I think that makes sense.  Given the purpose of sunrise (as one of the RPMs protections for brand owners) it’s implicit that we need to be bearing this balance with trademark rights in mind.

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman
Sent: 21 June 2017 14:28
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Report of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team

Dear All,

Thank you to the staff for cleaning up the charts and notes. 

As we are expected to go over our work and  continue our discussion this afternoon, I  wanted to draw the sub team’s attention to the 4^th part of question 1 where I added the highlighted wording below.  On the last 2 calls we had discussed drafting the questions in a balanced manner that identified registrant’s concerns and trademark owner’s concerns whenever possible and relevant.  When we discussed question 18 as a stand-alone, we came to the conclusion that saying “how can registrant and trademark owner free expression and fair use rights be protected” did not make sense and left the question “as is”.  However, after looking  at the bunched questions in the most recent document, it occurred to me that we could achieve symmetry by adding “and balanced against trademark rights” without rewording any to other part of the question. As Sunrise is related to trademark protection, I think this makes sense and provides the balance that we were looking for but didn’t see when the question was a stand alone and not bunched.  We want to protect free speech and expression but still recognize the purpose of Sunrise.  I believe that this achieves those goals and is in line with the group’s intentions. 

Is the identical match process of the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose? Is it having any unintended consequences? Should the availability of Sunrise registrations only for identical matches be reviewed? If the matching process is expanded, how can Registrant free expression and fair use rights be protected and balanced against trademark rights? (Q1)(Q18)

Please let me know what you think.

LORI

Lori S. Schulman

Senior Director, Internet Policy

International Trademark Association (INTA)

+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 9:51 PM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Report of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team

Dear Sub Team Members,

Attached is the proposed report of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team in .doc and .pdf formats. Please take some time to go through them. Staff will be sending them to the Working Group mailing list in a few hours in preparation for tomorrow’s Working Group meeting (21 June at 17:00 UTC).

While going through the report, you should notice the following:

• A cover note has been added to briefly outline what the Sub Team did in the course of its work.
• The definitions of “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” have been added to that note.
• The data requirements column has been removed, and the data requirements identified have been moved to the bottom of the document. Each data set identified is referenced with the numbers of both the original Charter questions as well as those of the refined questions. The refined questions are also included for context.

Please note that the Sub Team report is not a final work product. Working Group members will be reviewing and commenting on the report both during tomorrow’s Working Group call, as well as during the Working Group face-to-face meeting in Johannesburg. Sub Team members are also encouraged to continue discussing the Charter questions, the refined versions of these questions as well as possible data requirements with the rest of the Working Group.

Thanks.

Amr