<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hi Everyone: <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I am sympathetic with Greg’s comment that this discussion is premature. However, I could not help but think this through. This analysis is based more on practicalities and registry life-cycle rather than data (which has proven to be unavailable) or anecdote. Many of these points could stand additional elaboration but this note is long enough.<br class=""><br class="">Recommendation:<br class=""><br class="">1. Sunrise periods should be voluntary for registry operators<br class=""><br class="">2. Trademarks Claims should be mandatory and perpetual (with a caveat described below as to whether they are perpetual or time limited)<br class=""><br class="">Background:<br class=""><br class="">1. The STI recommended that registries conduct a Sunrise or a Trademark Claims period. This approach was most likely based on: past practice leading up to the gTLD round where new registries always conducted one or the other; and affording new registries some freedom in selecting how they wanted to protect marks owners.<br class=""><br class="">2. In practice, it is difficult to force registries to have a Sunrise period. Registries can just price Sunrise registrations in a way that effectively obviates the offering. There were no price controls in this (2012) round or the previous (2003-04) round and for very good reasons.<br class=""><br class="">3. With a wave of its imperial wand, the GAC converted the “or” (as in Sunrise or Trademark Claims) to an “and,” ignoring past practice and the market realities stated above.<br class=""><br class="">4. The STI also recommended that Trademark Claims last a period shorter than the current 90-days (60 days?), a period that was intended to coincide with the then-traditional landrush periods that preceded GA. This was because it was thought that domain investors who might infringe were more likely to obtain trademarked names in the land rush period. Also, by limiting the Claims period to land rush, registrars could participate in the start of General Availability without having to absorb the costs of implementing the Claims process.<br class=""><br class="">5. Again, the GAC arbitrarily increased the Claims period to 90 days, effectively forcing registrars to bear the expense of administering claims or missing the first month or more of GA.<br class=""><br class="">6. As the market has evolved, land rush periods have largely been abandoned and replaced with Early Access Periods that are part of General Availability so any registrar wanting to sell domains from the start of GA has to accommodate Claims.<br class=""><br class="">7. There was no real pushback to the GAC interventions even though there were valid cases to be made. By that time new gTLD proponent were too weary, had waited too long, and were too extended by delays to consider extending the public debate. The GAC recommendations were accepted with little comment.<br class=""><br class="">Summary: the Sunrise period was originally designed to be voluntary and it still is, in effect, voluntary – if registries price Sunrise registrations very high. The Claims period is of arbitrary length, there is no available data pointing to a 90-day or any other period.<br class=""><br class="">Rationale: Making the Sunrise period voluntary and extending the Claims period to perpetuity will:<br class=""><br class="">1. Does not change the “in-fact” status of Sunrise as voluntary but does avoid the reputation impact to the program when registries prohibitively price Sunrise registrations.<br class=""><br class="">2. Will not likely impact the number of registries that conduct a Sunrise period. Registries conducted Sunrise periods in the past, they remain a revenue generating opportunity today, and most registries do seek a reputation for protecting IP rights.<br class=""><br class="">3. If a registry wants to operate a Sunrise period, there is no justifiable way to bar that.<br class=""><br class="">4. A Claims notice in perpetuity will accustom registrants to seeing the notice and promoting an understanding of its effect. Since a notice will not accompany every registration, it will still have meaning, but will not be such a surprise that it would be likely to deter an otherwise legitimate registration.<br class=""><br class="">5. There is no real rationale for a Claims notice being of value on day x and not of value on day x=1. New entrants are entering the domain name industry each day and the value of Claims notices might even increase as the market evolves.<br class=""><br class="">6. Registrars that have held off to date, would be obligated to find a way to implement Claims and all registrars will be able to participate from the opening of GA.<br class=""><br class="">The one caveat is that last point and it has to do with a comment Jon Nevett made to another RPM list. I don’t understand the burden to registrars of implementing Claims notifications. (Remember, the IRT originally avoided this issue by limiting the length of the Claim period.) If it is demonstrated that implementing Claims is likely to put smaller registrars out of business or at a significant cost disadvantage, than I would reduce the recommended Claims period from perpetuity, back to 90 days.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thx & regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kurt<br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; " class=""><div class="">________________</div><div class="">Kurt Pritz</div><div class=""><a href="mailto:kurt@kjpritz.com" class="">kurt@kjpritz.com</a></div><div class="">+1.310.400.4184</div><div class="">Skype: kjpritz</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 21, 2017, at 11:38 AM, Paul Keating <<a href="mailto:Paul@law.es" class="">Paul@law.es</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Brian,<br class=""><br class="">I.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Free Speech.<br class=""><br class="">I completely disagree with your statement that:<br class=""><br class="">"When a trademark owner pays a premium to defensively register a domain<br class="">name exactly matching its trademark in a Sunrise process this does not<br class="">prevent free expression; it does however protect consumers by preventing<br class="">potential misrepresentation under that particular string.²<br class=""><br class="">Your position imposes a qualitative aspect to speech and presumes that<br class="">because you see other avenues available that must mean that speech is not<br class="">impinged. It also ignores that the protection extends to not only w hat<br class="">is said but HOW it is said.<br class=""><br class="">The correct analysis is the following:<br class=""><br class="">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Is speech curtailed in any manner<br class="">2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If yes then assess<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>A,<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The reason for the restriction;<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>B,.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The identity of WHO is regulating the speech; and,<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>C.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The availability of lesser intrusive means of achieving the reason<br class="">(goal) while minimizing restrictions of speech.<br class=""><br class="">Restricting speech for commercial reasons is subject to a very high<br class="">standard. I see no basis, for example, to application of the private<br class="">property/shopping center type cases.<br class=""><br class="">Speech comes in all flavors and one must not qualitatively influence the<br class="">analysis simply because you agree or disagree with what is being said and<br class="">HOW it is being said.<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">II.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Balancing the costs.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><br class=""><br class="">Also, the removal is not limited to ONE domain. It is extended to all<br class="">sunrise extensions so at last could could involve over 1,500 instances.<br class=""><br class="">There is good reason to explore alternatives that focus on curative rights<br class="">and not right by prescription. For example,<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Retain the UDRP approach<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Inclusion of the mark within the TMCH is conclusive evidence as to the<br class="">1st Element<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The notification process would eliminate the issue of knowledge<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The cost of a UDRP complaint is less than $5,000, including attorney time<br class="">and the 3-member panel fees;<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The vast majority of all UDRPs are defaults<br class=""><br class="">III.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Less Intrusive Methods.<br class=""><br class="">Further, I would like to see the impact of the TMCH notice process in<br class="">terms of the number of notices sent and the number of domain registrations<br class="">subsequently gently abandoned following notice. If a significant<br class="">abandonment rate exists it would show a lesser intrusive means of<br class="">accomplishing the result instead of simply awarding a monopoly on domain<br class="">names to trademark holders.<br class=""><br class="">Regards,<br class=""><br class="">Paul<br class=""><br class="">On 4/21/17, 9:56 AM, "Michael Graham (ELCA)"<br class=""><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a> on behalf of <a href="mailto:migraham@expedia.com" class="">migraham@expedia.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">+1<br class=""><br class="">-----Original Message-----<br class="">From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><br class="">[<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of icannlists<br class="">Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 4:46 AM<br class="">To: Beckham, Brian <<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" class="">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>><br class="">Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br class="">Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal for the elimination of Sunrise Period<br class=""><br class="">Agree Brian and J Scott!<br class=""><br class="">Sent from my iPhone<br class=""><br class="">On Apr 20, 2017, at 5:40 AM, Beckham, Brian<br class=""><<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" class="">brian.beckham@wipo.int</a><<a href="mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int" class="">mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int</a>>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">To add support to J Scott's comment:<br class=""><br class="">When a trademark owner pays a premium to defensively register a domain<br class="">name exactly matching its trademark in a Sunrise process this does not<br class="">prevent free expression; it does however protect consumers by preventing<br class="">potential misrepresentation under that particular string.<br class=""><br class="">In weighing the respective costs and benefits, it is difficult to see how<br class="">the current system whereby one domain name is removed from circulation to<br class="">prevent consumer harm / trademark abuse should be eliminated because it<br class="">may prevent speech from that one particular outlet in a universe of<br class="">virtually countless other available outlets.<br class=""><br class="">In any event, Jeremy, this group would no doubt find any examples you may<br class="">be aware of, of actual speech chilling (particularly speech that could<br class="">not be undertaken elsewhere) because of a Sunrise registration, quite<br class="">useful.<br class=""><br class="">Finally, the claimed "cost savings" formula below is far too simplistic;<br class="">the harm that can occur e.g., through one domain name-occasioned phishing<br class="">campaign alone (in the time it takes to apply the cure) could upend that<br class="">entire equation many times over.<br class=""><br class="">Brian<br class=""><br class="">From: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>><br class="">[<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org" class="">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg<br class="">Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2017 1:51 AM<br class="">To: Paul Tattersfield<br class="">Cc: <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" class="">mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br class="">Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Proposal for the elimination of Sunrise Period<br class=""><br class="">We keep hearing all these outlandish claims of the poor folks cheated out<br class="">of an opportunity to express themselves or start a new business, but no<br class="">real proof. I hear all the same arguments I have heard since 2009 and<br class="">from the same groups with no proof. I also see no new voices claiming any<br class="">of this alleged harm. What I see is a group of stakeholders with an<br class="">anti-IP agenda making the same old arguments hoping to trim back<br class="">consensus solutions where compromises based on these arguments have<br class="">already been made.<br class=""><br class="">J. Scott<br class=""><br class="">Sent from my iPhone<br class=""><br class="">On Apr 19, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Paul Tattersfield<br class=""><<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" class="">gpmgroup@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com" class="">mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br class="">I'm not sure I agree. The Claims Notices are likely to have a far bigger<br class="">impact on people not registering domains especially those who are not<br class="">professional registrants and have not seen a claims notice before.<br class=""><br class="">No Claims Notices should be issued without a substantive review of the<br class="">underlying goods and services.<br class=""><br class="">The idea that anyone can buy a piece of paper without any real goods or<br class="">services to protect and can then use that piece of paper to discourage<br class="">others from building real world businesses simply because some<br class="">jurisdictions give out those pieces of paper out like confetti under the<br class="">pretext of ideas they 'might want to do in the future' should be deeply<br class="">frowned upon by anyone participating in ICANN.<br class="">Paul<br class=""><br class="">On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 7:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm<br class=""><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org</a>>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">Open questions 7 and 8 illustrate how the protections provided to<br class="">trademark holders through the TMCH have been applied too broadly by the<br class="">provider, opening the door for gaming and abuse by trademark holders, and<br class="">chilling of speech by affected third parties. This proposal also bears on<br class="">question 16 (Does the scope of the TMCH and the protections mechanisms<br class="">which flow from it reflect the appropriate balance between the rights of<br class="">trademark holders and the rights of non-trademark registrants?).<br class=""><br class="">It has been seen that the TMCH has facilitated trademark owners claiming<br class="">exclusive rights in domain names that they don't exist in domestic<br class="">trademark law, such as words incorporated into design marks. Open<br class="">question 10, rather than addressing the potential for abuse, actually<br class="">suggests a measure that would allow even more non-trademarked terms to be<br class="">locked up by priority claimants.<br class=""><br class="">As a measure to address these problems, we propose eliminating the TMCH's<br class="">Sunrise Registration service altogether. Although we also have concerns<br class="">about its Trademark Claims service and will likely propose its<br class="">elimination separately at a later date, the Sunrise Registration service<br class="">is the most urgent to eliminate, because it creates an absolute bar to<br class="">third parties registering domains that a Sunrise registrant has already<br class="">claimed, whereas the Trademark Claims service results in a warning to<br class="">third parties but does not absolutely preclude them from registering.<br class=""><br class="">We believe that the elimination of Sunrise Registrations would be the<br class="">simplest way to address the problems of gaming and abuse that have been<br class="">observed by working group members, not only in respect of design marks<br class="">and geographical words, but also the misuse of dubious trademarks over<br class="">common dictionary words such as "the", "hotel", "luxury", "smart", "one",<br class="">"love", and "flower" to lock up domains unrelated to the original<br class="">trademark.<br class=""><br class="">If the Sunrise Registration system were widely used by trademark holders,<br class="">then it might be claimed that its elimination was disproportionate-but as<br class="">we have seen, this is not the case. There have been only about 130<br class="">Sunrise Registrations per new domain. Such a small number of claims<br class="">could be more simply and efficiently handled simply by allowing those<br class="">claimants to resort to curative mechanisms such as the UDRP in the event<br class="">that a third-party registrant beats them to registering a domain over<br class="">which they might have made a claim.<br class=""><br class="">The benefits of the elimination of Sunrise Registrations would be:<br class=""><br class="">* An overall cost saving.<br class=""><br class="">* Streamlining of the public availability of domains in new<br class="">registries.<br class=""><br class="">* Elimination of the potential for gaming and abuse by putative<br class="">trademark holders who claim rights over domain names that do not<br class="">correspond to their domestic trademark rights.<br class=""><br class="">The costs would be:<br class=""><br class=""> * Some trademark holders would be required to resort to curative<br class="">proceedings if domain names over which they have a legitimate claim are<br class="">registered by third parties.<br class=""><br class="">--<br class=""><br class="">Jeremy Malcolm<br class=""><br class="">Senior Global Policy Analyst<br class=""><br class="">Electronic Frontier Foundation<br class=""><br class="">https://<a href="http://eff.org" class="">eff.org</a><<a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3" class="">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3</a><br class="">A%2F%<a href="http://2Feff.org" class="">2Feff.org</a>&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b<br class="">5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004172724&sdata=LCpvg6fU%2FX<br class="">kpw1fmAH8KzPJDWABttoqafNYeotxdCiQ%3D&reserved=0><br class=""><br class=""><a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" class="">mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org</a>><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<tel:(415)%20436-9333><br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Public key: <br class=""><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt" class="">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a><<a href="https://na01.safelin" class="">https://na01.safelin</a><br class=""><a href="http://ks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F" class="">ks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eff.org%2Ffiles%2F2016%2F</a><br class="">11%2F27%2Fkey_jmalcolm.txt&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c7<br class="">5c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004172724&sdata=<br class="">L5mf1H52yrjTzEUH1k0ZD7QleNH6oCdZhT3B7%2FDCW1Y%3D&reserved=0><br class=""><br class="">PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://na01.safelinks.p<br class="">rotection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo<br class="">%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943d4408d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b<br class="">5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636282416004182733&sdata=fZ88VMsRjujG<br class="">itQovRkGfOctUusd1sufOBNGSw97Kn8%3D&reserved=0><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br class="">https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.<br class="">org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C0e18d5b07aea47943<br class="">d4408d4877c75c3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C6362824160041<br class="">82733&sdata=fZ88VMsRjujGitQovRkGfOctUusd1sufOBNGSw97Kn8%3D&reserved=0<br class="">World IP Day 2017 - Join the conversation<br class="">Web: www.wipo.int/ipday<http://www.wipo.int/ipday><br class="">Facebook: www.facebook.com/worldipday<http://www.facebook.com/worldipday><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic<br class="">message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected<br class="">information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please<br class="">immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its<br class="">attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses<br class="">prior to opening or using.<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">________________________________<br class="">The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this<br class="">message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it.<br class="">Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable<br class="">privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission<br class="">of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to<br class="">be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid<br class="">penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" class="">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>