<div dir="ltr">Dear Mitch,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your reply. </div><div> </div><div>In terms of this thread, my previous note was mainly to reply to the concept that the harms are falling disproportionately on non-commercial registrants because trademark owners are able, in principle, to secure domains during Sunrise in gTLDs which may not appear directly correlated to the goods or services upon which the trademark is based. I expound on this further below for your consideration.</div><div><br></div><div>Sunrise was created for the purpose of helping trademark owners address registration abuse by providing an early window to register their brand as a domain before new gTLDs open up during general availability and the domain is grabbed by a bad faith registrant.</div><div><br></div><div>Therein, I believe lies the root of the issue that is causing your concern. As during general availability, both (1) legitimate non-commercial registrants and (2) bad faith cybersquatters are able to freely register domains. So policies aimed at limiting registration abuse may have an indirect effect on all registrants (both commercial and non-commercial), since there is no current way of separating them out during general availability.</div><div><br></div><div>Unfortunately, cybersquatting remains a pervasive problem and this the genesis for having the RPMs in the first instance. In other words, one way of looking at the RPMs is that they improve the likelihood that the benefits of new gTLDs will outweigh the harms, allowing in broad terms for their introduction to the DNS.</div><div><br></div><div>While the RPMs are helpful and necessary from an IP perspective, new gTLDs present an unique challenge for brand protection because these domains are fresh grounds where, by definition, a preexisting trademark owner does not have their trademark-matching domain name under control.</div><div><br></div><div>So while a non-commercial registrant may seek to register a domain name for purely expressive purposes, cybersquatters seek to register domains for their inherent value as a trademark, and in many cases with the express intent of confusing and/or harming consumers through misappropriation of the mark. Registration abuse can generate profit because the cost of the domain registration + web hosting is often significantly less that the revenue that can be generated from the cybersquatting conduct. </div><div><br></div><div>In terms of Sunrise, based on our calculations, there are between 105,000 and 140,000 sunrise registrations in new gTLDs. As of recent count, there are approximately 23,000,000 registrations in new gTLDs. So by going with the upper range estimate, sunrise registrations represent approximately six one thousandths of one percent (0.006) of all current new gTLD registrations. This is an imperfect estimate but I think it's largely in the right ballpark.</div><div><br></div><div>However, the costs imposed on trademark owners include: (1) registering domain names defensively, in some cases these registrations cost several thousand dollars for one domain during Sunrise; (2) costs relating to continually monitoring for abusive registrations; (3) enforcement costs to address abusively registered domains, including negotiations, cease and desist letters, UDRP/URS proceedings - which cost many thousands of dollars to draft and file, often just for one domain name; and litigation or court actions under national laws; (6) the damage done to brand value when a branded domain is used for cyber-crime or other fraudulent purposes; (7) the costs that are realized when consumers are confused, have a negative online experience, or worse, defrauded monetarily or even physically harmed when a branded domain is used to instill trust for websites selling dangerous counterfeit products. Trademark owners are not registering these domains defensively to prevent bona fide registrations, but to prevent the harms that are imposed on them and their consumers from registration abuse. </div><div><br></div><div>As I think Phil did an excellent job describing in a recent post, non-commercial registrants have alternative ways to find domains that are a near match or close approximation to the identical match of the trademark. These domains can be very similar in appearance, phonetically, or in meaning, to the trademarked term. To provide an example, one way this can be accomplished is by adding a closely related word or phrase to the term, making the term plural, finding another word that has the same meaning, or by spelling the word phonetically in a different manner.</div><div><br></div><div>Since sunrise registrations are limited to the identical match of the trademark, registrants are able to register domains that are nearly identical for the same expressive purpose during general availability. Taking it a step further, a non-commercial registrant may even be able to purchase the identical match domain directly from the trademark owner when the trademark owner is willing to sell the domain because they are confident that it will be used legitimately for commerce (in an unrelated class of goods or services) or in a non-commercial manner. Or the trademark owner may let the identical match domain expire when they are unable to maintain it further or when additional TLDs are launched in the future and they need to trim their portfolio, upon which time the identical match domain can be registered by a noncommercial registrant. </div><div><br></div><div>I concede these examples are not the same as registering the identical match at the time of launch, but since there is no current way of distinguishing a legitimate registrant from a bad actor at the point of sale, this is the trade-off or compromise that was made to allow more gTLDs in safe and orderly manner, while permitting the maximum amount of legitimate use. <br></div><div><br></div><div>In part, in exchange for this compromise, non-commercial registrants now have over 600 new gTLDs in which they can register domains for non-commercial purposes. As mentioned above, within those hundreds of new gTLDs (or which may soon be thousands with additional rounds of new gTLDs) only .006% of domains are registered during the sunrise period, leaving 99.004% available outside of sunrise.</div><div><br></div><div>And if we were to examine the number of times that a trademark owner registered a domain during sunrise in a new gTLD that appears on some level to be completely unrelated to the goods or services upon which the trademark is based (which is the target of Michael's proposal), I expect that we would find that an even significantly smaller percentage of registrations take place during sunrise.</div><div><br></div><div>On the flip end, new gTLDs can impose substantial costs on trademark owners as describe above.</div><div><br></div><div>So I don't think the harms are falling <i>disproportionately</i> on non-commercial users. When you look at the harms and benefits of open gTLD registries, I think the harms actually fall quite disproportionately on trademark owners, which I believe is part of the reason why the IPC had concerns with the unrestricted expansion, and why the same expansion was so strongly supported by your fellow members in NCUC.</div><div><br></div><div>Also just for the sake of argument, from a practical perspective, I think the various challenges of trying to draw the line on which TLDs are sufficiently unrelated to the brand to prevent a trademark owner from using sunrise are significant due to the number of variables and because it is a subjective undertaking from the outset.<br></div><div><br></div><div>How would one categorize gTLDs like <.online> or <.web> - would the trademark owner need to be the business of online transactions or the Internet to be eligible?</div><div><br></div><div>How about <.blackfriday>, <.auctions>, <.blue>, <.software>, <.towns>, <.technology>, <.support>. </div><div><br></div><div>I don't understand what the limiting principle is with the proposal that determines which new gTLDs are included in the analysis and which are not.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, conceptually, what is the foundation for saying that the use of the gTLD should be limited to a specific class of goods or services in order to trigger sunrise protection, as opposed to having the ability to use the gTLD in relation to one's interpretation of the general meaning of the word in a particular language? </div><div><br></div><div>After all, these gTLDs are open for anyone to use for any meaning or purpose whatsoever, yet the proposal is based on opposite grounds, namely that sunrise registrations shouldn't be permitted in certain TLDs for certain trademark owners because the class of goods upon which the trademark is based doesn't appear sufficiently connected to the TLD from someone's subjective perspective. But then when the gTLD is opened up during general availability, there is no such eligibility restriction for bad faith registrants to register the domain. </div><div><br></div><div>So the trademark owner would be prevented from using Sunrise, and the cybersquatter would be free to register the domain name during general availability. If a registry wants to limit the use of the gTLD to certain goods or services, they are free to do so. But the proposal limits use of sunrise even when the registry is operating the TLD in a manner that allows any interpretation of the meaning of the gTLD for registration purposes. This is an incongruent outcome. </div><div><br></div><div>Moreover, cybersquatters look for every conceivable way to identify which trademarks to register and where, so if the proposal were to be adopted, it would leave trademark owners, in principle, even more vulnerable to cybersquatting. In other words, a cybersquatter obviously has a specific trademark in mind when they register the domain. Logically, they would then look for TLDs where sunrise is restricted according to the proposal, knowing with a higher degree of certainty that they will have the ability to register the domain name in bad faith during landrush.</div><div><br></div><div>I very much appreciate that Michael was being innovative in trying to come up with a solution that seeks to thread the needle, and I thank him for doing so. To the extent it's any consolation, I think the gTLDs you seem to be targeting are the most likely spaces that will not have many sunrise registrations for particular brands. </div><div><br></div><div>So the dynamics of the market are already producing an outcome that is most similar to the one you are seeking to accomplish through the proposal, but without the extremely complex policy and bureaucratic implications that would be generated, without the policy limitations for protecting trademarks and consumers, and without the additional advantages that would be bestowed upon those acting in bad faith.</div><div><br></div><div>I hope this was helpful feedback and looking forward to continued dialogue with you. Have a nice weekend.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>Claudio</div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 8:53 PM Mitch Stoltz <<a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Claudio,<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
Best,<br>
Mitch<br>
<pre class="gmail-m_5572046368802921602moz-signature" cols="72">Mitch Stoltz
Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142
<a class="gmail-m_5572046368802921602moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a class="gmail-m_5572046368802921602moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank">https://act.eff.org/</a>
</pre>
<div class="gmail-m_5572046368802921602moz-cite-prefix">On 5/22/19 8:46 PM, claudio di gangi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
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" target="_blank">mitch@eff.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div 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:11pt"><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/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=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:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">Kathy:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">Philip
S. Corwin</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">Policy
Counsel</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">VeriSign,
Inc.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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" target="_blank">12061 Bluemont Way</a><br>
Reston, VA 20190</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">703-948-4648/Direct</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">571-342-7489/Cell</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:windowtext">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;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@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</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p>Hi All,<span style="font-size:11pt"></span></p>
<p>I think the discussion is an important one because
it is brings up issues across categories.</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. </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.</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.</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. </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. </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. </p>
<p>Best, Kathy</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>On 5/9/2019 12:04 PM, BECKHAM, Brian wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Michael,
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a href="https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/" target="_blank">https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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/2011/01/25/andreas-muller-has-mini-tattooed-on-penis-to-win-car-632961/</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">As
I said, I believe there is a genuine willingness
to explore such solutions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Brian
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12pt"> </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:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks
Ariel,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">--</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks
Julie,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><a href="https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/" target="_blank">https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Brian
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">--</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Brian
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt">
Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt">Dear
Sunrise Sub Team members, </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt">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>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11pt">b. In light of
the Individual Proposal, are any
modifications to the current “tentative
answers & preliminary
recommendations” needed?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline"><span style="font-size:11pt">c. Should any
additional Sub Team recommendations be
made in relation to the agreed Sunrise
charter question?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt">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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><b><span style="background:yellow">Summary
Table</span> (Pages 36-40)</b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt">The
draft answers, preliminary
recommendations, and links to the relevant
individual proposals are in the latest
Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><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:rgb(17,85,204)">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2</span></a>.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;background:yellow">Agreed
Sunrise Charter Question 9</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11pt"> (Page 36)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-size:11pt"><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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="font-size:11pt">Proposed
Answer</span></u></b><b><span style="font-size:11pt">: </span></b><span style="font-size:11pt">TBD</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><b><span style="background:yellow">Individual
Proposal</span></b></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;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.</p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"> </p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">Link
to the individual proposal is included
below.<span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="font-size:11pt">Proposal #13</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt">: <a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?api=v2</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11pt;background:yellow">Where
to Find All Discussion Threads</span></b><b><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">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/_oIWBg</a>
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Best Regards,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt">Mary, Julie,
Ariel</span></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span></p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;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></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
<br>
</span></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________</pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list</pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"> </span></p>
<table style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(211,212,222)" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:9.75pt 0.75pt 0.75pt" width="55">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;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:1pt solid windowtext;padding:0in;text-decoration:none"><img style="width: 0.4791in; height: 0.302in;" alt="Image removed by sender." width="46" height="29" border="0"></span></a></span></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:9pt 0.75pt 0.75pt" width="470">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(65,66,78)">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:rgb(68,83,234)">www.avast.com</span></a>
</span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.</blockquote></div>