[gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH

Tue Apr 18 18:52:04 UTC 2017

If there is a “real” registrar on the list, please pipe up. MMX’s registrars chose not to redesign our systems to handle claims notices not to “effectively dilute the relevance” of them but because they were expensive and finicky (for us) to set up and maintain. It was not a means of attempting to get around any requirement but of saving money on our end. Based on the number of registrars who chose to carry our new gTLDs after sunrise and after 90 days, I suspect that this was not unique to us.

TMCH is currently providing this service on an ongoing basis (as I understand it). It seems that this could be extended on the front-end (to cover the first 90 days). Of course, this still requires a check box or affirmative consent to be offered to the registrant and recorded by the registrar, which will still require registrars to modify their systems to accommodate.

If it is simply added to the registrant agreement, that might solve the issue, too.

/R

Reg Levy
VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited
C: +1-310-963-7135
S: RegLevy2

Current UTC offset: -7

> On 18 Apr 2017, at 07:51, Beckham, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Paul and Jon,
> 
> On the 90-day Claims Notices:  if registrars designed their systems (or opted not to) so as to effectively dilute the relevance of Claims Notices (insofar as this follows from a lesser number of registrars making certain TLDs available at the launch phase) perhaps this is something the WG should consider looking at.
> 
> Jon -- from your experience on the registrar and now registry side, would you see any scope for streamlining/centralizing this function to achieve efficiency gains on the registrar and/or registry side (i.e., giving them tools that would minimize or eliminate their non-participation)?
> 
> I raise this insofar as it relates to the emerging discussion on registrant representations and warranties;  namely, it seems fair that a would-be registrant may wish to know more about their registration if they are going to represent refraining from certain actions related thereto.  This may also support the notion of ongoing Claims Notices (to dovetail on the notice provided by the TMCH but only to brand owners).
> 
> Aside from UDRP cases themselves where panels will assess the case merits according to the policy criteria, unfortunately from time-to-time we see allegations of a clear breach of registrant representations where despite the contractual ability to do so, contracted parties have not been inclined to take action.
> 
> Brian
> 
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of policy at paulmcgrady.com
> Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 5:28 PM
> To: Jon Nevett; J. Scott Evans
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
> 
> Thanks Jon.
> 
> Regarding 1: I'm sure that J. Scott wasn't insinuating anything.  There is a lot of noise out in blogland regarding whether or not the new gTLDs are a success, failure, or too early to tell (I'm of the too early to tell crowd myself).  Usually when an industry asks for a reduction in fees it is because of financial distress.  I see from your email that you believe it is just a "we paid too much so we want it back."  Good to know.
> 
> Regarding 2: I think we have all gone around and around on this in various meetings. Let's not conflate cooperation in enforcing the registrant's non-infringement requirements with the registry's obligation to make sure those non-infringement requirements end up in the registrant's agreement.  I don't think anyone is saying registries are passing those through.  The comment has to do with help from the registries to deal with situations when registrant's violate those non-infringement requirements.
> 
> Best,
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the
> TMCH
> From: Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email>
> Date: Sat, April 15, 2017 7:09 am
> To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>
> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
> 
> J. Scott:
> 
> To correct the record on a couple of your posts:
> 
> 1. New TLD registries asked for a relatively small refund of the almost $100M in excess application fees we paid to ICANN in the form of a fee reduction. That doesn't mean they are a "disaster" or "unsuccessful" or whatever else you are insinuating.
> 
> 2. I haven't seen any evidence that New TLD registries are generally in violation of their registry agreements with regard to the provision about registrant misuse of domain names. If you have evidence of such, let's work together with ICANN compliance to go after these registries. Those of us spending a great deal on compliance don't like to see others skirt the rules.
> 
> Could we deal with the legitimate concerns of the current system without leveling attacks and unfair insinuations against other groups?
> 
> It seems like registries on this list are ok with the current use of the TMCH and the sunrise process. We want to address the small subset of sunrise gaming where folks register dictionary-word trademarks for the sole purpose of registering during sunrises in related TLDs. One solution to this problem is to give registries better access to the clearinghouse to deal with these issues, but with strict guidelines of how that information could be used.
> 
> I also have heard many concerns about the 90 day claims requirements, as many registrars declined to build the infrastructure to process such domain names during the first 90 days.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> jon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:56 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees?
> >
> >
> > J. Scott Evans
> > 408.536.5336 (tel)
> > 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
> > Director, Associate General Counsel
> > 408.709.6162 (cell)
> > San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
> > Adobe. Make It an Experience.
> > jsevans at adobe.com <mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>
> > www.adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of icann at leap.com <mailto:icann at leap.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD.
> >
> > But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful
> > (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.).
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com <mailto:icann at leap.com>> wrote:
> >> Hi J. Scott,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg
> >> <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
> >>> My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
> >>
> >> We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising.
> >>
> >> With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a
> >> disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out
> >> their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were
> >> mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc.
> >>
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewire.com%2F2008%2F02%2F22%2Ftheglobecom-to-sell-travel-domain-name-registry%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711878269&sdata=32J%2Bjvt04Er7l95pOnnPyVi1dVhcUh%2FOej7zh%2BC1UrM%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewire.com%2F2008%2F02%2F22%2Ftheglobecom-to-sell-travel-domain-name-registry%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711878269&sdata=32J%2Bjvt04Er7l95pOnnPyVi1dVhcUh%2FOej7zh%2BC1UrM%3D&reserved=0>
> >>
> >> With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers?
> >> Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the
> >> domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it?
> >>
> >> What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes
> >> tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go
> >> straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to
> >> the above questions are simple: money.
> >>
> >> No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to
> >> solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start
> >> interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of
> >> the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing.
> >>
> >> It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in
> >> sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on
> >> average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being
> >> registered in landrush, on average?
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> George Kirikos
> >> 416-588-0269
> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711888278&sdata=mlNa0raqZ3qm4wRm3g19oFaG90rDxFawIkAEEoPIcmE%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711888278&sdata=mlNa0raqZ3qm4wRm3g19oFaG90rDxFawIkAEEoPIcmE%3D&reserved=0>
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> > gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711888278&sdata=XXEBV5iIo02Yfe51FkwktsL5qpgXUKGKcfvfTWioCIA%3D&reserved=0 <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce9526ccc5d60494f64c108d48380d39a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636278036711888278&sdata=XXEBV5iIo02Yfe51FkwktsL5qpgXUKGKcfvfTWioCIA%3D&reserved=0>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
> World IP Day 2017 – Join the conversation
> Web: www.wipo.int/ipday
> Facebook: www.facebook.com/worldipday
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170418/67b87ec0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170418/67b87ec0/signature-0001.asc>