<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"> One of my concerns, and I raise this as a member of the WG, I wonder about the proposal below: "The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means."<div><br /></div><div>Is it appropriate to leave to an IRT - an implementation team run by ICANN - the creation of a new 3rd party mechanism for challenges? To me, this is the essence of the task given to a GNSO policy process; it is something we have always done together through the multistakeholder process. It's how we did the UDRP, the URS and the TM-PDDRP. </div><div><br /></div><div>I continue to ponder. Have a good weekend, All!<br /><div>Kathy</div><div><br /><blockquote><br />----- Original Message -----<br /><div style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "McAuley David" <dmcauley@Verisign.com></div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div>"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div><br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:54:48 +0000<br /><div style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:<br /><br /><br /><div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you, Mary, Ariel, and Julie,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Below are my comments regarding the draft Final Report language for Sunrise Recommendation 2, as well as the small team’s additional proposed draft language proposing an independent enforcement mechanism. I raised these issues on the Registries
Stakeholder Group call two days ago and used that discussion to help inform my comments. But these comments are personal and not officially on behalf of my employer or of the RySG.
</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">First, with respect to the Final Report language on Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original implementation guidance, I fully support the addition of the word ‘intentionally’ in the Recommendation prior to the word “circumventing”. A
registry operator should not face potential enforcement action for unintended consequences.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, I believe that the implementation guidance language needs to be tightened up to clarify that the “Discriminatory pricing practices” referenced at the second bullet listing non-exhaustive examples of practices that may circumvent
an RPM means discriminating against a trademark holder in the sunrise period via extremely high premium pricing, followed by a much lower subsequent land rush or GA price that has resulted in bad faith registration and subsequent infringing use by registrants
other than the mark holder. The sunrise registration RPM is meant to give a mark holder first opportunity to register a domain corresponding to its exact mark to prevent its bad faith registration and use by a cybersquatter, but that must be balanced against
the fact that many trademarks consist of generic dictionary words that have inherent value and can be used by other potential registrants in a non-infringing manner, justifying a substantial premium price.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Further, the premium price level in and of itself cannot be sole basis for a Compliance enforcement action as that would violate the “picket fence” that prohibits GNSO policy from prescribing or limiting the pricing of registry services.
As this type of price discrimination leading to subsequent infringement will only become evident after the sunrise registration period has ended, the IRT will need to give consideration as to what appropriate enforcement against such registry operation practices
should consist of.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Second, I oppose the additional implementation guidance language from Small Team 2. While I applaud the team for its efforts, I cannot support a new enforcement mechanism wholly separate from ICANN Compliance. In my opinion, this is very
far from the idea that went out to public comment – the idea of revising a registry agreement provision for future new gTLDs to elevate the general requirement on a registry to implement applicable policies to a specific requirement to refrain from circumventing
new gTLD RPMs. The proposal would give to the IRT unchecked and inappropriate policy-making discretion to create a new enforcement mechanism absent any showing that the implementation of Sunrise Recommendation #2 will be insufficient to curb suspect practices.
Further, the PDDRP is already available against a registry operator who encourages infringing second level registrations, and the recommendation we have agreed upon to allow unrelated rights holders to bring a combined PDDRP action against a registry operator
will make it easier to demonstrate a pattern of intentional circumvention of the sunrise RPM resulting in harm to them. It seems to me that if this additional language is added to the existing language and perfected implementation guidance, then there will
be a strong possibility that the entire Sunrise Recommendation #2 will end up lacking consensus support and not proceed to Council.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David McAuley</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Verisign Inc.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">703-948-4154</p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> <b>
On Behalf Of </b>Julie Hedlund<br /><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, September 23, 2020 11:58 AM<br /><b>To:</b> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<br /><b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] DEADLINE COB 25 Sept - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:</p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per the WG Co-Chairs, please note the deadline for this action:
<b><i><u>Please send comments if any to this list not later than COB Friday, 25 September.</u></i></b>
</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Note also that the WG discussion of Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language will be on the agenda for the WG meeting on
<b><u>Tuesday, 29 September</u></b>, to be followed by a separate discussion of the Sub Team 2 suggested Implementation Guidance language.
</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As a reminder, here is a link to Sunrise Recommendation #2 and the original Implementation Guidance language:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing</a>.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also as a reminder, here is the proposed Implementation Guidance language for Sunrise Recommendation #2 from Small Team 2:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:#000000;">Suggestion Language from Small Team 2</span></u><span style="color:#000000;">: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism
as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include
appropriate safeguards for registries.”</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"></span></p><p> </p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Kind regards,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Mary, Ariel, and Julie</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Date: </b>Tuesday, September 22, 2020 at 4:09 PM<br /><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Subject: </b>[GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER - ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"></p><p> </p><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Please see the action item below and post any comments to this list ASAP.</i></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary, Ariel, and Julie</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 5:07 PM<br /><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Subject: </b>[GNSO-RPM-WG] ACTION ITEM: Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear All,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see the action item below from the WG meeting on 17 September:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;">Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;"><b><span style="color:#000000;">ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please see the suggested revisions to Sunrise Recommendation #2 in the Google document at:
<a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1FjwAVP01Qp6iUM2rsInfcO1zc3qY1OeyxbslL44ahBnD57v-M046VfYu9TfNqKCONUMMY0dfxlDuXZajozgyED333axf8f-WVQQRrFyY6WzBAX5yFBgAdujy8_c_CZZpcbjZ3L_GchivygKd48DmcY2P1hNUww0OkcBHItWltt66smISh5mbgf-eSG3auE7oM9VvRauAVsbfwmfFPxufoPxV7W4uhtTHoSdSe-FeHUyXsoWiioZ9rSHqdpUR9dfevov4joiW3qQQvF3rBHyywg/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing__%3B%21%21PtGJab4%21vwikSt_HHDU8CpTsVTNpVCKvvhfkw3RoDuQLZC9tK3qSp9Flz3aJeVIjw0KrKyJ30-ZjAqWjOA%24">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com]</a>.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please also review the following Suggested Language from Small Team:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;"><u><span style="color:#000000;">Suggestion Language from Small Team 2</span></u><span style="color:#000000;">: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party
challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism
should include appropriate safeguards for registries.”</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Please post any comments or questions for discussion to this list ASAP.</i></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Kind regards,</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary, Ariel, and Julie</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1pt;padding:3pt 0in 0in 0in;">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;">GNSO-RPM-WG <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<a href="mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org">julie.hedlund@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Date: </b>Thursday, September 17, 2020 at 2:49 PM<br /><b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>><br /><b>Subject: </b>[GNSO-RPM-WG] Notes and Action Items: RPM PDP WG Meeting 17 September 2020</span></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Dear All,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
<span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
<span style="color:#000000;">Please see below the action items captured by staff from the<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span></span>RPM PDP Working Group<span style="color:#000000;"> call held on</span> 17 September 2020 at 17:00 UTC<span style="color:#000000;">.
Staff </span>will post<span style="color:#000000;"> these to the wiki space. <b><i>Please note that these
</i></b></span><b><i>are<span style="color:#000000;"> high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording</span>, chat room, or transcript</i></b><i><span style="color:#000000;">.</span></i><span style="color:#000000;"> The recording, Zoom chat,</span>
transcript<span style="color:#000000;"> and attendance records are posted on the wiki<span class="apple-converted-space"> </span>at</span>:
<a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1pj-qVlupt78WOggqQBVxVYjoZzhpAILr_Kjzlnz0Q9dNOBFXaq031gYNHOThZiA6e4f06uthLyxmlMQlQyX7x95gLj9tD_66uMXKEik9YoAiBiXvZC1NtWzldGG_KJCEjz0LMqAAk1cc6wlMGN0DDzCrYDEoTEXgIXWIKE_kt082hEcRI7jM79jKpx8n2wT14ADjZBeRagmXdKLtuKqXvnAm-GD48SuByL7FiCTiwv_xKRc8GXV4mztb5JEhEBm8FmjynZGadWfwt1XqQSdSgA/https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2FRARPMRIAGPWG%2F2020-09-17%2BReview%2Bof%2Ball%2BRights%2BProtection%2BMechanisms%2B%2528RPMs%2529%2Bin%2Ball%2BgTLDs%2BPDP%2BWG">
https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2020-09-17+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG</a>.
</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">Best Regards,</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
Julie</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="word-spacing:0px;">
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">==</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>NOTES & ACTION ITEMS</b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Actions:</b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">ACTION ITEM: Discuss WG suggested revisions to the Recommendation and Implementation Guidance along with the suggested language from Small Team 2.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible.</b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">URS Final Recommendation (was #1):</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “<span style="color:#000000;">the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”.
</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">New URS Final Recommendation:</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from <span style="color:#000000;">
Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Notes:</b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">2. Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language; see: <a href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/1ZQHItR6-GcLnN7flaJYMavZ68Kd0x80R9l3ty5lI1SXM8VSs6FTVOvAHMFPGuO7cR6uW0wVUHDXL7XZO75Vw5yLVktwjziIWj8UCsy6dIEsWDbbNWfxbFShegcxhuPKTncvHLslev5_i4x7cbs01L7gkAVqqGWKWTDAXDaBK8PmDKnJP6UGqJaGU4Qu2D_8e2bes3_3TgTx0xtf4av017a-equPtfELedejZkuoocPN3p_bmlZAmdYJ84EXzPZNG6xk4P7tuPbvnEGuI7xmxMA/http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2020-September%2F004503.html">Suggested
Language from Small Team 2</a> and<a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/1GPaEQhm9H9M25BLwa6LTCBf6l5NTIJUjWXk8Zkqr68yF-83WCmBUl9ynxjpPoL6xQyzqVAJcrAMKgjTkuKdOyL6xKU0zJd5rCnZXil0t4B9GiOFI6JFefvmU-jt5OCaNW21l2NCFt_C6a_4MB5UPQpMB5HmqIVFGwV8CSHs3N9MAnEjNJcM0ar3fXmJTPKo199BfwgnB-sKmhnL9PVW0wFkTzwxVf7xR6MfGlm8mmRDQhyf435K0Z4Og7CPtxK7nLoGp3Hb9hTY6anlR1s1JEQ/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing__%3B%21%21PtGJab4%21vrG9bvGPh6CAcYH6gGtmazbvnCJsGe-fWqDidShS5tf9gWqE4k8oCMDj3vR6cqfVi26trKkD_g%24" title="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing__;!!PtGJab4!vrG9bvGPh6CAcYH6gGtmazbvnCJsGe-fWqDidShS5tf9gWqE4k8oCMDj3vR6cqfVi26trKkD_g$">https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com]</a></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Concerns raised by Maxim Alzoba about the two examples that they are too broad.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Further to my point, as was noted earlier, this is a high-level policy recommendation; the IRT will be tasked with implementing this recommendation and our guidance should be sufficient to allow the IRT to craft an appropriately tailored
RA amendment and (hopefully a challenge mechanism with appropriate safeguards built in so as to not inhibit legitimate registry activities</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- I agree (I think) with Jason insofar as implementing this recommendation may necessitate a third party challenge mechanism akin to the PDDRP or pICDRP so aggrieved TM owners can challenge a registry activity and there can be a ruling
as to whether the activity is legitimate or not.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Concerns about misinterpretation if we are not clear.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Perhaps we can just add a third bullet that says, “registry activities that have a bona fide legitimate basis or rationale are explicitly not intended to be inhibited by this provision”.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- As a staff suggestion for your consideration — perhaps we can include something to this effect: “The Working Group notes that this recommendation is not intended to preclude or restrict Registry operator’s legitimate business practice
and pricing practice that are compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.”?</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Add to bullet point 1 (slightly revised)-- adding: "without countervailing rationale and/or reasonable activity by registries, including handling of dictionary terms.”</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Suggest addition to the Recommendation: “<span style="color:#000000;">The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a
way as to have the effect of [intentionally] circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Text in brackets.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">-- Don’t think adding “intentionally” in the rec helps us because it doesn’t really address Maxim’s concern, because reserving a name intentionally as part of an ALP or something is still intentional.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:#000000;">ACTION ITEM: Discuss suggested language from Small Team 1 on the list.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="color:#000000;">Suggestion Language from Small Team 2</span></u><span style="color:#000000;">: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2: The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism
as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision. Any such third party challenge mechanism should include
appropriate safeguards for registries.”</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:#000000;">-- Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance</span></i><span style="color:#000000;">? Answer: Takes some of the burden off
of Compliance.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:#000000;">-- Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible?</span></i><span style="color:#000000;">
Answer: To amend the language to “explore and if possible implement”.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:#000000;">-- Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both</span></i><span style="color:#000000;">? Answer: It would be against the registry that is alleged
to have circumvented it. There already is a way to challenge staff and Board actions.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>-- This would not be a mechanism as a way for ICANN Org Compliance to enforce – this would be a separate mechanism?</i> Answer: Correct.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Discussion</u>:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Opposed to this language. Sunrise Rec #2 itself is still vague.
</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Registries agree by contract to comply, but IRTs cannot develop consensus policies or revise contract terms – so this is out of scope.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- This is putting one vagueness on top of another.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- What authority does an IRT have to do these types of things.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Didn't an IRT create the URS, PDDRP, PICDRP, to name a few?</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Sunrise Rec #2 seems to beg for a third-party challenge mechanism.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- 1. Clause could include a clause to include a challenge mechanism. 2. IRTs do this sort of thing all the time (e.g. the AGB and all of the challenge mechanisms with it).</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Idea is that there would be an independent panel that an aggrieved party could go to – so not relying on ICANN Compliance and could be an independent review.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Why isn't a complaint to ICANN compliance sufficient here? I agree with David that it's especially problematic to move from "vague standard applied by single decisionmaker" to "vague standard applied by various possible decisionmakers"</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Would this be a time-sensitive mechanism?</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Because in response to the complaints over the years on sunrise circumvention, ICANN has consistently said they could do nothing about it.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Circumvention itself is not defined, so cannot be enforced.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- ICANN compliance would need to have a role, in a similar way it does in a PICDRP for instance; an independent panel would actually perform the substantive review and ICANN compliance would implement a panel finding, for example.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- If Rec 2 is "start doing something about it" then why isn't ICANN compliance the appropriate place?</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- URS and PDDRP are not Consensus Policy either. They were created during implementation of the 2007 GNSO PDP on New gTLDs.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Divergence in the WG on this suggested text.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ACTION ITEM: <b><span style="color:#000000;">Discuss the suggested language on the list.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">3. Suggested Language from Small Team 1 on ALP relating to Sunrise Questions #3 and #4; see:
<a href="http://secure-web.cisco.com/15s2A-_YSAltxsDRZbXGvAtbln5h7Y5BRK79nsX0sMyJLss1egyxr67iWrtpy3yoMtiGMGy58vZ6jCfjWSRTtmhEls37XpITRmZ0pk1dV0gy4xtVr2i4rCCHxU6Fk0vq3v1ahcw9f06x08EqL886eTn_kATT63sNDfH3osAcZcWZ_O0LFBKVGFZ0cLsqM6KyTHo3QJ6AE9hvRbmNY25yUiX0uy9lSYKzKUkf5zwGvAtfkX6J6srbPI7gFB4a-z4FruA7SVpXSsI1sKGhk4pjZ6g/http%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fpipermail%2Fgnso-rpm-wg%2F2020-September%2F004505.html">
http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-September/004505.html</a> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“The Working Group recommends guidance to the Implementation Review Team that the Approved Launch Program (ALP) Application Review Guidelines be reviewed and clarified in order to address feedback obtained by the working group regarding
the length of time and complexity of process involved in seeking to obtain approval for an ALP, and in particular recommends that the IRT consider the following:<br />
1. Where ICANN can not make a determination regarding an ALP application it will notify the Registry Operator to that effect within 45 days stating explicit reasons for needing more time and further, provide a decision date projection plan within a time period
not to exceed another 30 days. There should be a reasonable expectation that all negotiations should be completed within a 7 month period.<br />
2. Where ICANN determines to decline an ALP application or make a request for further information ICANN will include a full explanation of the aspects of the ALP application ICANN deems to be acceptable and the aspects ICANN deems to be unacceptable.”</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Discussion</u>:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- The reference to an ALP being adopted is in the TMCH procedures if approved it is outside of or in contravention of Sunrise. This is directly related to the operation of the Sunrise.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- TMCH RPMs Requirements document that is incorporated by reference into the AGB and the RA (<a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-14may14-en.pdf">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-14may14-en.pdf</a>).
4.5 deals with Launch Programs, specifically 4.5.2:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Registry Operator MAY, prior to the start date of its Sunrise Period, apply to ICANN for approval to conduct a registration program not otherwise permitted by these TMCH Requirements. Such a registration program application could, for example,
provide for authorization to implement programs set forth in Registry Operator’s application for the TLD, which, if set forth in reasonable detail in the application for the TLD, will carry a presumption of being approved, unless ICANN reasonably determines
that such requested registration program could contribute to consumer confusion or the infringement of intellectual property rights. If Registry Operator seeks ICANN’s approval of a program under this Section 4.5.2, and such requested registration program
is substantially similar to a...”</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Staff will check with GDS to see if this recommendation is feasible.</b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">4. URS Final Recommendations; see: <a href="https://secure-web.cisco.com/14aelGQ2vVVG29EjXESQVYNQs8xt9zypPgviL8EBr2fngGWYOCHDRoOf7DW5Sk_GgcTcmY63YfPxByVbVoNuD-0jcm8nJVEg7Myz4XyiCLE3rvNMhYcu4JI3kDy2e1CfGg2bQ4kvpNkXzAomSW4IhEyPX5xf9V6NQn-j1vkR_zN7xSqPOOpI5srhAFJ1nto6q2uYDOwFnpW3X26TFgvDjOvJfVmLq4cNHMgTls4ORiSC29BTAHvKu82zV42FbPW2PWl95W4izkyGOI41qKjLR2A/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.com%2Fv3%2F__https%3A%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fdocument%2Fd%2F1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY%2Fedit%3Fusp%3Dsharing__%3B%21%21PtGJab4%21vrG9bvGPh6CAcYH6gGtmazbvnCJsGe-fWqDidShS5tf9gWqE4k8oCMDj3vR6cqfVi25zeqf2-g%24">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1huKNcgg3VAk95oybb-7u9papLZ4kEMUHNQNElMPWMFY/edit?usp=sharing
[docs.google.com]</a></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">a. URS Final Recommendation (was #1):</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Recommendation language stays as is.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Contextual language – inserted text to reflect the WG’s agreement to include the EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Minor change in the contextual language – change from “<span style="color:#000000;">the Working Group affirms” to “the Working Group further notes”.
</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">b. New URS Final Recommendation:</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;"> </span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">-- This is based on URS Question 1.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">-- It is a new recommendation based on responses received in the public comment.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">-- The context comes from the WG discussion of URS Question 1.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#000000;">-- The public comment review is based on the discussion of URS Question 1 and suggestion for a recommendation.</span></p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u>Discussion</u>:</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Questions about the contextual language. Concern that the reference to
<span style="color:#000000;">Purpose 6-PA5</span> is somehow binding.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- Staff noted that it is not binding and there was no change to the new recommendation resulting from the WG’s review of the
<span style="color:#000000;">ICANN org’s EPDP Phase 1 Recommendation #27 Wave 1 Report</span>.</p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>ACTION ITEM: Remove the quoted text from <span style="color:#000000;">
Purpose 6-PA5 and move it to a footnote for reference.</span></b></p><p></p><p></p>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></body></html>