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

Mon Apr 10 20:00:55 UTC 2017

When you refuse to say what you would count as evidence of a problem, that
leaves us with the evidence I, and George, and Bret, and others have
offered--if we want to call them "Group 2" TMCH registrants that would make
sense to me.

Rebecca Tushnet
Georgetown Law
703 593 6759

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> 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: Image removed by sender. Rightside]
>
> *Office   | 425-298-2367 <(425)%20298-2367>*
>
> *Mobile | 425-891-9297 <(425)%20891-9297>*
>
> *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> 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 (m)
>
> Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos.
>
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Bret Fausett <bret at uniregistry.com<mailto:b
> ret 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
> Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201
> 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>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> 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
> 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/20170410/0f992065/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170410/0f992065/image001.jpg>