So I’m probably doing this wrong because I responded to the preamble and now I’m looking at the Proposals separately, but if I don’t do it this way, it’s going to be a mess. So – Proposal #1 I strongly oppose eliminating Sunrise. It was part of the tradeoff associated with the new gTLD program. Brand owners would be exposed to exponentially more risk with hundreds of new gTLDs and in return, they’d get a first right of refusal for names that matched their marks. We can see that this is not being overwhelmingly abused because the data the proponent cites shows that the TMCH is not full of hundreds of thousands of terms, and most TLDs saw a couple hundred TM terms registered, at best. This shows not that the period is ineffective, but that brand owners are generally using these tools judiciously. This information, combined with evidence that UDRP filings are up again, indicates that brand owners continue to face growing levels of abuse despite these protections. Therefore preventative and curative mechanisms are best deployed jointly, to allow brand owners to choose the strategy that’s most effective for their marks. Furthermore, most “reputable” registries would likely offer some form of sunrise anyway – fragmenting that by letting everyone do their own thing would impose significantly higher costs on brand owners that standardization has mitigated so far. I also want to rebut a couple of incorrect assertions in the proposal. “Just as one would not buy a $500,000 security system to protect a painting worth $100, ICANN should not require mandatory RPMs that are disproportionate to the actual risks…” --> While a domain itself may be worth less than $100, the brand value often ranges into the millions of dollars. Sunrise protects the BRAND, not a domain name. “Furthermore, sunrise represents an expansion of "rights" for TM holders, relative to their actual rights in trademark law. As such, sunrise should never have existed in the first place.” --> Sunrise doesn’t expand a *legal* right. No one is saying a TM holder has a *legal* right to a domain name. The community, in balancing costs, determined that it was *equitable* to grant brand owners that already had certain rights and were willing to jump through certain hoops with a slight advantage that offsets the harm they were about to experience. This is a community decision about fairness and balance, not the law. These are my initial thoughts and now I’m going to put a pin in this and try to start my long weekend. Thanks, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 2:07 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 29 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework (by the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC) Pending any further suggestions from the Sub Team Co-Chairs, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8), Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11), Q4, Q5(a), Q5(b) (including Proposal #7), Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4), Q8/Q12 (combined), Q9 (including Proposal #13), Q10, and Q11 -- NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed on 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019 2. Review the staff drafts of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). NOTE: * Please primarily reference the Status Check document when comment/suggest edits on staff drafts of proposed answers and preliminary recommendations. * Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ suggestion, instead of directly redlining staff’s document, please insert your suggested revisions/text via the Discussion Thread in the body of an email, or in a clean format that does not involve redlining staff’s draft text. This is to avoid any potential version confusion and keep the suggested edits easy to review/incorporate. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: a. Q1 & Proposal #9 b. Q2 c. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 d. Q4 e. Q5(a) f. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 g. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20%... * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20%... * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf?... * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf?... * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf?... * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf?... * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf?... * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pdf... * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pdf... * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pdf... 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel