<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Phil,</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. <br>
</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.</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.</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>On 6/7/2019 1:18 PM, Corwin, Philip via Gnso-rpm-sunrise wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b5c868d622d5489f84e0f89a583668bb@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;}
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";}
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;}
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-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@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">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<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">Policy
Counsel<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">VeriSign,
Inc.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif" 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">703-948-4648/Direct<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">571-342-7489/Cell<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span
style="font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">"Luck is
the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey<o:p></o:p></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Michael Karanicolas
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com"><mkaranicolas@gmail.com></a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, June 05, 2019 1:40 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Corwin, Philip <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com"><pcorwin@verisign.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:mitch@eff.org">mitch@eff.org</a>; <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org">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-right:0in">
<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>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a>
_______________________________________________
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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos">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.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>