[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Kiran Malancharuvil Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com
Mon Apr 10 18:03:43 UTC 2017


Thanks Statton, that’s super helpful information.

It seems to me that with a full understanding of how trademark claims notification works (seems like a free clearance search to me – maybe the language can be tweaked to ensure that people aren’t “scared off” although I haven’t seen evidence of that “problem”) and a full understanding that safeguards such as the SDRP exist, there isn’t much argument that TMCH recordals are unfairly restricting free speech.

Rebecca:  regarding your concerns about evidence, it’s not that there is no amount of evidence that would convince us that there’s a problem, it’s that you have yet to show us any shred of evidence.  If there was a problem, there would absolutely be a way to demonstrate it.  Instead, you seem to be operating from a hypothesis and you’re searching around for evidence of the problem.  We are merely pointing out that you’re searching in places where you only have your hypothesis, no evidence.  Policy making is supposed to go from problem to hypothesis to solution.  You’ve jumped a step.  Please demonstrate the problem.

Thanks,

Kiran


From: Statton Hammock [mailto:statton at rightside.rocks]
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 10:02 AM
To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil at markmonitor.com>
Cc: Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today

Kiran,

That is correct. All registries must have an SDRP.

BTW, Rightside has launched 40 TLDs and not a single SDRP has been filed after any Sunrise.

Statton



Statton Hammock

Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs

[Image removed by sender. Rightside]

Office   | 425-298-2367

Mobile | 425-891-9297
statton at rightside.rocks

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
Aren't registries required to implement a sunrise dispute resolution procedure, the purpose of which is to allow other legitimate registrants to challenge the allocation of a domain name during sunrise? What role does that play, if any? I confess I haven't heard much about this since 2013.

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy Counselor
MarkMonitor
415-419-9138<tel:415-419-9138> (m)

Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.

On Apr 10, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com><mailto:bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>>> wrote:

> It seems like the whole argument is on the basis of some strawman argument that brand owners
> are using the TMCH to take common words out of circulation.

As a registry operator, we have some insight into who is using the sunrise period. By and large, the sunrise is used for brands to register names that would not have any use for anyone except the brand owner. In other words, the trademark owner is not taking a registration opportunity away from someone else. Most of these registrations come from the registrars typically used by brands. Call this Group 1.

At the same time, somewhere around 3-5% of the names registered in sunrise have been registered by companies who appear to have registered a mark solely for the purpose of gaining access to the sunrise period. These names are typically registered at registrars other than the ones used by brands. Call this Group 2.

So I don't think anyone is claiming that "brand owners" are taking common words out of circulation, but there are trademark holders in some jurisdictions who appear to have gamed the system. They are not taking the name out of circulation, but they are trying to get first access to a name at registration price which may have a high resale value on the secondary market.

(At our registry, we tried to anticipate this potential abuse by including restrictions on the subsequent sale of sunrise names. See Section III of our policy document here, http://uniregistry.link/registry-policies/?file=1449. So, yes, if you are a trademark owner with a trademark registered solely to get into the sunrise, you can use the sunrise, but the name has no resale value.)

If this group could come up with a way of preserving sunrise for Group 1 while excluding Group 2, that would be worthwhile, in my view.

           Bret

Bret Fausett
General Counsel
____________________________

[Uniregistry]<http://www.uniregistry.link/>

Uniregistry, Inc.
2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road
Newport Beach, California 92660

Mobile +1 310 985 1351<tel:%2B1%20310%20985%201351>
Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201<tel:%2B1%20949%20706%202300%20x4201>






Bret Fausett
General Counsel
____________________________

[Uniregistry]<http://www.uniregistry.link/>

Uniregistry, Inc.
2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road
Newport Beach, California 92660

Mobile +1 310 985 1351<tel:%2B1%20310%20985%201351>
Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201<tel:%2B1%20949%20706%202300%20x4201>
bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com><mailto:bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:bret at uniregistry.com>>



_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170410/d2c4e5a4/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170410/d2c4e5a4/image001-0001.jpg>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list