[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ.... Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
Hi All, I promised to write something up on the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy to help make it something the challenger -- which can include a trademark owner, company or organization -- might use. Best, Kathy *------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ * *Individual Proposal #2 and my proposal – largely an operational fix* *Purpose: For making the mandatory sunrise dispute resolution policies fully usable and ensure that challengers have access to the information needed to bring a legitimate challenge.* *Registries have the right to limit Sunrise periods by date of registration (e.g., no registrations only 2 days old – I think in Round 1 trademark registrations had to be at least 2 years old) and by categories of goods and services. Challengers have the right to show that the Sunrise Period was misused for registration that do not belong. * *Challengers may be trademark owners themselves, organizations or others with direct interest in that top level domain (e.g., it may be a noncommercial top level domain). As noted in Individual Proposal #2 – The Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies were premised on the openness off the TMCH database and the ability to review and then challenge trademark**owners who misuse the Sunrise. SDRPs cannot serve the purpose for which they were created if third parties cannot review the TMCH entries (as original rules allowed)* *To bring a Sunrise Challenge, you need to be able to know the information registered in the TMCH – just for that particular mark – including country of registration, registration number, registration date, description of good and services – or a mark protected by statute or treaty and in what country.* *Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.* *The submission shall state the mark in question, the registration domain name involved, and a good faith reason why the domain name may not have been entitled to registration during the Sunrise Period. The Clearinghouse will then provide the mark's (or marks') recordals including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, description of good and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country. * *The TMCH will provided this information within a short period of time, e.g., 3 business days, to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline).* *Please reference Individual Proposal #2 for additional fields. * --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Hello Kathy and everyone, To facilitate the Sub Team’s further discussion on this topic, staff thought it may be helpful to point to the specific recommendation that constituted Individual Proposal #2. For your reference, the proposal was that “… all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS …”. If we may summarize Kathy’s suggestion, it is for an operational fix to that recommendation, to allow certain parties to request data about a mark from the TMCH and for the TMCH to provide that information within a specified period of time (please refer to Kathy’s email below for the full details and grounds for these requests). As further Sub Team discussion on Question 6 and its associated Individual Proposals (#2 & #4) have now been moved to Discussion Threads, staff invites the Sub Team to continue this discussion on that Discussion Thread. For your ease of reference, the thread was launched on Friday 3 May: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000286.html Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 10:00 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies Hi All, I promised to write something up on the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy to help make it something the challenger -- which can include a trademark owner, company or organization -- might use. Best, Kathy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Individual Proposal #2 and my proposal – largely an operational fix Purpose: For making the mandatory sunrise dispute resolution policies fully usable and ensure that challengers have access to the information needed to bring a legitimate challenge. Registries have the right to limit Sunrise periods by date of registration (e.g., no registrations only 2 days old – I think in Round 1 trademark registrations had to be at least 2 years old) and by categories of goods and services. Challengers have the right to show that the Sunrise Period was misused for registration that do not belong. Challengers may be trademark owners themselves, organizations or others with direct interest in that top level domain (e.g., it may be a noncommercial top level domain). As noted in Individual Proposal #2 – The Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies were premised on the openness off the TMCH database and the ability to review and then challenge trademark owners who misuse the Sunrise. SDRPs cannot serve the purpose for which they were created if third parties cannot review the TMCH entries (as original rules allowed) To bring a Sunrise Challenge, you need to be able to know the information registered in the TMCH – just for that particular mark – including country of registration, registration number, registration date, description of good and services – or a mark protected by statute or treaty and in what country. Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. The submission shall state the mark in question, the registration domain name involved, and a good faith reason why the domain name may not have been entitled to registration during the Sunrise Period. The Clearinghouse will then provide the mark's (or marks') recordals including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, description of good and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country. The TMCH will provided this information within a short period of time, e.g., 3 business days, to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline). Please reference Individual Proposal #2 for additional fields. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif][avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Demail-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dlink-26utm-5Fcampaign-3Dsig-2Demail-26utm-5Fcontent-3Demailclient-26utm-5Fterm-3Dicon&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DJ69mAe-idEhpAMF1nu2x6c2w3xl7xb5cjS_7sB4h6Y&m=4rJLg_UiYjI5_tUbszE3N29Ts3y-85nPveqmCIDpZX8&s=fZnpautPgKXUh9Y-ZrIgnL6ENJAjrKKsb8pu7SQxekU&e=> Virus-free. www.avast.com [avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_sig-2Dema...>
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff, I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity. Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below: Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? My suggested answers: I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread: Suggested answer to Q6(a): As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse<https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/trademark-clearinghouse-04jun12...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4). As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions. We have several proposals: First, we have proposal #2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part: If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past). Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part: Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. Third, we have proposal #4<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part: If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration. My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’? Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment? Suggested answer to Q6(b): Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Suggested answer to Q6(c): So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b). For now, best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ.... Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
David, all, Thank you for kindly sending this around. On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received. If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/trademark-clearinghouse-04jun12...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf <https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf>*
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. *
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ....
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question **6** (Pages 2**9-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q**6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer**: *TBD
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Proposed Answer**: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads*
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Dear David, Greg, all, In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level. More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG. Thank you. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse <https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/trademark-clearinghouse-04jun12...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf <https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf>*
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. *
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ....
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question **6** (Pages 2**9-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q**6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer**: *TBD
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Proposed Answer**: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads*
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral. The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation: 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear David, Greg, all, In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level. More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG. Thank you. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: David, all, Thank you for kindly sending this around. On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received. If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote: Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff, I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity. Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below: Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? My suggested answers: I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread: Suggested answer to Q6(a): As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4). As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions. We have several proposals: First, we have proposal #2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part: If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past). Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part: Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. Third, we have proposal #4<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part: If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...> And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration. My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’? Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment? Suggested answer to Q6(b): Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Suggested answer to Q6(c): So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b). For now, best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ.... Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Thanks very much for this Ariel. David, Greg, In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status. After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications. However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP). Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. *
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise% 20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version= 1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2.
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
* Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/ 102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/ 102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads *
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*//*
*/Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?/*
*/Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? /*
*/Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? /*
My _suggested answers_:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
**
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘_what are SDRPs_’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘_are any changes needed_’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after ourdiscussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2>from George Kirikos which says, in part:
//
/If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past)./
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html>of May 8^th . It says, in part:
//
/Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark./
//
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2>from George which says, in part:
/If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: //https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
//
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000058.html>comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*/Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: /*/We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).^3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.^4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. /
/3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. /
/4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration./
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
**
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
**
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question**6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ...>.
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6(Pages 29-30)*
The Sub Team justdiscussed Agreed Charter Question 6on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
/ Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? /
*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
/ Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? /
*_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
//
/Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? / *_Proposed Answer_: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’sdiscussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...>
*Proposal #4:*https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...>
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads *
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg>
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG): 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team. Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote: Thanks very much for this Ariel. David, Greg, In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status. After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications. However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP). Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral. The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation: 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear David, Greg, all, In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level. More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG. Thank you. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: David, all, Thank you for kindly sending this around. On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received. If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote: Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff, I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity. Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below: Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? My suggested answers: I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread: Suggested answer to Q6(a): As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4). As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions. We have several proposals: First, we have proposal #2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part: If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past). Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part: Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. Third, we have proposal #4<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part: If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...> And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration. My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’? Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment? Suggested answer to Q6(b): Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Suggested answer to Q6(c): So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b). For now, best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ.... Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Thanks, Ariel. Based on this sentence, "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.", I believe this summary is missing a critical component, which is that I withheld making revisions because of an open question regarding following another approach which would not require me to post a revised proposal at this moment in time. My comments on two statements within this summary are below: (1) "To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team." (2) "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio." On (1): Please correct me if I am mistaken (which may be the case), but I thought the role of the Sub team was to facilitate the adoption of Policy Recommendations for consideration by the plenary, by identifying Proposals which garner "wide support" on the Sub team level. However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement. I am only expressing this because the statement above seems to go beyond this conclusion by stating that a specific proposal not be included in the Initial Report due to a lack of "wide support" on the Sub team. Question: are you saying this because (a) the Initial Report will be published before the plenary has time to consider proposals? and/or (b) because the answer to my question below on Public Comment is in the negative? On (2): The reason I didn't post a revised proposal was because there was an open question on whether we could follow a different approach based on the feedback I received in the consensus-building process, i.e. utilizing Public Comment as a means to help reach consensus due to (a)* a** lack of wide support on the sub team when the proposal was initially presented;* and* (b)* the nature of the questions/concerns provided on this proposal. To summarize, after presenting the Spanning the Dot proposal to the Sub team on the 24 April call, and receiving helpful input from Sub team members, I began the process of addressing feedback, as per the ICANN consensus-building process. In following this methodology, I received feedback *that instead of making revisions to the proposal at this moment in time, to ask if we can post the proposal for public comment along with a series of issues and questions that require resolution*. Since this input resonated with me as a logical way of proceeding, I attempted to ask question to the co-chairs via email on 13 May, to see if it was possible to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report accordingly, i.e. *not* as a policy recommendation. The co-chairs may have provided some form of a response on our Sub team call of 15 May, but it wasn't clear to me if they were answering a different question. So I made an intervention in an effort to clarify, and was directed to post my request for clarification to the list. So I proceeded to do so on 15 May, when I sought clarification by posting a note on this thread (although it appears the discussion thread for Sunrise Q1 was the better place), when I stated "More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise." I apologize if the nature or the wording of my prior questions/posts weren't clear to you, because I believe the co-chairs are doing their best to provide an answer. To rephrase what I was seeking to have answered is: "Instead of posting a revised Spanning the Dot proposal at this moment in time for sub team consideration, can we post the proposal for public comment in the initial report and include a list of policy and implementation questions for resolution which can be considered by the plenary". Moreover, I thought this approach would also help because I had some level of hesitation about holding the pen on changes when it impacted essentially the same proposal from came in for consideration from the Sub Pro PDP; as a result, I thought changes might be better considered by the team as a whole, instead of me personally making them. I am just reading Kathy's email from earlier today, and I think she is answering my question, by saying in effect 'the answer is no, it is not possible to use the Public Comment process in this manner'. Kathy's email states: "This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report....Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received)." Just for confirmation, can the co-chairs kindly confirm my interpretation of where things stand is correct? If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)? Depending on the answers to these questions, I may need to post a revised Spanning the Dot proposal for Sub team or plenary consideration. I hope this is helpful feedback, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:12 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.
As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal.
This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received).
Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)
On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. *
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ....
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
* Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads *
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Dear Claudio, On behalf of Greg and David, the Sub Team Co-Chairs, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on this discussion thread. We would like to clarify a few points with respect to a couple of statements/questions in your message below. First, with respect to your statement, “However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement” we point to the following excerpt from the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/Proposed%20Proces...>: “While proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment, the Initial Report will include a reference (e.g. via an Appendix) linking to any objections received and documented on the WG wiki” With respect to this provision, and as noted previously, the Sub Team Co-Chairs determined that as Proposal #9 was deemed to not have wide support thus far, i.e., it has been “lacking the requisite support” and, barring a change in that status as we wrap up the work of the Sub Team, it will “not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment”. Thus, without wide support, the proposal will not be included in the Initial Report. With respect to your question, “If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)?” For proposals that do not receive wide support from the Sub Team the procedures do not allow an individual to resubmit that proposal (either in original or revised form) to the plenary/full WG for consideration as to whether it should be included in the Initial Report. Per the Proposed Process, the Sub Team’s Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not. We hope that this clarification is helpful. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:54 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Thanks, Ariel. Based on this sentence, "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.", I believe this summary is missing a critical component, which is that I withheld making revisions because of an open question regarding following another approach which would not require me to post a revised proposal at this moment in time. My comments on two statements within this summary are below: (1) "To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team." (2) "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio." On (1): Please correct me if I am mistaken (which may be the case), but I thought the role of the Sub team was to facilitate the adoption of Policy Recommendations for consideration by the plenary, by identifying Proposals which garner "wide support" on the Sub team level. However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement. I am only expressing this because the statement above seems to go beyond this conclusion by stating that a specific proposal not be included in the Initial Report due to a lack of "wide support" on the Sub team. Question: are you saying this because (a) the Initial Report will be published before the plenary has time to consider proposals? and/or (b) because the answer to my question below on Public Comment is in the negative? On (2): The reason I didn't post a revised proposal was because there was an open question on whether we could follow a different approach based on the feedback I received in the consensus-building process, i.e. utilizing Public Comment as a means to help reach consensus due to (a) a lack of wide support on the sub team when the proposal was initially presented; and (b) the nature of the questions/concerns provided on this proposal. To summarize, after presenting the Spanning the Dot proposal to the Sub team on the 24 April call, and receiving helpful input from Sub team members, I began the process of addressing feedback, as per the ICANN consensus-building process. In following this methodology, I received feedback that instead of making revisions to the proposal at this moment in time, to ask if we can post the proposal for public comment along with a series of issues and questions that require resolution. Since this input resonated with me as a logical way of proceeding, I attempted to ask question to the co-chairs via email on 13 May, to see if it was possible to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report accordingly, i.e. not as a policy recommendation. The co-chairs may have provided some form of a response on our Sub team call of 15 May, but it wasn't clear to me if they were answering a different question. So I made an intervention in an effort to clarify, and was directed to post my request for clarification to the list. So I proceeded to do so on 15 May, when I sought clarification by posting a note on this thread (although it appears the discussion thread for Sunrise Q1 was the better place), when I stated "More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise." I apologize if the nature or the wording of my prior questions/posts weren't clear to you, because I believe the co-chairs are doing their best to provide an answer. To rephrase what I was seeking to have answered is: "Instead of posting a revised Spanning the Dot proposal at this moment in time for sub team consideration, can we post the proposal for public comment in the initial report and include a list of policy and implementation questions for resolution which can be considered by the plenary". Moreover, I thought this approach would also help because I had some level of hesitation about holding the pen on changes when it impacted essentially the same proposal from came in for consideration from the Sub Pro PDP; as a result, I thought changes might be better considered by the team as a whole, instead of me personally making them. I am just reading Kathy's email from earlier today, and I think she is answering my question, by saying in effect 'the answer is no, it is not possible to use the Public Comment process in this manner'. Kathy's email states: "This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report....Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received)." Just for confirmation, can the co-chairs kindly confirm my interpretation of where things stand is correct? If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)? Depending on the answers to these questions, I may need to post a revised Spanning the Dot proposal for Sub team or plenary consideration. I hope this is helpful feedback, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions/comments. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:12 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG): 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team. Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote: Thanks very much for this Ariel. David, Greg, In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status. After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications. However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP). Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral. The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation: 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear David, Greg, all, In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level. More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG. Thank you. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: David, all, Thank you for kindly sending this around. On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received. If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote: Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff, I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity. Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below: Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? My suggested answers: I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread: Suggested answer to Q6(a): As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4). As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions. We have several proposals: First, we have proposal #2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part: If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past). Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part: Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. Third, we have proposal #4<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part: If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...> And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration. My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’? Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment? Suggested answer to Q6(b): Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Suggested answer to Q6(c): So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b). For now, best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ.... Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Julie, This is extremely helpful - thanks so much. If you have an opportunity, please pass along my sincere appreciation to our hard working co-chairs for taking the time to put this together (and also to staff as well). I have a few comments on these three inter-related statements from the co-chairs (see comments directly below the quoted text): (a) "With respect to this provision, and as noted previously, the Sub Team Co-Chairs determined that as Proposal #9 was deemed to not have wide support thus far, i.e., it has been “lacking the requisite support” and, barring a change in that status as we wrap up the work of the Sub Team, it will “*not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment.* *Thus, without wide support, the proposal will not be included in the Initial Report.*" (emphasis added). (b) "“*While proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment*, the Initial Report will include a reference (e.g. via an Appendix) linking to any objections received and documented on the WG wiki”. (emphasis added) (c) "For proposals that do not receive wide support from *the Sub Team the procedures do not allow an individual to resubmit that proposal (either in original or revised form) to the plenary/full WG for consideration as to whether it should be included in the Initial Report*. Per the Proposed Process, the Sub Team’s Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not." (emphasis added) ------ On (a): Yes to confirm, I am hoping to have a potential change in status, based on the modifications and feedback that I can provide in response to sub team members' questions/concerns UNLESS the public comment process can be used for non-policy adoption purposes and/or if we are able to reanalyze things at the plenary level. But in terms of the modifications, my response can include elements of the Sub Pro WG recommendation (on this same topic - Spanning the Dot), which the Sub team did not have in possession until after I made the presentation. So it helps to have the Sub Pro recommendation in hand for this purpose. More importantly, the only reason I held off on the fine-tuning is because of the open question regarding the manner in which Public Comment can be used for consensus-building purposes and the role of the plenary. With that said, I will do my best to follow the guidance of the co-chairs. To expand further, I am reading an implicit condition into the Sub team standard described in the *Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/Proposed%20Process%20for%20TMCH%20Sunrise%20%20TM%20Claims%20Sub%20Teams%20%288%20Feb%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1553628167000&api=v2>,* that "wide support" is necessary for Sub team endorsement to the plenary for (1) the purposes of seeking public comment on (2) Initial Policy Recommendations. I was asking a different question, namely what is the standard for public comment at the Sub team level, and at the plenary level, when something is proposed for public comment that is NOT a policy recommendation, but public comment is sought as a way of fleshing out issues on a particular proposal. (1) Is this approach of public comment permitted by the GNSO WG Guidelines? (2) Does the "wide support" standard still apply at the Sub team level when this is the purpose of public comment?, and (3) do the GNSO WG Guidelines apply (Consensus, Divergence, etc.) at the plenary? I presume the plenary needs to reach Consensus to do this, correct? Its seems the Sub team Process document is silent on this question (about dealing with non-policy recommendations), and that the GNSO WG Guidelines will govern the determination of what goes into the Initial Report. (as per below). Can you kindly ask the co-chairs to confirm their views on this so I'm clear on where things stand? This question has not yet been directly answered. Moreover, I believe there is still confusion on the overall Sub team process as reflected in the analysis below, i.e. what role does the plenary function in deciding what goes out for public comment? -------- On (b) and (c): the *Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/Proposed%20Process%20for%20TMCH%20Sunrise%20%20TM%20Claims%20Sub%20Teams%20%288%20Feb%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1553628167000&api=v2>*, states: (under *Section 8. Review of All Proposals, *1st bullet point): "All Sub Team recommendations will be shared with the larger WG and *a final decision on any proposal’s inclusion in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment will be made by the entire WG."* (emphasis added) (Under Section 8. Review of All Proposals, 4th bullet point): "*The full WG may also designate certain Sub Team recommendations as requiring further consideration and refinement by the Sub Teams prior to inclusion in the Initial Report*, and the Sub Team will be accorded a short period in which to reconvene and consider such matters further"" (Under *Section 4. Reporting, *1st bullet point), states: "Per GNSO Working Group Guidelines, *Sub Teams are expected to report their findings and recommendations to the full WG for review and approval; no decisions or recommendations are final until the full WG has reviewed and approved them"; *(emphasis added) (Under *Section **6. Sub Team Recommendations) *states: "If a Sub Team member wishes to file a statement in relation to any proposal that has not received wide support within the Sub Team,* such statement shall be included in the Sub Team report submitted for review by the full WG*." ( emphasis added) (Under *Introductory/summary text*) states: "*To facilitate the Working Group (WG) process* of developing recommendations relating to the Sunrise..." (emphasis added) I am interpreting these provisions and the full Process document as a whole to signify that any recommendation(s) arising from the Sub teams are basically that, recommendations for the plenary to consider - but may be overridden, and that all Sub Team recommendations must go to the plenary for making final decision-making on what is included in the Initial Report for public comment. Moreover, I do not see a provision in the Sub team Process document that states that a proponent is barred from introducing a proposal to the plenary with modifications (in part, which may derive from Sub team discussions). On this last point, can you point out again where this prohibition is being derived from? The rationale provided by the co-chairs is: "Per the Proposed Process, the Sub Team’s Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not." but this statement doesn't appear to reference a prohibition against introducing a proposal to the plenary with modifications, rather it simply states that the Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not. In other words, its applicability is limited to Sub Team recommendations, not whether something can be reintroduced to the plenary. On the other message from the co-chairs, which states: "...*proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment*...", and "the Sub Team Co-Chairs determined that as Proposal #9 was deemed to not have wide support thus far, i.e., it has been “lacking the requisite support” and, *barring a change in that status as we wrap up the work of the Sub Team, it will “not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment.*" (emphasis added) This statement doesn't appear to take into consideration the other relevant provisions in the Sub team process document, i.e. the summary text, the first bullet point under Section 8, and first bullet point under Section 4., among others (as cited above), and it is simply a cut and dry statement that the Sub teams make the final determination on what is included in public comment, and for what purpose. With respect, this is inconsistent with my recollection of why we formed the Sub teams (which have a small number of participants compared to the plenary), and which is reflected in the various provisions I pulled directly from the Sub team Process document regarding the role of the plenary as the final arbiter on what goes into the initial report. We may be having a divergence in interpretation of sorts because I believe the provision cited by the co-chairs can not really be read in isolation and untethered from the other provisions in the Sub team Process document. For example, the statement cited by the co-chairs appears in the Sub team Process document in "Section 8. Review of All Proposals" as the third bullet point, directly below its 'sister provision' (the second bullet point), i.e. the provision that states that proposals *with* Wide Support *will be included* in the Initial Report. However, this sister clause includes the important qualifier "*unless the full WG overrides such recommendation*", which is absent from the sister clause below cited by the co-chairs. In other words, these two provisions are meant to read together in unison, so the fact that the second provision does not include the important qualifier "unless the full WG overrides such recommendation", does not signify that the qualifier doesn't apply to the clause (which would be inconsistent with the related clause above), and is likely just a result of short-hand, informal drafting, and as a result of the drafter's intent that these two provisions would be read together. Moreover, the statement "*unless the full WG overrides such recommendation*", might imply the possibility of reintroducing a proposal to the plenary with modifications, because the plenary inherently has the ability to override where the Sub team landed on a particular recommendation. Sorry for the long note, but I wanted to do my best to clarify, which I believe will help us save time over the long term. I am VERY happy to stand corrected so we can put this to rest if my analysis went astray in any direction. I'm looking forward to hearing back from the co-chairs with their thoughts. Thank you! Best regards, Claudio On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:59 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Claudio,
On behalf of Greg and David, the Sub Team Co-Chairs, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on this discussion thread. We would like to clarify a few points with respect to a couple of statements/questions in your message below.
First, with respect to your statement, “However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement” we point to the following excerpt from the *Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/Proposed%20Proces...> :
“While proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment, the Initial Report will include a reference (e.g. via an Appendix) linking to any objections received and documented on the WG wiki”
With respect to this provision, and as noted previously, the Sub Team Co-Chairs determined that as Proposal #9 was deemed to not have wide support thus far, i.e., it has been “lacking the requisite support” and, barring a change in that status as we wrap up the work of the Sub Team, it will “not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment”. Thus, without wide support, the proposal will not be included in the Initial Report.
With respect to your question, “If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)?”
For proposals that do not receive wide support from the Sub Team the procedures do not allow an individual to resubmit that proposal (either in original or revised form) to the plenary/full WG for consideration as to whether it should be included in the Initial Report. Per the Proposed Process, the Sub Team’s Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not.
We hope that this clarification is helpful.
Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:54 PM *To: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Thanks, Ariel.
Based on this sentence, "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.", I believe this summary is missing a critical component, which is that I withheld making revisions because of an open question regarding following another approach which would not require me to post a revised proposal at this moment in time.
My comments on two statements within this summary are below:
(1) "To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team."
(2) "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio."
On (1): Please correct me if I am mistaken (which may be the case), but I thought the role of the Sub team was to facilitate the adoption of Policy Recommendations for consideration by the plenary, by identifying Proposals which garner "wide support" on the Sub team level.
However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement.
I am only expressing this because the statement above seems to go beyond this conclusion by stating that a specific proposal not be included in the Initial Report due to a lack of "wide support" on the Sub team.
Question: are you saying this because (a) the Initial Report will be published before the plenary has time to consider proposals? and/or (b) because the answer to my question below on Public Comment is in the negative?
On (2): The reason I didn't post a revised proposal was because there was an open question on whether we could follow a different approach based on the feedback I received in the consensus-building process, i.e. utilizing Public Comment as a means to help reach consensus due to (a)* a lack of wide support on the sub team when the proposal was initially presented;* and* (b) *the nature of the questions/concerns provided on this proposal.
To summarize, after presenting the Spanning the Dot proposal to the Sub team on the 24 April call, and receiving helpful input from Sub team members, I began the process of addressing feedback, as per the ICANN consensus-building process.
In following this methodology, I received feedback *that instead of making revisions to the proposal at this moment in time, to ask if we can post the proposal for public comment along with a series of issues and questions that require resolution*. Since this input resonated with me as a logical way of proceeding, I attempted to ask question to the co-chairs via email on 13 May, to see if it was possible to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report accordingly, i.e. *not* as a policy recommendation.
The co-chairs may have provided some form of a response on our Sub team call of 15 May, but it wasn't clear to me if they were answering a different question. So I made an intervention in an effort to clarify, and was directed to post my request for clarification to the list.
So I proceeded to do so on 15 May, when I sought clarification by posting a note on this thread (although it appears the discussion thread for Sunrise Q1 was the better place), when I stated "More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise."
I apologize if the nature or the wording of my prior questions/posts weren't clear to you, because I believe the co-chairs are doing their best to provide an answer.
To rephrase what I was seeking to have answered is: "Instead of posting a revised Spanning the Dot proposal at this moment in time for sub team consideration, can we post the proposal for public comment in the initial report and include a list of policy and implementation questions for resolution which can be considered by the plenary".
Moreover, I thought this approach would also help because I had some level of hesitation about holding the pen on changes when it impacted essentially the same proposal from came in for consideration from the Sub Pro PDP; as a result, I thought changes might be better considered by the team as a whole, instead of me personally making them.
I am just reading Kathy's email from earlier today, and I think she is answering my question, by saying in effect 'the answer is no, it is not possible to use the Public Comment process in this manner'.
Kathy's email states: "This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report....Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received)."
Just for confirmation, can the co-chairs kindly confirm my interpretation of where things stand is correct?
If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)?
Depending on the answers to these questions, I may need to post a revised Spanning the Dot proposal for Sub team or plenary consideration.
I hope this is helpful feedback, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions/comments.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:12 PM Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.
As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal.
This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received).
Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)
On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? *
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a): *
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. *
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b): *
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c): *
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ....
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
* Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads *
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Dear Ariel, I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one, we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process (for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures to be the registrants in that TLD, and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank) short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names) , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )' or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only). . if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet. . Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG): The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel
From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation: The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
My suggested answers:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
Suggested answer to Q6(a):
As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
Suggested answer to Q6(b):
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
Suggested answer to Q6(c):
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4.
We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ...>.
Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD
Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD
Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD
Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...>
Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg <https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg>
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise>_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise>
Maxim, These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this. Best regards, Claudio On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ariel,
I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one, we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process (for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures to be the registrants in that TLD, and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank)
short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names) , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )'
or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only).
. if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet. .
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?* *Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?* *Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?*
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a):*
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. * *3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark.* *4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b):*
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c):*
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)* The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ... .
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)* The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?* *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals* The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below. *Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... *Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads* Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Hi all, Appreciate the extensive discussion of this issue. Building on the conversation started by David McAuley and drawing extensively from text and summaries in our new "status check" document (the entry points are pasted below), here is a proposed answer to question 6 on SDRPs, which should hopefully be helpful in charting a path forward. Best, Michael --------------- 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 Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, “Trademark Clearinghouse” section, 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, if: (i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; (ii) the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration; (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or (iv) the trademark registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did not issue on or before the effective date of the Registry Agreement and was not applied for on or before ICANN announced the applications received. Also, Registry Operators must provide prompt notice of the outcome of an SDRP proceeding to the affected parties. To the extent applicable, ICANN must use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Operator cooperates with Registry Operator in effectuating Registry Operator’s SDRP. Should the ICANN Community and/or Registry Operators choose to tie Sunrise registrations to the categories of goods or services of the gTLD (as Registry Operators may do) or should the RPM WG recommend other expansions of Sunrise (see e.g., dot-span issues), this list of bases for SDRP challenge may grow. However, in its research, the Subteam found that virtually no SDRPs have been filed, including with some of the largest portfolio gTLD applicants. One problem pointed out was the lack of openness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) database and the inability to check information about a trademark recorded in the TMCH – information needed by a legitimate third party to file a SDRP challenge. The Subteam had numerous proposals to improve the SDRP and they are discussed in response to (b) and (c) below. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The SDRPs could be much better serving the purposes for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: The Subteam devoted considerable discussion to “fixes” of the SDRP, and received a number of proposals. We submit the following recommendations for Community review: 1) - Registry Operators should publish the information of trademarks recorded in the TMCH for all domain names registered during their Sunrise Period at the end of the period. This will assist challengers to identify/search trademarks registered during the Sunrise period and inform their decision on whether to bring an SDRP challenge. 2) - Registry Operators should be required to publish all SDRP decisions, which will then be aggregated in a central location to facilitate search/analysis. 3) - The TMCH should allow a legitimate challenger, one with standing to file an SDRP (e.g., a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or a similar name to the domain name; an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include business, organizations or individuals with the same or a similar name; or a party with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations) to have “single-shot access” to a trademark recorded in the TMCH for the purpose of determining whether an SDRP challenge would be well-grounded. The TMCH shall provide information including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, TM owner, description of goods and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country within a short period of time (e.g., 3 business days) to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline). 4) - ICANN should adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDRP determinations. On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:49 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Maxim,
These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this.
Best regards, Claudio
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ariel,
I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one, we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process (for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures to be the registrants in that TLD, and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank)
short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names) , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )'
or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only).
. if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet. .
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards, Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?* *Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?* *Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?*
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a):*
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-0...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. * *3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark.* *4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b):*
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c):*
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards, David
David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question** 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table (Pages 29-32)* The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ... .
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)* The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?* *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals* The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below. *Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... *Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?...
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads* Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg
Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise _______________________________________________ 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.
Sunrise Team, With respect to the standing requirement set forth below and in the Status Check document, I would point out that since a Sunrise registration can only be used to claim a domain name that is an exact match to the mark in the TMCH, the standing requirement for a third-party to challenge such a Sunrise domain name registration should require that challenger be the owner of trademark that is also an exact match. I would not support an expansion to “similar”. Thanks, John From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:49 AM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 ◄External Email► - From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> Hi all, Appreciate the extensive discussion of this issue. Building on the conversation started by David McAuley and drawing extensively from text and summaries in our new "status check" document (the entry points are pasted below), here is a proposed answer to question 6 on SDRPs, which should hopefully be helpful in charting a path forward. Best, Michael --------------- 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 Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, “Trademark Clearinghouse” section, 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, if: (i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; (ii) the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration; (iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or (iv) the trademark registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did not issue on or before the effective date of the Registry Agreement and was not applied for on or before ICANN announced the applications received. Also, Registry Operators must provide prompt notice of the outcome of an SDRP proceeding to the affected parties. To the extent applicable, ICANN must use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Operator cooperates with Registry Operator in effectuating Registry Operator’s SDRP. Should the ICANN Community and/or Registry Operators choose to tie Sunrise registrations to the categories of goods or services of the gTLD (as Registry Operators may do) or should the RPM WG recommend other expansions of Sunrise (see e.g., dot-span issues), this list of bases for SDRP challenge may grow. However, in its research, the Subteam found that virtually no SDRPs have been filed, including with some of the largest portfolio gTLD applicants. One problem pointed out was the lack of openness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) database and the inability to check information about a trademark recorded in the TMCH – information needed by a legitimate third party to file a SDRP challenge. The Subteam had numerous proposals to improve the SDRP and they are discussed in response to (b) and (c) below. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The SDRPs could be much better serving the purposes for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: The Subteam devoted considerable discussion to “fixes” of the SDRP, and received a number of proposals. We submit the following recommendations for Community review: 1) - Registry Operators should publish the information of trademarks recorded in the TMCH for all domain names registered during their Sunrise Period at the end of the period. This will assist challengers to identify/search trademarks registered during the Sunrise period and inform their decision on whether to bring an SDRP challenge. 2) - Registry Operators should be required to publish all SDRP decisions, which will then be aggregated in a central location to facilitate search/analysis. 3) - The TMCH should allow a legitimate challenger, one with standing to file an SDRP (e.g., a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or a similar name to the domain name; an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include business, organizations or individuals with the same or a similar name; or a party with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations) to have “single-shot access” to a trademark recorded in the TMCH for the purpose of determining whether an SDRP challenge would be well-grounded. The TMCH shall provide information including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, TM owner, description of goods and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country within a short period of time (e.g., 3 business days) to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline). 4) - ICANN should adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDRP determinations. On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:49 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: Maxim, These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this. Best regards, Claudio On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Ariel, I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one, we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process (for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures to be the registrants in that TLD, and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank) short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names) , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )' or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only). . if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet. . Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio. As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG): 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team. Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal. This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received). Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity) On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote: Thanks very much for this Ariel. David, Greg, In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status. After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications. However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP). Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment? Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral. The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation: 1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed. The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com>> Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear David, Greg, all, In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level. More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month. On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG. Thank you. Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote: David, all, Thank you for kindly sending this around. On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received. If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> wrote: Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff, I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity. Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below: Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? My suggested answers: I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread: Suggested answer to Q6(a): As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4). As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions. We have several proposals: First, we have proposal #2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> from George Kirikos which says, in part: If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past). Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...> of May 8th. It says, in part: Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark. Third, we have proposal #4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> from George which says, in part: If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...> And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says: Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. 3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark. 4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration. My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’? Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment? Suggested answer to Q6(b): Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Suggested answer to Q6(c): So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b). For now, best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6 Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102138618_-255BSunrise-2520Summary-2520Table-255D-2520-252816-2520April-25202019-2529.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1555515624235-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=WuDfC3QVya7CPKbh4O4EnrX8vpzCxiUHPW244TipOi8&e=>. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25232.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=CC7uGanykryCTWwzAaGnXQA4WV5PhZnoDWaK0WE7cQ8&e=> Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25234.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=SBpLGvbA3rB23MsjDO7tr29Hza59GocvYSBJDmmiK_s&e=> Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FoIWBg&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=8Wu86pgO1lBUxoPqK0aaYca6f8_JxUEWHB_oS1PZT8c&e=> Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=> _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=> _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=> _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=> _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=> _______________________________________________ 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=jVHSlxOBdf_FmLyB8NpgaP0jexp0aUhqfqQr0djthEk&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=SPdPnxak255x64Uet-zwknKSdpLKch-VIv6-_DOW1yg&e=>). 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. Confidentiality Notice This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
Kathy, As the proponent of the proposal discussed on our last Sunrise sub team call, can you kindly provide the source of data that demonstrates: (1) individuals attempted to register a domain name corresponding to their personal name at General Availability, but were unable to do so because the domain name was registered during the Sunrise period by a mark-holder; or (2) trademark owners attempted to register a domain name during Sunrise or General Availability corresponding to their trademark, but were unable to do so because the domain name was registered during the Sunrise Period by another holder of the same mark? I am trying to understand both the problem, and the nature or extent of the problem, that this proposal is seeking to fix. ...I don't recall a discussion on our last call of evidence that demonstrates this has happened, and as an individual member of the IPC, I am not aware of any instances of #2 above (or #1 above) occurring. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:29 PM John McElwaine < john.mcelwaine@nelsonmullins.com> wrote:
Sunrise Team,
With respect to the standing requirement set forth below and in the Status Check document, I would point out that since a *Sunrise* registration can only be used to claim a domain name that is an exact match to the mark in the TMCH, the standing requirement for a third-party to challenge such a Sunrise domain name registration should require that challenger be the owner of trademark that is also an exact match. I would not support an expansion to “similar”.
Thanks,
John
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Michael Karanicolas *Sent:* Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:49 AM *To:* claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
*◄External Email►* - From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org
Hi all,
Appreciate the extensive discussion of this issue. Building on the conversation started by David McAuley and drawing extensively from text and summaries in our new "status check" document (the entry points are pasted below), here is a proposed answer to question 6 on SDRPs, which should hopefully be helpful in charting a path forward.
Best,
Michael
---------------
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 Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, “Trademark Clearinghouse” section, 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, if:
(i) at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty;
(ii) the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration;
(iii) the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or
(iv) the trademark registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did not issue on or before the effective date of the Registry Agreement and was not applied for on or before ICANN announced the applications received.
Also, Registry Operators must provide prompt notice of the outcome of an SDRP proceeding to the affected parties. To the extent applicable, ICANN must use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Operator cooperates with Registry Operator in effectuating Registry Operator’s SDRP.
Should the ICANN Community and/or Registry Operators choose to tie Sunrise registrations to the categories of goods or services of the gTLD (as Registry Operators may do) or should the RPM WG recommend other expansions of Sunrise (see e.g., dot-span issues), this list of bases for SDRP challenge may grow.
However, in its research, the Subteam found that virtually no SDRPs have been filed, including with some of the largest portfolio gTLD applicants. One problem pointed out was the lack of openness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) database and the inability to check information about a trademark recorded in the TMCH – information needed by a legitimate third party to file a SDRP challenge.
The Subteam had numerous proposals to improve the SDRP and they are discussed in response to (b) and (c) below.
Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
Proposed Answer: The SDRPs could be much better serving the purposes for which they were created.
Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
Proposed Answer: The Subteam devoted considerable discussion to “fixes” of the SDRP, and received a number of proposals. We submit the following recommendations for Community review:
1) - Registry Operators should publish the information of trademarks recorded in the TMCH for all domain names registered during their Sunrise Period at the end of the period. This will assist challengers to identify/search trademarks registered during the Sunrise period and inform their decision on whether to bring an SDRP challenge.
2) - Registry Operators should be required to publish all SDRP decisions, which will then be aggregated in a central location to facilitate search/analysis.
3) - The TMCH should allow a legitimate challenger, one with standing to file an SDRP (e.g., a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or a similar name to the domain name; an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include business, organizations or individuals with the same or a similar name; or a party with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations) to have “single-shot access” to a trademark recorded in the TMCH for the purpose of determining whether an SDRP challenge would be well-grounded. The TMCH shall provide information including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, TM owner, description of goods and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country within a short period of time (e.g., 3 business days) to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline).
4) - ICANN should adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDRP determinations.
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:49 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
Maxim,
These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ariel,
I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one,
we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process
(for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures
to be the registrants in that TLD, and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD
by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank)
short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names) , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local
legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )'
or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only).
.
if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet.
.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.
As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing *not *including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal.
This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report. Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones. They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received).
Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)
On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.
David, Greg,
In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.
After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.
However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).
Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.
The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:
1. The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work. 2. Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed. 3. The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.
The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
*From: *claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley@verisign.com> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear David, Greg, all,
In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.
More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.
On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
David, all,
Thank you for kindly sending this around.
On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.
If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!
Best regards,
Claudio
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise < gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,
I am submitting this entry to the thread on *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6* in my *personal capacity*, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:
*Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?*
*Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?*
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?*
My *suggested answers*:
I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:
*Suggested answer to Q6(a):*
As to the ‘*what are SDRPs*’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_a...>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
As to the ‘*are any changes needed*’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.
We have several proposals:
First, we have proposal #2 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> from George Kirikos which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).*
Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...> of May 8th. It says, in part:
*Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.*
Third, we have proposal #4 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> from George which says, in part:
*If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: **https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]* <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp...>
And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_...> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:
*Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: **We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium. *
*3. We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark.*
*4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.*
My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?
Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?
*Suggested answer to Q6(b):*
Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.
*Suggested answer to Q6(c):*
So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
For now, best regards,
David
David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154
*From:* Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Ariel Liang *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to *Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6*, including *Proposals #2 and #4*.
We ask that you review the *Summary Table* *(as of 16 April 2019) *and provide any additional input you may have to the “*tentative answers & preliminary recommendations*” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider *draft answers *to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?
Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until *23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019*. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.
*Summary Table* *(Pages 29-32)*
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summ... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...> .
*Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)*
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.
* Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? *
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
* Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?*
*Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? * *Proposed Answer: *TBD
*Individual Proposals*
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.
Link to the individual proposal is included below.
*Proposal #2*: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>
*Proposal #4:* https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dow...>
*Where to Find All Discussion Threads*
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-...>
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). 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.
Confidentiality Notice
This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message. _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise _______________________________________________ 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.
participants (9)
-
Ariel Liang -
claudio di gangi -
John McElwaine -
Julie Hedlund -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Maxim Alzoba -
McAuley, David -
Michael Karanicolas