<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
/* 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:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:979726261;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-1721200084 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:alpha-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:roman-lower;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:right;
text-indent:-9.0pt;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></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]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus,
we can remove all the “some subteam members” language. <span style="font-family:Wingdings">
J</span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks and safe travels,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kristine<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><o:p> </o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?
</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration
of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically
match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for
challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges
due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Recommendations:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows:<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published
at: <a href="https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3"><span style="color:windowtext">https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3</span></a>. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation
of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider.<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii).
<o:p></o:p></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 – the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record
(pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration.<o:p></o:p></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD.
<u><span style="color:#385723">Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice.</span></u><span style="color:#70AD47">
</span>Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created.
<s><span style="color:red">One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration.</span></s><span style="color:red">
</span>Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member
believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <b>Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Proposed Answer: <u><span style="color:#385723">Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a).</span></u><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind
registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>