Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN. Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call ________________________________
Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call ________________________________
Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call ________________________________
And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call ________________________________
I agree with the revised definition of premium pricing below and removing the last two sentences of that definition. Thanks, Matt Matthew Mlsna Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property Best Buy - 7601 Penn Avenue S, Richfield, MN 55423 T: 612.291.4493 l F: 952.430.2562 E: Matthew.Mlsna@bestbuy.com<mailto:Matthew.Mlsna@bestbuy.com> From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 11:08 AM To: Lori Schulman; Dorrain, Kristine; Amr Elsadr; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote:
And for clarity,
Here we are now with the drafting:
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market”
Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori,
I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something.
But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary.
Thank you,
Kristine
*From:*Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi, Kristine,
Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to:
1)Remove last 2 sentences entirely
2)or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
Would that work for you?
Any thoughts or suggestions from others?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts:
Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement.
As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.”
Thanks for kicking this off, Lori!
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday.
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.”
Lori
Please send you
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017
Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members,
Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw.
Thanks.
Amr
Action Items:
1.*Staff*to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
2.*Staff*to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
3.*Staff*to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
4.*Staff*to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
5.*Maxim Alzoba*to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
6.Outstanding action item for the *Sub Team* to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
7.*Sub Team*to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________
This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote:
This is why I included the citations to the RA.
Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names.
Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP).
Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear.
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM *To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter.
Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition.
Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld).
Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]?
Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link?
Best, Kathy
On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote:
And for clarity,
Here we are now with the drafting:
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market”
Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori,
I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something.
But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary.
Thank you,
Kristine
*From:*Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi, Kristine,
Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to:
1)Remove last 2 sentences entirely
2)or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
Would that work for you?
Any thoughts or suggestions from others?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts:
Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement.
As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.”
Thanks for kicking this off, Lori!
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday.
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.”
Lori
Please send you
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017
Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members,
Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw.
Thanks.
Amr
Action Items:
1.*Staff*to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
2.*Staff*to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
3.*Staff*to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
4.*Staff*to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
5.*Maxim Alzoba*to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
6.Outstanding action item for the *Sub Team* to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
7.*Sub Team*to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>
For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Thanks, Brian. From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 12:54 PM To: 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Cc: Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote:
For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries:
1.Registries may /_reserve_/ as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. /See/ RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014).
2.Registries may /_activate_/ in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. /See/ RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs.
It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you,
Brian
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois.
The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there...
But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing?
Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below.
Best and tx, Kathy
2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1
On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote:
This is why I included the citations to the RA.
Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names.
Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP).
Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear.
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM *To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter.
Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition.
Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld).
Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]?
Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link?
Best, Kathy
On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote:
And for clarity,
Here we are now with the drafting:
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market”
Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori,
I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something.
But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary.
Thank you,
Kristine
*From:*Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi, Kristine,
Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to:
1)Remove last 2 sentences entirely
2)or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
Would that work for you?
Any thoughts or suggestions from others?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts:
Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement.
As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.”
Thanks for kicking this off, Lori!
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday.
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.”
Lori
Please send you
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017
Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members,
Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...>.
Thanks.
Amr
Action Items:
1.*Staff*to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
2.*Staff*to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
3.*Staff*to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
4.*Staff*to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
5.*Maxim Alzoba*to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
6.Outstanding action item for the *Sub Team* to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
7.*Sub Team*to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
_______________________________________________
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Right and tx! Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote:
For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries:
1.Registries may /_reserve_/ as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. /See/ RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014).
2.Registries may /_activate_/ in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. /See/ RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014).
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs.
It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you,
Brian
*Brian J. Winterfeldt*
Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice
Mayer Brown LLP
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois.
The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there...
But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing?
Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below.
Best and tx, Kathy
2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1
On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote:
This is why I included the citations to the RA.
Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names.
Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP).
Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear.
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM *To:* Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter.
Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition.
Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld).
Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]?
Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link?
Best, Kathy
On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote:
And for clarity,
Here we are now with the drafting:
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market”
Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group.
Lori
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori,
I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something.
But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary.
Thank you,
Kristine
*From:*Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM *To:* Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Hi, Kristine,
Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to:
1)Remove last 2 sentences entirely
2)or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.”
Would that work for you?
Any thoughts or suggestions from others?
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org <mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts:
Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement.
As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.”
Thanks for kicking this off, Lori!
Kristine
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM *To:* Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org <mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing
I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday.
Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN(Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement).
Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser”
Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.”
Lori
Please send you
Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
*International Trademark Association (INTA)*
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman
*From:*gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM *To:* gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject:* [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017
Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members,
Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.i...>.
Thanks.
Amr
Action Items:
1.*Staff*to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.”
2.*Staff*to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21
3.*Staff*to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain
4.*Staff*to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations
5.*Maxim Alzoba*to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate)
6.Outstanding action item for the *Sub Team* to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing”
7.*Sub Team*to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call
_______________________________________________
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
__________________________________________________________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Hello, I am not in favor of giving the lists 2 names as we are creating overarching definitions that I think we should keep as simple as possible. The net effect is the same – the names are reserved and there are contract provisions that allow this. If we want to discuss reserve vs. activate then I would put that in clarifying notes but not the 3 definitions that we are tasked with drafting but that is for the group to decide. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:47 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Cc: Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Right and tx! Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote: For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. ________________________________
I agree Lori. There are more than two categories of reserved names (another category for instance is Red Cross and IOC). I don't think we need to say why names might be reserved in the definition. If we leave the reference that I added in, then people can go look for themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Hello, I am not in favor of giving the lists 2 names as we are creating overarching definitions that I think we should keep as simple as possible. The net effect is the same – the names are reserved and there are contract provisions that allow this. If we want to discuss reserve vs. activate then I would put that in clarifying notes but not the 3 definitions that we are tasked with drafting but that is for the group to decide. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:47 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Cc: Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com<mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com>>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com<mailto:GBarnett@mayerbrown.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Right and tx! Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote: For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Hi Kristine, Thank you. Agree that reference is critical and if we leave the reference in, it makes the difference. The contribution of the reference point in the agreement is much appreciated. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 5:03 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I agree Lori. There are more than two categories of reserved names (another category for instance is Red Cross and IOC). I don't think we need to say why names might be reserved in the definition. If we leave the reference that I added in, then people can go look for themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Hello, I am not in favor of giving the lists 2 names as we are creating overarching definitions that I think we should keep as simple as possible. The net effect is the same – the names are reserved and there are contract provisions that allow this. If we want to discuss reserve vs. activate then I would put that in clarifying notes but not the 3 definitions that we are tasked with drafting but that is for the group to decide. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:47 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Cc: Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com<mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com>>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com<mailto:GBarnett@mayerbrown.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Right and tx! Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote: For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. ________________________________
I’m late to the party but I agree with the definitions, and with including the reference in the agreement so that people can check precise language as required. I also support sticking with the term “reserved names” and not trying to break this down. All reserved names are “contractually allowed”, whether they constitute one of the maximum of 100 that the registry can activate for operational or promotional purposes or not. Indeed a number of reserved names are contractually-mandated, either permanently or subject to requirements to obtain consent. I would suggest the important point for these purposes is that names can be reserved, and what the interplay with the RPMs is if names are released from reservation. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: 14 June 2017 17:09 To: Kristine Dorrain <dorraink@amazon.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Thank you. Agree that reference is critical and if we leave the reference in, it makes the difference. The contribution of the reference point in the agreement is much appreciated. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 5:03 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>; Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com<mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com>>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com<mailto:GBarnett@mayerbrown.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I agree Lori. There are more than two categories of reserved names (another category for instance is Red Cross and IOC). I don't think we need to say why names might be reserved in the definition. If we leave the reference that I added in, then people can go look for themselves. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 14, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> wrote: Hello, I am not in favor of giving the lists 2 names as we are creating overarching definitions that I think we should keep as simple as possible. The net effect is the same – the names are reserved and there are contract provisions that allow this. If we want to discuss reserve vs. activate then I would put that in clarifying notes but not the 3 definitions that we are tasked with drafting but that is for the group to decide. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:47 PM To: Winterfeldt, Brian J. <BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com<mailto:BWinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com>>; Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Cc: Marano, Phillip V. <PMarano@mayerbrown.com<mailto:PMarano@mayerbrown.com>>; Barnett, Griffin M. <GBarnett@mayerbrown.com<mailto:GBarnett@mayerbrown.com>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Right and tx! Hence two lists -- a list of unlimited reserved names, and a list of the 100 contractually-allowed Reserved Names. My thought was to give them different names because, as you point out, they serve different functions. But both are called "Reserved Names"... Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 3:53 PM, Winterfeldt, Brian J. wrote: For clarity, and to quickly distill the interpretation confirmed by others who work with registries: 1. Registries may reserve as many (unlimited) domains as they want, contractual limitations only apply to the registration or activation of domains in the DNS. See RA § 2.6 (Jan 9. 2014). 2. Registries may activate in the DNS up to one hundred operational or promotional domains and act as the registered name holder through self-allocation or an ICANN-accredited registrar. See RA Spec. 5, § 3.2 (Jan. 9. 2014). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the former has been used in an attempt to circumvent RPMs. Whereas, the latter has been used for various anchor tenant and Qualified Launch Programs. It is worth noting that the three categories identified, and proposed definitions, can have a fair amount of overlap and are not mutually exclusive. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 2:54 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine; Lori Schulman; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi Kristine, Useful discussion! At least as I read Registry Agreement 2.6, it's a reference to Specification 5 - thus, the same 100 Reserved Names (which the New gTLD Registry Operator does not have to share). But as I read and have always read the language, anything beyond that 100 Reserved Names may be registered by the Registry Operator but cannot be merely "reserved," but must be "registered" through a Registrar under the Registry name (or some other corporate name). Thus, these domains would not be "Reserved Name" (e.g., a special list of unregistered domains), but will be visible, registered domain names appearing in the Whois. The problem I thought we were facing is some New gTLD Registries creating large Reserved Lists (far beyond the 100 of Specification 5, and outside the requirements of 2.6.) If that's not an issue, then great. But the problems I was hearing with "Reserved Names" would seem to be beyond a few dozen here or there... But you are working through today's reality while I am living the original Registry Agreement drafting and understanding. What am I missing? Registry Agreement Section 2.6 below. Best and tx, Kathy 2.6 Reserved Names. Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, Registry Operator shall comply with the requirements set forth in Specification 5 attached hereto (“Specification 5”). Registry Operator may at any time establish or modify policies concerning Registry Operator’s ability to reserve (i.e., withhold from registration or allocate to Registry Operator, but not register to third parties, delegate, use, activate in the DNS or otherwise make available) or block additional character strings within the TLD at its discretion. Except as specified in Specification 5, if Registry Operator is the registrant for any domain names in the registry TLD, such registrations must be through an ICANN accredited registrar, and will be considered Transactions (as defined in Section 6.1) for purposes of calculating the Registry-‐ level transaction fee to be paid to ICANN by Registry Operator pursuant to Section 6.1 On 6/13/2017 1:35 PM, Dorrain, Kristine wrote: This is why I included the citations to the RA. Section 2.6: Registries can reserve or block names. Spec 5: Registries MUST reserve certain names and can reserve up to 100 names for its own RO use without paying (or allocate them to customers in a QLP). Pricing and designation of some names as “premium” may sometimes go hand in hand with reserving them, but it’s separate, as the definitions below make clear. Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 10:30 AM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing The quotes can be removed. These are original definitions that I drafted based on my understanding of the terms. Sorry for the confusion. I had started using the quotes to set the language apart. It doesn’t really matter. Too my understanding all reserve names are reserved by contract no matter the reason. There are the 100 which can be for marketing/whatever, the name collision lists, the geo terms, etc. In my opinion the definition should try to cover it all. If there are noncontractual reserved names then we might segregate the definition. Staff, is there such a thing as uncontracted reserve names? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 7:25 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I understand that there is a second set of reserved names which goes beyond the 100 domain names that New gTLD Registries are allowed under the Registry Agreement for operational and technical purposes (e.g., nic.newgld). Beyond these Reserved Names, there is a different list (much more massive in some cases) that some Registry Operators register for themselves and keep in abeyance - not for sale as Premium Names. It is a different list, and apparently causing the larger headache. Both are informally called "Reserved Names," but the latter may be the larger headache. Shall we mention both -- and give them different names, e.g., Reserved Names[contract] and Reserved Names[outside the contract]? Question: quotation marks are confusing below. Premium Names has a close quote at the end, but no open quote and no citation. Premium pricing has an open quote at the start, but no close quote, and also no citation. If we are citing documents, could we put the citation in and a link? Best, Kathy On 6/13/2017 12:08 PM, Lori Schulman wrote: And for clarity, Here we are now with the drafting: Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market” Please add any further comments on this version and keep the string going. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:05 PM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com><mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org><mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I support removing the sentences and then keep them in reserve if the issue about needing more clarification is raised either on our subteam call or the full review group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:58 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori, I think the first sentence is clear and concise and I like it. I prefer just removing last two sentences also, unless other members feel the explanation adds something. But I do not object to your revision in #2 either, if the group feels it’s necessary. Thank you, Kristine From: Lori Schulman [mailto:lschulman@inta.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 8:50 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Hi, Kristine, Thank you for your points. I agree with the references in red. As far as the purple goes, I had debated on including it but wondered if examples would be helpful. Once I thought about examples, I felt that in fairness to the process, I should mention dictionary terms and trademarks. I agree that the language could carry emotional weight for some but I also think that it reflects market realities and it is a statement of fact. I don’t agree with other term of value to RO as the value is to the purchaser or what the RO thinks the purchaser might pay. Perhaps a compromise is “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” I don’t necessarily object to removing the last 2 sentences entirely but I thought some explanation could be useful to the process. My proposal would be to: 1) Remove last 2 sentences entirely 2) or revise as “This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, or whether the string has other meaning in the market.” Would that work for you? Any thoughts or suggestions from others? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Dorrain, Kristine [mailto:dorraink@amazon.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:21 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman@inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing Thanks Lori. Here are my thoughts: Just for clarity, I suggest adding the reference in red for people who aren’t familiar with the registry agreement. As far as premium pricing, I think the second two sentences of explanation aren’t needed and changed the text to purple for the group to consider my opinion. At a minimum, I think the yellow highlighted bit is kind of emotionally charged to imply that registry operators put a premium price on established trademarks. Certainly we want to investigate those claims, but I think listing it as an example can create bias. If the group votes to leave the purple text, I propose we change the highlighted text to…”or dictionary term or other term of value to the RO.” Thanks for kicking this off, Lori! Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lori Schulman Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 3:02 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Definitions of Reserved Names, Premium Names and Premium Pricing I am taking stab at definitions so we can have a jumping off point. I would like to have these nailed down by the time of our call on Friday. Reserved names: second level domain names that are withheld from registration per written agreement between the registry and ICANN (Section 2.6 and Specification 5 in the base Registry Agreement). Premium names: second level domain names that are offered for registration that, in the determination of the registry, are more desirable for the purchaser” Premium pricing, “second level domain names that are offered for registration, that in the determination of the registry are more desirable for the purchaser and will command a price that is higher than a nonpremium name. Premium prices may vary depending on what the registry perceives as having greater value to the domain purchaser. This may include: length of string; whether the string is an acronym, dictionary term or trademark with established good will.” Lori Please send you Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 1:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 9 June 2017 Dear Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from the Sub Team Call on 9 June. The action items, notes, meeting document and materials as well as recordings and transcripts have been posted to the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/HjzwAw<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fx%2FHjzwAw&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=AsrKX2qm0tHSO5QS6Qaa20eBkDjMWf8FutWY49mVJ3Y%3D&reserved=0>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to reword question 16 to: “Explore use and the types of proof required by the TMCH when purchasing domains in the sunrise period.” 2. Staff to replace “RPMs” with “Sunrise” in questions 17 through 21 3. Staff to rephrase Q22 as: “Are there certain registries that should not have a mandatory sunrise based on their published registration/eligibility policies?” and add examples mentioned by Kathy Kleiman and Kristine Dorrain 4. Staff to assist the Sub Team/Working Group on necessary adjustments to the workplan, taking into consideration the time required for the Sub Team to complete its work, and the Working Group’s time requirement in conducting the review of Sunrise Registrations 5. Maxim Alzoba to supply suggestion for data on question 16 (or another question as appropriate) 6. Outstanding action item for the Sub Team to define “reserved names”, “premium names” and “premium pricing” 7. Sub Team to suggest data requirements to answer questions 17 and 22 before next week’s call _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-sunrise&data=01%7C01%7CBWinterfeldt%40mayerbrown.com%7Ce87f27a1d2874b67da9508d4b28d98bb%7C09131022b7854e6d8d42916975e51262%7C0&sdata=ypgsmIN25hw4DUs9o3VxKlLZmiZaLcIW7SJoryCBH7g%3D&reserved=0> __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
participants (6)
-
Dorrain, Kristine -
Kathy Kleiman -
Lori Schulman -
Mlsna, Matthew -
Susan Payne -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.