<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>I think we are agreeing, Phil. I thought you were saying there
was a remedy to the problem Michael is trying to solve in the
registration process (per your words below). <br>
</p>
<p>But there is clear gaming -- in the Analysis Group Report and
many online articles... a problem we might still solve with
narrowly-tailored solutions.</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/12/2019 1:59 PM, Corwin, Philip
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:272af9f4c19040a883c26a3fe4246166@verisign.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Kathy:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Sunrise
registrations are not restricted to famous or well known
remarks, but are available to any trademark that has met the
recordation requirements for the TMCH and has also
demonstrated use in commerce.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">I have
already explained at length why, in my personal view, the
low levels of average sunrise registrations in new gTLDs do
not provide evidence of substantial abuse, much less
suppression of free speech, sufficient to justify
restrictive criteria that would necessitate complex
decisions and evaluative criteria, including an appeals
process, to be effective and fair.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext">Best, Philip<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Philip
S. Corwin<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Policy
Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VeriSign,
Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext"
lang="EN">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:windowtext">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></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="color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="color:windowtext"> Kathy Kleiman
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"><kathy@kathykleiman.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 12, 2019 12:25 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>; Corwin, Philip
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"><pcorwin@verisign.com></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hi Phil,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I've been puzzling over this for awhile, so let me write
before our meeting today. The TMCH registration involved in
gaming, including THE, CHRISTMAS, PEN, and most upsettingly
CLOUD (since it represents an entire sector of services) -
gaming examples covered by reporters -- appear to be
legitimate trademarks. They are registered somewhere and in
some category of goods and services. Thus, I don't see how
"the standards for mark recordation in the TMCH" would impact
its inclusion.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>The problem I thought we were puzzling over is the clear
misuse of the Sunrise period. These are not famous marks, or
even well known marks. From the reports, they appear to be
registered solely to game the system and receive Sunrise
registrations for valuable domain names far from any of their
categories of goods and services (e.g., the many registrations
in Sunrise for "THE"). I think we should all worry about this
misuse of the Sunrise period -- trademark owners because they
will be deprived of legitimate opportunities to register their
trademarks as domain names in their chosen New gTLDs and
noncommercial community because this removes ordinary words
from registrations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I don't see how reviewing the standards for mark recordation
solves this one... but the proposal seems narrowly-tailored to
address the harms and not any legitimate trademark owners or
trademark/Sunrise activity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>On 6/7/2019 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-sunrise
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your further response,
Michael.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Again, I do not perceive substantial
abuse or incursion on free speech with the present system. A
registrar review of the submitted rationale would likely be
nothing more than a low speed bump before completion of
registration in almost every instance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I look forward to working with you in
reviewing the standards for mark recordation in the TMCH
when we reach the next stage of our work.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best, Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S.
Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy
Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign,
Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">12061
Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Michael Karanicolas <a
href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<mkaranicolas@gmail.com></a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 05, 2019 1:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" moz-do-not-send="true"><pcorwin@verisign.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mitch@eff.org</a>; <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Phil,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>"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."</i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personally, I would support a more
robust ruleset, and if you recall, when I first raised
this issue, I did suggest a stricter standard. This
proposal came about as a result of the objections that
were raised then. I understand that compromise can be
necessary, so I attempted to respond to the substance of
these objections by narrowing the proposal, and crafting
it in a manner which is minimally intrusive to
legitimate registrations and easier to implement while
still addressing egregious cases, as an attempt to
generate enough support to get something done to address
the problem. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>"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.</i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>So
if Mini applied for mini.bike and submitted a statement
that this related to their offerings of <a
href="https://www.shopminiusa.com/MINI-LIFESTYLE/GIFTS-AND-GOODIES/BIKES"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bikes and bike
accessories</a> at what point in the registration
process would that be submitted and what entity would
evaluate it?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i>Similarly,
if Nike applied for Nike.bike and submitted a statement
that this was based upon their offerings of <a
href="https://www.nike.com/w?q=women%E2%80%99s%20bike%20shorts&vst=bike"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bike shorts</a> –
same question?</i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">While
I am open to discussion on implementation, I think that
the most practical way to handle this would be for the
registrar to do it at the point of sale. Again - similar
to the way ccTLD residency checks and the .bank reviews
work, but simpler. They could take a fast look at the
statement (re: offerings of bikes or whatever), and then
keep a record of the response. If there were questions
later (from the registries or pursuant to a SDRP perhaps)
the registrars could share the information. Again - I
would be open to suggestion, if you think an alternative
structure would be more efficient.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Michael<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:09 PM
Corwin, Philip <<a href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Michael:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">So
if Mini applied for mini.bike and submitted a
statement that this related to their offerings of
<a
href="https://www.shopminiusa.com/MINI-LIFESTYLE/GIFTS-AND-GOODIES/BIKES"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
bikes and bike accessories</a> at what point in
the registration process would that be submitted and
what entity would evaluate it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Similarly,
if Nike applied for Nike.bike and submitted a
statement that this was based upon their offerings
of
<a
href="https://www.nike.com/w?q=women%E2%80%99s%20bike%20shorts&vst=bike"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
bike shorts</a> – same question?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks,
Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip
S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy
Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign,
Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"
lang="EN">12061 Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck
is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Michael Karanicolas <<a
href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:37 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <<a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mitch@eff.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re: Re:
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
Wed, May 29, 2019 at 2:19 PM Corwin, Philip <<a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Michael:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Again,
speaking in a personal capacity – I must say
I am confused by your response.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,
Philip<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">12061
Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of
design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Michael Karanicolas <<a
href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mkaranicolas@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:06 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <<a
href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">pcorwin@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:mitch@eff.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">mitch@eff.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">
gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re:
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread]
Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi
Phil,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Michael<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
Wed, May 29, 2019 at 12:25 PM Corwin,
Philip via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">This
response is in a personal capacity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Third,
as we seem to be engaged in
mathematical analysis, consider that
according to the
<a
href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Oxford English Dictionary</a>,
“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
<i>OED</i>, 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”.
<a
href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dictionaries_by_number_of_words"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
Wikipedia</a>, for its part, notes
that the 5<sup>th</sup> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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 1/10<sup>th</sup>
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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks
to all for your consideration of
these personal views.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN">12061
Bluemont Way<br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of
design" -- Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in
0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Mitch
Stoltz<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, May 28,
2019 8:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] Re:
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion
Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">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<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Mitch Stoltz<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://act.eff.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
5/22/19 8:46 PM, claudio di gangi
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">hi
Mitch,
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Sunrise
registrations have averaged
between 150 and 200 domains per
TLD.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
believe there over 700 different
new gTLDs where non-commercial
users can register domains for
non-commercial use.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">In
terms of the question of scale
that your mention, I don’t see a
necessary inconsistency that
should raise alarm.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks
in advance for your thoughts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best
regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Claudio<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><br>
<br>
On Wednesday, May 22, 2019,
Mitch Stoltz <<a
href="mailto:mitch@eff.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mitch@eff.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Mitch Stoltz<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Senior Staff Attorney, EFF | 415-436-9333 x142<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://www.eff.org/donate" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/donate</a> | <a href="https://act.eff.org/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://act.eff.org/</a> <o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
5/15/19 8:09 AM, Kathy
Kleiman wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p>Hi Phil,<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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 -
<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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2</a><o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>Articles in our
gathering data (links in
Summary Table):</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p><b>● How one guy games
new gTLD sunrise periods<br>
● Fake Trademarks
Stealing Generic Domains
In New gTLD Sunrises<br>
● The Trademark
ClearingHouse Worked So
Well One Company Got 24
new gTLD using The
Famous Trademark “The"<br>
● How common words like
Pizza, Money, and
Shopping ended up in
the Trademark
Clearinghouse for new
TLDs<br>
● The numbers are in!
Donuts sunrises
typically get 100+
domains, but they also
got gamed<br>
● Digging in on Donuts’
Sunrise: Amazon tops the
list, gaming, and top
registrars<br>
● .Build Registry Using
Questionable Swiss
Trademark Registration
To Grab “Build” Domains
In Sunrise<br>
● How Did RetailMeNot
Get 849 .Codes Domains
In Sunrise Without
AnyTrademarks?<br>
</b> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On
5/15/2019 10:10 AM,
Corwin, Philip wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Kathy:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Philip S. Corwin</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy Counsel</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign, Inc.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" lang="EN"><a
href="https://maps.google.com/?q=12061+Bluemont+Way+%0D%0A++++++++++++++++Reston,+VA+20190&entry=gmail&source=g"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">12061 Bluemont Way</a><br>
Reston, VA 20190</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">703-948-4648/Direct</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is the residue of
design" --
Branch Rickey</span></i><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
[EXTERNAL] Re:
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion
Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Hi All,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think the
discussion is an
important one because
it is brings up issues
across categories.<o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></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. <o:p></o:p></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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best, Kathy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>On 5/9/2019 12:04 PM,
BECKHAM, Brian wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Michael,
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
“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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><a
href="https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.pinterest.ch/steelephotograp/mini-cooper-tattoos/</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://metro.co.uk/2011/01/25/andreas-muller-has-mini-tattooed-on-penis-to-win-car-632961/</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Michael Karanicolas
<a
href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<brian.beckham@wipo.int></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Ariel
Liang <a
href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><ariel.liang@icann.org></a>;
<a
href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re:
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise]
[Discussion Thread]
Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">On Thu, May
9, 2019 at 12:38
PM BECKHAM,
Brian <<a
href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></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"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks
Ariel,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">--</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Thanks
Julie,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.bmwblog.com/2018/02/28/new-mini-folding-bike/</a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">--</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Brian
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid
#E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt
0in 0in 0in">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b>From:</b>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">Dear
Sunrise Sub
Team members,
<o:p>
</o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></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>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;vertical-align:baseline">
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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;vertical-align:baseline">
b. In light of
the Individual
Proposal, are
any
modifications
to the current
“tentative
answers &
preliminary
recommendations”
needed?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;vertical-align:baseline">
c. Should any
additional Sub
Team
recommendations
be made in
relation to
the agreed
Sunrise
charter
question?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="background:yellow">Summary Table</span> (Pages 36-40)</b><o:p></o:p></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):<o:p></o:p></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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#1155CC">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>.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="background:yellow">Agreed
Sunrise
Charter
Question 9</span>
(Page 36)</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><i><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? </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><u>Proposed
Answer</u>:
</b>TBD<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"><b><span
style="background:yellow">Individual Proposal</span></b><o:p></o:p></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 discussions,
the transcript
and notes,
staff will
provide.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">Link
to the
individual
proposal is
included
below. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<b>Proposal
#13</b>: <a
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?api=v2"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf?api=v2</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><b><span
style="background:yellow">Where
to Find All
Discussion
Threads</span>
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Mary, Julie,
Ariel<o:p></o:p></p>
<p
style="margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise
mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<table
class="MsoNormalTable"
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">
<br>
</td>
<td
style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:9.0pt
.75pt .75pt
.75pt"
width="470">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;line-height:13.5pt">
<span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E"><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:#41424E;text-decoration:none">Virus-free.
</span><span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span><span
style="color:#41424E;text-decoration:none">
</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:windowtext;text-decoration:none"> </span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:black;text-decoration:none"><br>
<br>
</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<pre><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">_______________________________________________</span></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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" moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:black;text-decoration:none">Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list</span></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:black;text-decoration:none"> </span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="color:black;text-decoration:none"> </span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>)
and the website Terms of Service (<a
href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>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" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" moz-do-not-send="true">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.<o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>