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…”

 à 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.” 

à 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: 

 

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%5BSunrise%20Status%20Check%5D%2024%20May%202019.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558729733227&api=v2

 

Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2824%20May%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1558729628694&api=v2

 

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:

 

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