<html><head><base href="x-msg://124/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Karen,</div><div><br></div><div>Apologies for late submission of this.</div><div><br></div><div><b>P1: SUNRISE</b></div><div><br></div><div>We think Option (1), use of a token (or code), is superior to Options (2) or (3). The primary advantage of Option (1), as noted by other respondents, is that it reduces the likelihood of mismatch between the Sunrise domain applicant contact details and the contact details in the clearinghouse for that mark. Operational experience in earlier TLD launches indicates that legitimate Sunrise applicants frequently use contact details that differ from those provided to the entity performing the trademark clearinghouse function. As a group we'll have to think through whether tokens apply at the level of (i) the trademark owner; (ii) a mark (which may be registered in multiple jurisdictions) ; or (iii) a jurisdiction-specific registration, but I think we'll find ways to solve that. </div><div><br></div><div><b>P2: CLAIMS</b></div><div><br></div><div>An introductory comment. As I read submissions from IAG members it seems some are assuming the Claims process will be non-realtime (i.e. effected through emails or some other method wholly separate to the standard registration process). Per Jeff Neuman's submission, there are ways to make Claims realtime (i.e. completed during the standard domain registration process). We think the great benefit of realtime Claims is that more registrars will participate. If it's non-realtime some registrars may sit out the 60 day Claims period (before offering the TLD). More registrar participation means more customer exposure to the trademark owners claim. I'm interested in opinions on this from IAG members who are registrars.</div><div><br></div><div>We think Option (1), registrar displaying notice to domain applicant, is far superior to Options (2) or (3). Notices provided by parties unknown to the domain applicant will very often be treated as spam, thereby reducing the benefit of the service. Regarding the possible disadvantages of Option (1) in the discussion paper:</div><div><br></div><div><ul class="MailOutline"><li>All three Options require some form of registrar implementation, Option 1 isn't alone in this</li><li>Registrars don't necessarily need access to mark holder contact information. The Clearinghouse can send notice that a name subject to Claim was subsequently registered</li><li>Verification that Claims were displayed (i.e. registrar compliance) can be adequately tested through sampling and registry oversight. </li></ul></div><div><br></div>Look forward to the next group discussion on this.<div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Richard Tindal</div><div>Donuts Inc.</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Nov 17, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Karen Lentz wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">All,<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">I want to thank all of the attendees for participating in our IAG Kickoff Call. Approximately 37 people attended from around the world and offered insightful comments in the initial discussion. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">For those who were not able to attend, materials from the call are posted at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">https://community.icann.org/display/cctrdmrkclrnghsiag/Home</a>, including slides, documents, chat transcript and audio recording.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Attached is a document describing Issue# P1 (Sunrise Domain Registration Authorization) and Issue# P2 ( Responsibility for Registrant Claims Notice) which we discussed on the call. Please submit your written comments to these issues by 00:01 UTC<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>23 Nov 2011</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>to the mailing list. <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">As discussed on the call, we are ultimately seeking your recommendations for either (1) one of the proposed options in the document or (2) your suggestions for alternatives that you believe to be more attractive and that should be considered. Note that the description of P2 has been slightly edited since the document was originally published for the Dakar meeting.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">In your written comments, please make sure to indicate: (a) the issue number (P1 or P2), (b) the recommended option or alternative for the issue, (c) rationale (consideration of advantages and how any disadvantages could be minimized) and (d) any other comments.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">On the second call, on 30 November, we will brief you on written comments that we received by the deadline, continuing our discussion from 15 November. As mentioned, we will be rotating the call times in fairness to the different regions – the next call will take place on<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>30 Nov 11</b><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>at<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><b>05:00 UTC</b>. I will be sending out separately a listing of all call dates/times through March.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">We look forward to hearing from you.<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Karen Lentz<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">ICANN<o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p> </o:p></div></div><span><IAG-Issues-2011-11-30.doc></span><span><IAG-Issues-2011-11-30.pdf></span>_______________________________________________<br>tmch-iag mailing list<br><a href="mailto:tmch-iag@icann.org" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">tmch-iag@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/tmch-iag</a><br></div></span></blockquote></div><br></body></html>