rationale provided by a rights holder for a proposed domain registration). A standard policy will have to be developed that wrestles with such questions as whether a rights holder wishing to register in a geo domain must maintain a physical facility in the locale, or whether demonstrating sales in the location is sufficient; and whether “related to” is to be narrowly defined to require that the rights holder have registrations for goods and services that directly coincide with the gTLD vertical, or whether it is sufficient to simply supply goods and services that are employed by those engaged in activities described by the vertical (the first would bar nike.bike, the second would allow it). And of course there must be some appeals process for those rights holders who believe they have been improperly barred from making a valid sunrise registration – and who will administer that, and what standard will it employ?
Given the overall failure to describe any demonstrable and consistent abuse or significant impingement of speech by actual sunrise registartions, as well as the lack of even a general outline of a credible implementation model with reasonable costs and manageable rules, I cannot support the proposal.
Thanks to all for your consideration of these personal views.
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way
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<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Mitch Stoltz
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 8:53 PM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
Hi Claudio,
According to your numbers, trademark holders have registered between 105,000 and 140,000 domains that were never available to noncommercial users. You and others suggest that most of these registrations were “defensive,” meaning that they were done primarily to prevent anyone else from registering those domain names - not to use them. What’s more, given the little we know about what marks are in the TMCH, a great many of those domain names are either commons words, or words that are associated with a product or service ONLY in particular contexts. This represents an enormous loss to the public that will only grow as new gTLDs roll out.
I take issue with your suggestion that noncommercial users can simply choose a different domain name that hasn’t been taken by trademark holders before public availability. For a noncommercial user, the expressive value of a domain name can be equal to or greater than its value to a commercial user. A noncommercial user acting in good faith should have equal opportunity to register a domain.
Yes, rightsholders can choose to register domains in sunrise based on their internal calculus about where "abuse" is likely to happen, but they are also currently free to act as though good faith registrations by noncommercial users are "abuse." That's a fundamental flaw in the Sunrise mechanism. At a minimum, Michael Karanicolas's proposal to limit sunrise registrations based on the goods and services actually sold by the rightsholder would begin to address this.
Best,
Mitch
Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
https://www.eff.org/donate | https://act.eff.org/
On 5/22/19 8:46 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
hi Mitch,
Sunrise registrations have averaged between 150 and 200 domains per TLD.
I believe there over 700 different new gTLDs where non-commercial users can register domains for non-commercial use.
For the purposes of consensus-building, when one does the math, can you kindly clarify on how this results with harms falling disproportionately on non-commercial registrants and small business registrants?
In terms of the orthogonal domains you mention, registration abuse that targets a brand can easily take place in these zones (and often does take place). Isn’t this a standing justification, along within the fact that only 150 to 200 domains are registered during Sunrise per TLD, for having Sunrise in place in to prevent consumer confusion and harm from taking place?
In terms of the question of scale that your mention, I don’t see a necessary inconsistency that should raise alarm.
One on hand, the brand owner is making an informed choice about where to protect their brand, often because they have been previously targeted and they recognize a pattern, or due to some other implicit connection with the brand that made not be readily apparent to an outside observer on the surface.
But for the vast majority of cases, defensive registrations are based on strategic factors, such as the likelihood of infringement in a particular TLD. I do consider this as resulting in ex-ante harm to non-commercial registrants, as for one reason there are virtually an unlimited number of registrations available in nearly a 1000 gTLDs. To take an extreme case, even in .com with nearly 140 million domains registered, successful domainers continue to profit and non-commercial users have meaningful choices for expression.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, Mitch Stoltz <mitch at eff.org<mailto:mitch at eff.org>> wrote:
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 x142
https://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%0A++++++++++++++++Reston,+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><mailto: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<mailto: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><mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:50 PM
To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int><mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org><mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
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=icon>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
_______________________________________________<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto: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/20190529/7ff9e969/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-rpm-sunrise
mailing list