hi Mitch,<div><br></div><div>Sunrise registrations have averaged between 150 and 200 domains per TLD.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe there over 700 different new gTLDs where non-commercial users can register domains for non-commercial use.</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>In terms of the question of scale that your mention, I don’t see a necessary inconsistency that should raise alarm.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks in advance for your thoughts.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Claudio</div><div><br></div><div><br><br>On Wednesday, May 22, 2019, Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
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.<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<pre cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div>On 5/15/19 8:09 AM, Kathy Kleiman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>Hi Phil,</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 - <span style="font-size:11.0pt"><span style="color:black"> </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>download/attachments/<wbr>102138618/%5BSunrise%<wbr>20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%<wbr>20April%202019%29.pdf?version=<wbr>1&modificationDate=<wbr>1555515624235&api=v2</a><br>
</span></p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<p><b>Articles in our gathering data (links in Summary Table):</b></p>
<p><b>● How one guy games new gTLD sunrise periods</b><b><br>
</b><b>● Fake Trademarks Stealing Generic Domains In New gTLD
Sunrises</b><b><br>
</b><b>● The Trademark ClearingHouse Worked So Well One Company
Got 24 new gTLD using The Famous Trademark “The"</b><b><br>
</b><b>● How common words like Pizza, Money, and Shopping ended
up in the Trademark Clearinghouse for new TLDs</b><b><br>
</b><b>● The numbers are in! Donuts sunrises typically get 100+
domains, but they also got gamed</b><b><br>
</b><b>● Digging in on Donuts’ Sunrise: Amazon tops the list,
gaming, and top registrars</b><b><br>
</b><b>● .Build Registry Using Questionable Swiss Trademark
Registration To Grab “Build” Domains In Sunrise</b><b><br>
</b><b>● How Did RetailMeNot Get 849 .Codes Domains In Sunrise
Without AnyTrademarks?</b><b><br>
</b> <br>
</p>
<div>On 5/15/2019 10:10 AM, Corwin, Philip
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Kathy:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">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.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">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. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Philip
S. Corwin<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Policy
Counsel<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VeriSign,
Inc.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext" lang="EN"><a href="https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0A++++++++++++++++Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g">12061 Bluemont Way</a><br>
Reston, VA 20190<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">703-948-4648/Direct<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">571-342-7489/Cell<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Gnso-rpm-sunrise <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank"><gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@<wbr>icann.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathy Kleiman<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 15, 2019 9:04 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Hi All,<span style="font-size:11.0pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p>I think the discussion is an important one because it is
brings up issues across categories.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>On 5/9/2019 12:04 PM, BECKHAM, Brian wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Michael,
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">I
would personally prefer not to get into a Google search
race for some kind of “exceptions to prove the rule” and
also because <a href="https://trademark.eu/list-of-classes-with-explanatory-notes/" target="_blank">“tattoos” is not a class of
marks</a>, but these articles could be of interest in
terms of explaining why they may seek such a defensive
sunrise registration:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/" target="_blank">https://www.pinterest.ch/<wbr>steelephotograp/mini-cooper-<wbr>tattoos/</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://metro.co.uk/2011/01/25/andreas-muller-has-mini-tattooed-on-penis-to-win-car-632961/" target="_blank">https://metro.co.uk/2011/01/<wbr>25/andreas-muller-has-mini-<wbr>tattooed-on-penis-to-win-car-<wbr>632961/</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">As
I said, I believe there is a genuine willingness to
explore such solutions.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Michael Karanicolas <a href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com" target="_blank"><mkaranicolas@gmail.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:50 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> BECKHAM, Brian <a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" target="_blank"><brian.beckham@wipo.int></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Ariel Liang <a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank"><ariel.liang@icann.org></a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion
Thread] Sunrise Q9</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!<br>
<br>
By any chance, were you able to find any examples of the
company branching into the tattoo business as well (<a href="http://mini.tattoo" target="_blank">http://mini.tattoo</a>)?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 12:38 PM
BECKHAM, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" target="_blank">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks
Ariel,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Copying
here, my full email to the Sunrise List from
earlier today as it relates to proposal No. 13:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">--</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks
Julie,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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: </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/" target="_blank">https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/<wbr>02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">--</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> Gnso-rpm-sunrise
<<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@<wbr>icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ariel Liang<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, May 9, 2019 5:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Dear
Sunrise Sub Team members, <u></u> <u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">As
announced, this thread is being opened for final
mailing list discussions related to <b>Sunrise
Agreed Charter Question 9</b>, including <b>Proposal
#13</b>. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">We ask that you review
the <b>Summary Table</b> <b>(as of 16 April
2019) </b>and provide any additional input you
may have to the “<b>proposed answers &
preliminary recommendations</b>” in relation
to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider <b>draft
answers </b>to the following questions
regarding the individual proposal:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">b. In light of the
Individual Proposal, are any modifications to
the current “tentative answers & preliminary
recommendations” needed?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">c. Should any
additional Sub Team recommendations be made in
relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Unless
the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this
discussion thread will remain open until <b>23:59
UTC on 22 May 2019</b>. 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.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="background:yellow">Summary Table</span>
(Pages 36-40)</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">The
draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and
links to the relevant individual proposals are in
the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:#1155cc">https://community.icann.org/<wbr>download/attachments/<wbr>102138618/%5BSunrise%<wbr>20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%<wbr>20April%202019%29.pdf?version=<wbr>1&modificationDate=<wbr>1555515624235&api=v2</span></a>.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;background:yellow">Agreed
Sunrise Charter Question 9</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> (Page 36)</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><br>
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? </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Proposed Answer</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">: </span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">TBD</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span style="background:yellow">Individual Proposal</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">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<span> </span>discussions,
the transcript and notes, staff will provide.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">Link
to the individual proposal is included below.<span> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Proposal #13</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt">: <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.<wbr>org/download/attachments/<wbr>102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?<wbr>api=v2</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;background:yellow">Where
to Find All Discussion Threads</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Access the Documents
wiki page and find the opening messages of the
all discussion threads in the table (highlighted
in green): <a href="https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/<wbr>_oIWBg</a>
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Best Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Mary, Julie, Ariel</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">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. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<table style="border:none;border-top:solid #d3d4de 1.0pt" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:9.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon" target="_blank"><span style="border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img style="width:.4791in;height:.302in" alt="Image removed by sender." width="46" height="29" border="0"></span></a><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:9.0pt .75pt .75pt .75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424e">Virus-free.
<a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link" target="_blank"> <span style="color:#4453ea">www.avast.com</span></a>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>