- Gnso-rpm-sunrise - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks
by claudio di gangi Sept. 11, 2019

Sept. 11, 2019

thanks, Phil. I think because we have different interpretations of what those practices are - and having them on the call next week would greatly clarify status from that perspective, and the options or implications of any policy changes. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks To: ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com>, rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu < rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> In a personal capacity – before we consider asking Deloitte to speak with us, which will further prolong discussion and deliberation, why don’t we ask if there has been any material change in their practice since they answered our questions in the past? If there is no change then no point in verbal engagement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> * On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 2:57 PM *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks I agree with Lori that Deloitte is doing their absolute best to follow "the letter of the law" so to speak, i.e. what is contained in the Applicant Guidebook, and that they have generated accurate results in that regard. I understand that we may have different points of view, so this would be another area where it would be benefit from Deloitte being invited to participate on our call next week to inform our discussions on the current state of play, implications of any potential changes from a policy and implementation perspective, and so we are all clear on where things stand on questions #7 and #8. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> wrote: The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> wrote: I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Lori Schulman < lschulman(a)inta.org>; zak(a)muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* September-04-19 1:07 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> *From:* Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> *Sent:* September-04-19 12:48 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM *To:* zak(a)muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> 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(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

FINAL DRAFT: Sunrise Sub Team Status Check Document/Report to Full WG
by Julie Hedlund July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached Final Draft Status Check document in which staff has incorporated all of the revisions resulting from the meetings at ICANN65. The document will be the Sub Team’s report for the full WG to consider at its meeting on Wednesday, 10 July. In order to ensure that staff has accurately captured the revisions to the Status Check document agreed to by the Sub Team, staff has reviewed the transcripts from the meetings. However, please respond to the Sub Team list by Friday, 05 July at 1600 UTC, if you note any revisions we may have missed, indicating the specific text that should be revised, including the proposed edits. Staff plans to send the report from the Sub Team to the full WG by Monday, 08 July. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs

1 0

UPDATE: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 26, 2019

June 26, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the attached Status Check Document based on the Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on Tuesday, 25 June. The attached version of the status check document is the version that will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting at ICANN65 TODAY (see details below). Sub Team members are requested to review this document prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

REMINDER: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sunrise Sub Team Co-Chairs, we would like to bring to your attention this important reminder: REMINDER: The attached version of the status check document is the version that will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings at ICANN65 starting tomorrow (see details below). Sub Team members are requested to review this document prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Draft Slides and Updated Status Check Document re: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Further to the message below, please see the attached revised status check document to reflect the proposal relating to Q6 as provided to the list by Kristine and Susan. In addition, please see the attached draft slides for the Sub Team update to the full WG during the meeting on Thursday, 27 June. These slides are based on the revised version of the status check document as provided here. They will be updated as necessary following the discussion during the Sunrise Sub Team meetings at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:06 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] RE: Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Ariel Liang June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Hello Kristine, Thank you for pointing out about the delay in updating the wiki. We have now uploaded the latest Status Check document to the wiki as well. Staff can incorporate your proposed text in the Status Check document (in green) and also include your proposed text in the slide deck as additional slides to be consistent. We will also post the updated version Status Check doc in the wiki. Thank you again for your feedback. Best Regards, Ariel From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:38 AM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Thanks Ariel, Mary, and Julie, We had taken the most current status doc from the wiki as the most current doc and didn’t realize that the emailed doc was something different. Our proposal is different from your text because we didn’t understand there to be wide divergence as your proposed answer suggests. Indeed, we had taken a stab at language because we felt there was good agreement on the call (albeit tentatively, as everyone wanted to think a little more about it). I’d like to propose that we consider the text Susan and I submitted because if we do have consensus, it would help move our report along. The status doc is full of “we can’t agree” and it would be nice to capture places where we did agree. If people in the group disagree with our text, then we could, as you propose, include our language in the deliberations section, but at this point, we believe our text is more than deliberations and may in fact represent a consensus view. I understand we don’t want to open up the doc to wordsmithing viewpoints that are divergent, but I’m deeply concerned that we’re going to submit an initial report that has almost no actual recommendations because we can’t agree on anything. If we can find places where we agree, it’s critical that we include that. Best, Kristine From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:46 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink(a)amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hello Kristine and Susan, Thank you very much for proposing the new language for Q6(a)-(c). On Wednesday, 19 June, staff sent out the updated Status Check document which include proposed language by the Co-Chairs in collaboration with staff. This email (attached) may be missed due to travels. We have included the proposed language for Q6 in the updated status check document below. As you can see, the updated version is much briefer; the discussions and deliberations text will be included in the Summary Table, so nothing will be lost. Please be so kind to review the updated version below and let us know if you have any additional feedback / see whether any revision to your proposed language is needed. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team noted that SDRPs are explained in the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook. The Sub Team generally recognized that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend changes to any Registry Operator specific SDRPs. The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether any changes, deletions, or additions to the mandatory grounds are needed. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Since the Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, it did not consider this question. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the “some subteam members” language. ☺ Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3 [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.trademark-2Dcleari…>. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 – the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Ariel Liang June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Hello Kristine and Susan, Thank you very much for proposing the new language for Q6(a)-(c). On Wednesday, 19 June, staff sent out the updated Status Check document which include proposed language by the Co-Chairs in collaboration with staff. This email (attached) may be missed due to travels. We have included the proposed language for Q6 in the updated status check document below. As you can see, the updated version is much briefer; the discussions and deliberations text will be included in the Summary Table, so nothing will be lost. Please be so kind to review the updated version below and let us know if you have any additional feedback / see whether any revision to your proposed language is needed. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team noted that SDRPs are explained in the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook. The Sub Team generally recognized that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend changes to any Registry Operator specific SDRPs. The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether any changes, deletions, or additions to the mandatory grounds are needed. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Since the Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, it did not consider this question. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the “some subteam members” language. ☺ Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3 [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.trademark-2Dcleari…>. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 – the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

2 1

Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Dorrain, Kristine June 21, 2019

June 21, 2019

Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the "some subteam members" language. :) Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator's Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 - the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

1 0

Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2019

June 19, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat / RPMs Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call / Wednesday, 12 June 2019 18:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 12 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8Y_jBg Audio Recording: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-rpm-sunr… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/g4sJIDQSWy7ioORMvNXkFCW5zT8OONcFmSYowm… Chat Transcript: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/hZVr2Uk-Dq2avdZ5yJsxzBnn9Lz9XcQM2_… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0