- GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat from Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 17:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter Aug. 23, 2017

Aug. 23, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Thursday, 23 August 2017at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/zRchB MP3:http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-23aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p154a45jfv2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_group…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/zRchB Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 23 August 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… George Kirikos:Hi folks. Michelle DeSmyter:HI there George! Paul Tattersfield:Hi George, everyone George Kirikos:Hi Michelle. How are you? George Kirikos:Hey Paul. How's it going? Paul Tattersfield:Good, just been doing a lot of reading for the IGO/INGO WG, how's things with you? George Kirikos:I'm doing alright. I plan to do that same reading later today. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All George Kirikos:Welcome, Maxim. Philip Corwin:We'll start in 2-3 minutes as people are still logging in. George Kirikos:Perhaps blast out an email reminder? Paul Tattersfield:Perhaps the longer meetings make people arrive later then again perhaps it's because it summer Philip Corwin:1 minute warning Philip Corwin:DC is fairly empty this week. Think lots of folks are on holiday Steve Levy:Hi all Michael R. Graham:Waiting on phone to pass in. claudio:greetings! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there were periods of TMCH downtime Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):TMCH - 5k USD per TLD + 0.25 USD per claim registrations Michael R. Graham:@Phil -- Correct limitation on this particular question. Michael R. Graham:@George -- the questions are based on obtaining information in order to answer the Charter questions, so are limited. George Kirikos:Higher customer service costs would be an "unintended consequence", though, for registrars. George Kirikos:So, it's a "cost" that can be measured. George Kirikos:@Michael: yes, but Q1b is non-exhaustive as to what those unintended consquences might be, but then the questions we do ask in the survey are overly limited. Michael R. Graham:@George -- Limited, but necessarily. Paul Tattersfield:it doesn't just have to be cybersquatting it could also be legitimate use in a none competting field Louise Marie Hurel 2:I have poor conection, so maybe I missed a point here. Are we recurring to professional assistance? Bradley Silver:Apologies for joining late Mary Wong:@Louise Marie, we've noted in the document where professional assistance may be needed, and I think the WG had agreed last week that we'd need to request that professional assistance. Louise Marie Hurel 2:Thanks, @Mary Mary Wong:I got dropped from the call but have a staff comment on Question 2 Mary Wong:Back and have raised my hand Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:apologies....is my mic misfiring again? I'm now 0/2 on mics and will be replacing both today. Mary Wong:Yes we are Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):URS does not have a pernalty for frequent offenders , so number of such registrations would be helpful Cyntia King:@Kathy Michael R. Graham:@Kristine -- Yes, that is what I understood Cyntia King:poll ather than survey? Mary Wong:@Kristine, we can move this comment/suggestion from Column 3 to Column 1 (and note it is a Sub Team suggestion, rather than just a single member suggestion). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Unless members disagree, yes, please. Cyntia King:Suggest connecting w/ registrars to randomly sample registrants David McAuley:That's interesting Kristine, who knew George Kirikos:The demographics should try to match those of potential domain name registrants (e.g. probably skewed somewhat towards business-oriented users, compared to a general demographic). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Cyntia, we did discuss that, but we wanted people who maybe werent already in the business of registering domains (total newbs) Paul Tattersfield:perhaps by country - china has a lot of registrations George Kirikos:@Paul: probably not a lot of unique registrants, though, from China (many bulk buys by a small number of registrants skew their numbers). Cyntia King:Typically, info is sorted according to a top-level qualifications, then results are sorted & weighted based on details provided by repondents George Kirikos:@Paul: e.g. see the data at: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ntldstats.com_registra… for bulk registrants. Mary Wong:@Kristine, all - we will also move the suggestion on surveying respondents from different countries from Column 3 to Column 1, and note that it is a Sub TEam suggestion as well. Paul Tattersfield:Pan Mei Gen has a lot of domains and possible renewals! George Kirikos:Indeed. Cyntia King:Meaning, we set a few qualifications, obtain maximum responses containing full respondent data then sort/weight for desired target group. Paul Tattersfield:thanks Kristine good point Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Background: Q4 is specifically here to get to the Graham/Winterfeldt/Shatan proposal. Greg Shatan:Umlaut = 2 dots above certain letters Paul McGrady:Super interesting idea RE: surveying the general public RE: claims notice. Hopefully, we can reach the right folks (potential new gTLD second level registrants who believed that the legacy gTLDs were sold out and that new gTLDs were needed). Michael R. Graham:@Phil -- Agree that notice would have to be revised George Kirikos:@PaulM: those might be as real as unicorns (i.e. it was mostly registrARS/IES who suggested new gTLDs were 'needed', not registrANTS) Jeff Neuman:@george - and your assertion comes from where? Mary Wong:We will check the numbering - sorry, hold on George Kirikos:@Jeff: I didn't notice many potential registrants pushing ICANN to introduce new gTLDs, saying that legacy gTLDs were "sold out". Those folks certainly didn't seem to show up later to buy these new gTLDs, given their subpar sales. Jeff Neuman:@George - that is not a very impartial statement Jeff Neuman:In other words, you are assuming (1) sales are the sole determinate of success, (2) that products/services are only introduced into the market after there is an express demand, etc. Jeff Neuman:Both of which are not legitimate assumptions George Kirikos:@Jeff: take a look at the composition of this PDP --- where are all the new gTLD registrants who've shown up? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not all TLDs were created solely for sales, GEO tlds, Community TLDs e.t.c. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):brand TLDs does not need claims George Kirikos:So, if a brand registered "hotels.BRAND", they shouldn't be notified of the hit in the TMCH for "HOTELS"? Jeff Neuman:@George - again, your attempts to correlate unrelated elements to support your assertions are just not helpful Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George , Registry approached by different DRP process in such case Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I belive Michael R. Graham:@Maxim -- Perhaps closed registries may not require claims, but BRAND ones may still require claims. Paul McGrady:+1 Kristina Paul McGrady:oops! Kristine! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:;) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Michael, brand TLDs are quite closed Jeff Neuman:@Michael, how are you drawing your distinction? David McAuley:Mary, are there staff members at ICANN who focus on surveys, deal with survey contractors, who could speak with us briefly to let us know what is ijnvolved, how we should prepare to seek one? Jeff Neuman:Why does the survey request need to go through Council? Mary Wong:@David, we have colleagues in other departments who have dealt with contractors and data collection, but not necessarily on just surveys, and certainly not on this scale as we are proposing. We're currently discussing with them what they think we on the policy side need to know, especially when submitting a formal request for resources to th GNSO Council. Jeff Neuman:perhaps to get funding? But not the questions themselves, right David McAuley:Thanks Mary Sara Bockey:Agree wtih Paul 100% Mary Wong:@Jeff, yes, taht's right Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I think we should consider hiring law students to do the URS data gathering....I don't think we need a survey company for that. Paul Tattersfield:Wouldn't law students be atypical? Paul McGrady:@Jeff - that's right. I can't see the GNSO Council getting into the weeds at this stage. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Kristine , they have more open minded approach Jeff Neuman:Do we need a formal council motion? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:@ Paul T, maybe, we can discuss pros and cons. We have academics on the PDP and some of us are/were adjunct law profs so we can find students..... Jeff Neuman:I am just trying to look for ways to reduce time Jeff Neuman:because we are sooooo far behind time wise Cyntia King:Why not use students in Statistics grad programs? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:that would be fine too. :) Michelle DeSmyter:Thursday, 31 August 2017 at 03:00 UTC Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Math students tend to be interested in numbers and not in sence Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Perhaps we bifurcate the project? Law students read the decisions and pull raw numbers, statistics students do the requested analysis Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Employ all the students... :) Cyntia King:Statistics, not math. These are prole like Nate Silver of Five Thirty-Eight. This would be their bailiwick David McAuley:been a while since i read through INTA survey - beed reminder of link Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Cyntia , statistics is math Mary Wong:@David, we will recirculate :) Martin Silva Valent:thanks Phill! George Kirikos:Bye folks. Michael R. Graham:Thanks! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Martin Silva Valent:bye all Paul Tattersfield:thanks Phil, all. Bye David McAuley:good bye all Louise Marie Hurel 2:Thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all.

1 0

Agenda and documents for next RPM Working Group call
by Mary Wong Aug. 18, 2017

Aug. 18, 2017

Dear all, The draft agenda for the next RPM Working Group call, scheduled for Wednesday 23 August at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Continue discussion of Draft Collated Trademark Claims Data Proposal (dated 12 August, available on the Working Group wiki here: https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB) 3. Next steps/next meeting PLEASE NOTE: * The action items from our 16 August call, as sent out, and the notes, transcript and recording, are also posted on the above-listed wiki page. * Staff is continuing with the initial data gathering tasks for Sunrise as agreed by the Working Group. We hope to circulate an initial collation of the INTA Cost Impact Survey results as well as a list of the registry operators who ran Approved Launch Programs, Qualified Launch Programs, and Limited Registration Periods (as well as the relevant definitions and associated anecdotal evidence discussed at ICANN59) early next week. We note that the Working Group had agreed to review the INTA Cost Impact Survey results on its 30 August call. * The Co-Chairs and staff will be working on a request to the GNSO Council summarizing all the surveys, research and other data gathering tasks for which the Working Group agrees will require professional assistance. The hope is to submit this request to the Council as soon as possible following the Working Group’s completion of its review of the Draft Collated Trademark Claims Data Proposal, to allow the Council to begin discussing the request even prior to the Council meeting on 20 September 2017. Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
by Nahitchevansky, Georges Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

‎I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have been registered during a sunrise period. So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be staggeringly high). So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse on the sunrise issue. ‎ Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Hello, On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ reduction > in sunrise." Can you show your work please? The post at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). As for your other statement: >We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program generally." While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be eliminated. Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-estimates-by-a-mile where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level of underperformance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

22 44

Information on GNSO consensus designation and practices (99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise)
by Mary Wong Aug. 17, 2017

Aug. 17, 2017

Dear Jonathan and everyone, If I may, here is some information on the GNSO rules and procedures that may be of assistance. 1. Definition of consensus: * This is specified in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines which apply to all PDP and non-PDP Working Groups (see Section 3.6 on pages 8-9: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf) * Essentially, Full Consensus means unanimity, and Consensus means most members except for a small minority agree. There are also several other designations possible, including No Consensus (or Divergence) and the possibility of Minority Views (for which minority statements can be filed and included as part of the Final Report of the group). * Note that it is the co-chairs’ responsibility to designate the various levels of consensus. Typically this is done through a formal consensus call lasting two or more weeks after the co-chairs determine that sufficient deliberation on all proposals has occurred. The consensus call involves all Working Group members and is always announced (and reminded) via the mailing list. 1. Whether consensus is required for PDP recommendations: * Typically, a PDP Final Report will include all recommendations and the various levels of consensus that were reached for each recommendation. It is also common to include any proposals that remained on the table at the end but that did not achieve any of the consensus levels specified (e.g. these may be proposals on which there is Divergence). * In practice, the GNSO Council will vote to adopt those final recommendations that have achieved either Full Consensus or Consensus designations only (although they do not have to; however, the GNSO’s PDP Manual specifically outlines how the Council should deal with different recommendations (see Section 12 on Page 8: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-2-pdp-manual-01sep16-en.pdf) * “In the event that the Final Report includes recommendations that did not achieve the consensus within the PDP Team, the GNSO Council should deliberate on whether to adopt them or remand the recommendations for further analysis and work. Although the GNSO Council may adopt all or any portion of the recommendations contained in the Final Report, it is recommended that the GNSO Council take into account whether the PDP Team has indicated that any recommendations contained in the Final Report are interdependent. The GNSO Council is strongly discouraged from itemizing recommendations that the PDP Team has identified interdependent or modifying recommendations wherever possible. In the event the GNSO Council expresses concerns or proposes changes to the PDP recommendations, it may be more appropriate to pass these concerns or recommendations for changes back to the respective PDP Team for input and follow-up.” 1. Is consensus required to recommend that Sunrise be retained, changed or dropped? * As Jeremy and others have noted, Sunrise (and the other 2012 round RPMs) are not specific Consensus Policies but were mechanisms developed during the Applicant Guidebook iterative process to address what had been identified as overarching issues, including trademark protections. Given the GNSO’s procedures and practices, any recommendation on Sunrise – including as a Consensus Policy and in what form (e.g. whether as is or modified), or not used – will need to go through the consensus process as described. I hope this is helpful. Cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 14:27 To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm(a)eff.org>, Jonathan Frost <jonathan(a)get.club>, 'icannlists' <icannlists(a)winston.com>, 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise Jeremy: Here is a link to the Working Group Guidelines developed by the community in 2010: https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/gnso-working-group-guidelines-final-…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_impr…> You will find the answer to your questions around consensus in Section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions. J. Scott [ps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif] J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Trademarks 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans(a)adobe.com www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm(a)eff.org> Date: Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM To: Jonathan Frost <jonathan(a)get.club>, 'icannlists' <icannlists(a)winston.com>, 'Kathy Kleiman' <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise On 17/8/17 10:47 am, Jonathan Frost wrote: This brings up a couple of philosophical questions that I hope aren’t too far afield, but are implicated by Paul’s comment. * What is the definition of consensus (is it unanimity or something less)? * Is consensus required for this PDP to make recommendations? * Would consensus be required for this PDP to recommend that Sunrise be maintained in the next round (or is consensus only required to recommend a change from the last round)? I tend to agree with many here that Sunrise leaves a relatively light footprint (as opposed to claims), and are useful in the tapestry of RPMs, so I think Sunrise is a useful mechanism and should be maintained (and improved). But it’s not clear to me that we can shut down recommendations that are unlikely to reach consensus, when their opposite is also unlikely to meet consensus. Since the new gTLD RPMs were not adopted as ICANN policy covering all gTLDs, there shouldn't be any automatic presumption that they will apply to future rounds in my view. It's this group's role to decide whether they should or not. If *not* making a decision means that we are, by default, deciding to extend the new RPMs to future rounds, then we haven't done our job. That would create a very bad incentive for people to gum up the process and avoid reaching consensus, just because by doing so they will get the outcome that they are looking for anyway. What kind of multi-stakeholderism is that? -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org[na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect…> jmalcolm(a)eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt[na01.safelinks.protec…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__na01.safelinks.protect…> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122

1 0

Action Items from RPM Working Group call held earlier today
by Mary Wong Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

Dear all, Please find below the action items from the call that was held earlier today. As has been the practice, notes from the call will be posted to the Working Group wiki space along with the recording and transcripts from the call. ACTION ITEMS FROM SUNRISE DISCUSSION: For Working Group members: 1. Working Group members to review INTA Cost Impact Survey results**, to be discussed on 30 August Working Group call 2. Working Group members to consider and confirm if additional data suggestions mentioned by George Kirikos are to be included in the Sunrise data collection proposal 3. Working Group members to provide feedback on whether registration volume should be added to the sampling of registrar retail pricing for Sunrise and General Availability periods (** Full set of survey results posted on the Working Group wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/61606864/INTA%20Cost%20Imp…; staff compilation and summary will be sent before next week) For Working Group co-chairs: 1. Working Group co-chairs to work with staff to prepare draft request to the GNSO Council, for budget and resources relating to engagement of a professional survey designer for surveys required for Sunrise and Claims For staff: 1. Staff to recirculate INTA Cost Impact Survey results (see wiki link above) 2. Staff to circulate compilation/summary of INTA Cost Impact Survey results 3. Staff to circulate compilation of the list registry operators and their Approved Launch Programs, Qualified Launch Programs, and Limited Registration Periods, as applicable, along with definitions of these terms and relevant anecdotal data provided during the Working Group community session at ICANN59 4. Staff to circulate list of suggested blog sources for media coverage of Sunrise and Premium Name pricing, and use of Reserved Names lists, for Working Group comment and suggestions NOTE: Topics DEFERRED from Sunrise discussion: · Brand/trademark owner survey – Working Group will return to this discussion, to determine scope in light of INTA’s experience with its Cost Impact survey, and to determine target group(s) if survey goes forward · Non-trademark/brand owner (i.e. registrant) survey – given the very broad scope, Working Group will return to this discussion following agreement on how to proceed with the other data suggestions · Outreach to public interest groups and other trade associations – for the same reason as the registrant survey, Working Group will return to this discussion following agreement on how to proceed with the other data suggestions ACTION ITEMS FROM TRADEMARK CLAIMS DISCUSSION: 1. Working Group members to review Trademark Claims collated data proposal from this week for further discussion on the mailing list and on the next call 2. Working Group members to consider if, for those suggestions concerning URS data, the collection should also include UDRP cases at this stage and what other uses may be made of the data for the future Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group
by Terri Agnew Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group call held Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB> https://community.icann.org/x/ShMhB MP3: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-16aug17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p6vrwlrfqfb/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=a734cab52dd0f74b 6487850c643c955ffb306ed2d345023772faa3091aafe84d> https://participate.icann.org/p6vrwlrfqfb/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: <http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/ Wiki page: <https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw> https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 16 August 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group on Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_S hMhB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ ShMhB&d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCI gmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=esXLb3-jl5RwBqvMSAs-rsZZ7K0eLPevTzDCfCtBvW0 &s=PHrXZIk6W3FxlOd6EfGmIbR434yKpRwMD88TxJxZj7U&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=esXLb3-jl5RwBqvMSAs-rsZZ7K0eLPevTzDCfCtBvW0&s=PH rXZIk6W3FxlOd6EfGmIbR434yKpRwMD88TxJxZj7U&e= Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello Terri Terri Agnew:thanks for testing your audio Maxim George Kirikos:Hi folks. George Kirikos:Perhaps blasting out a reminder email might be wise in a few mins? Martin Silva:Hi all George Kirikos:Hi Martin. George Kirikos:BTW, I'm not sure if it was just me, but the Adobe got "stuck" trying to load it (had to try 3 times to get in). George Kirikos:It was around 90% loading, but then just seemed to freeze. Terri Agnew:reminder email just sent George Kirikos:You're welcome. :-) George Kirikos:By the way, there was something that mentioned looking at publicly traded companies, to perhaps glean financial estimates of sunrises (as discussed last time). It wasn't clear, but one would want to check current and past public listings (e.g. Rightside just got bought out, so they're no longer a public company, but their past financials are still public). Mary Wong:Thanks, George - that's helpful. We will certainly make a note of it. Philip Corwin:Dialing in George Kirikos:Thanks, Mary. I think I think the text I read seemed to only capture current public companies, so that might not capture the Rightside example (and any other similar ones). J. Scott:waitingon operator George Kirikos:Can remove 1 "I think" from the above sentence. lol Philip Corwin:My dial in got dropped. Now I am hearing Muzak J. Scott:same thing happned to me, Phil Terri Agnew:I have reported the telephone join issues to the operator George Kirikos:I added some additional sources of data reflecting discussion on the mailing list over the past week: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002374.html which should also be added to this proposal. Steve Levy:Sorry for joining late, folks Lori Schulman:Hi, I am in Adobe and online. Mary Wong:Thanks, Lori, yes I recall now that you had sent apologies for next week. Sorry I overlooked that. Terri Agnew:@Lori, apology will be noted for next weeks call Lori Schulman:Michael knows the material too but I am the spokesperson for INTA J. Scott:I am not willing to concede that the additional data gathering is suggesting be added to this document without a thorough vetttng by the WG Michael R Graham:Have to go off call for a few moments. Paul Tattersfield:we should! George Kirikos:I think the point was that the 99% reduction *might* be explainable by looking at the annualized spend --- so, that would need to be collected, or estimated, by breaking it down in terms of volume and price per TLD launch (and then adding it up per year). George Kirikos:(point not by me, but by someone else) George Kirikos:We know that the sunrise volume exists, because how else do we know that the average sunrise was 130 names? George Kirikos:(130 domains, rather) George Kirikos:@J. Scott: Aren't we vetting it right now? Greg Shatan:There is no 99% reduction. That's a manufactured concept invented by comparing apples and oranges. Lori Schulman:Agree with Greg Georges Nahitchevansky:I agree with J. Scott. This additional data does not really add much and is just more of this pedantic numbers approach without looking at the quality of registrations, the benefits etc. George Kirikos:99% reduction in sunrise per TLD -- that's a truth. George Kirikos:(compared to past sunrises) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):why do we suggest that TMCH sunrise is going to be a success without large number of TMCH entries? George Kirikos:Aren't there 40,000+ TMCH entries? Paul Tattersfield:As the number of TLD grows you wouldn't you expect a lower and lower percentage? Lori Schulman:Volume and success do not necessarily correlate. George Kirikos:130 is a lot smaller than 40,000. Lori Schulman:The EFF paper is not evidence. We can consider it but no one has agree that it is determinative. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know the reason for TMCH registrations? I am not sure, most probably it was protection Lori Schulman:Agree with Susan. The questions were vetted over a number of weeks by the subteam and the wider WG as were the data requirements. Susan Payne:ok, understood thanks Phil Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and not necessary for Sunrise registrations Greg Shatan:It's a junk statistic. Comparing the massive rollout of new gTLDs, many of niche interest, on a granular basis with single launches of general interest is inappropriate and of no evidentiary or probative value. Greg Shatan:Any additions to this list would need to go through the same consensus process. Paul Tattersfield:Sepeculators and TM holders saw more value in the single launches J. Scott:Again, Georges suggestions have not been discussed or vetted. Until they have, they do not belong in this data gathering exercise Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):additional costs were imposed on Registries too , not being able to start registrations to the public for 2 months adds costs (rent, ISPs, escrow, salaries e.t.c) George Kirikos:@JScott: I don't see the survey questions have been finalized at all --- they're still being designed. Mike Rodenbaugh:+1 agree with Susan David McAuley:I tend to agree w/Susan regarding timely contributions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 Susan George Kirikos:We added public SEC data just last week. There's not been a "last call" --- it's always been a living document, to reflect both the calls AND the mailing list. Elisa Cooper:+1 J Scott Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):first such a person would be required to understand our specifics ... and it takes time George Kirikos:We've never voted up/down on a final data. Cyntia King:In addition to mission drift, we should be wary of engaging in endless data gathering. In business, reseach must be balanced by the need to act in a timely fashion. This WG is not engaged in pure research. Georges Nahitchevansky:George K's approach is not approriate. If you are going to go down the path of cost benefit analysis in this narroiw way then what about the costs to brand owners in having to protect their rights and the costs. We have going through this over and over again an dthe information George K and others are claiming to see at this late stage is myopic and too subjective. I oppose this last minute effort. George Kirikos:(and certainly such a vote didn't included the mailing list) David McAuley:Good point @Maxim George Kirikos:Notice all the people opposed have been long opposed to other data requests that would disprove benefits of sunrise. Kathy Kleiman:Doesn't #4 include outreach to the Registries with ALP, QLP and LRP? Lori Schulman:Cyntia is reiterating the point that I made on the list earlier today Kathy Kleiman::-) No longer on audio. George Kirikos:@Georges: That data is being collected, via INTA, etc. George Kirikos:One has to look at cost on all stakeholders. If you only talk to TM owners, that doesn't capture all stakeholders. George Kirikos:There's talk of "late stage" --- where was the "deadline" ever specified? Lori Schulman:Costs are direct costs. Those are the only costs that can be validly measured. Opportunity costs are pure supposition. Mary Wong:@Phil, yes, we will send it out by the end of this week. Marie Pattullo:+ 1 Lori. George Kirikos:@Lori: yet, TM owners claim they're stopping all kinds of speculative costs of cybersquatting. Georges Nahitchevansky:Again, things like lost opportunity are speculative and subjective and not appropriate George Kirikos:How are those not supposition? George Kirikos:"i.e. registering Apple.horse saved us millions of dollars of potential damages, as per Georges' and others imagination) Lori Schulman:We did not measure speculative costs. Only direct costs. Lori Schulman:Speculative costs are not easily measured. Greg Shatan:George, where are you quoting from? Or are you putting words in other people's mouths? George Kirikos:@Georges: not speculative, because one could see how much additinal services "normal" domains generate (e.g. SSL, SEO, webdesign, etc.) and compare that to defensively registered domains that are simply a redirect to the .com. George Kirikos:@Greg: not putting words in anyone's mouth. Kathy Kleiman:Great! Kathy Kleiman:That's the type of outreach I think the subteam envisioned. Greg Shatan:Then where did the quote come from. Greg Shatan:Should we also measure the opportunity cost of domains kept in inventory by domain investors? George Kirikos:@Greg: I didn't "quote" any email. I'm summarizing his essential arguments over the past few months, always claiming these sunrise registrations prevent massive damages. Susan Payne:if someone wants a website they will buy a name and buy whatever additional services they required. The fact that an identical match to brand.TLD was not available does not prevent anyopne from buying an alternative name with all the surounding services. If the registrant only wanted brand.TLD and no alternative will suffice (for example because they think it will have an aftermarket value) and no other name then surely they aren't terriibly interested in hosting etc etc Georges Nahitchevansky:And by your narrow world view, the inability of some theoretical person to register a domain name is somehow causing massive amounts of losses that you cannot quantify except through speculation. And by normal domain do you mean the millions of parked domain names that are not used for anything Georges Nahitchevansky:And when I say parked, I mean warehoused domains that are not being used in any way. Marie Pattullo:+ 1,000 to Susan. Lori Schulman:Agree, there are exponential choices for potential registrants. George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002374.html Cyntia King:Were a new business to deeply desire a specific domain name that was withheld, is there anthing preventing them from approaching the markholder dirctly? George Kirikos:@Cyntia: it works the other way, too. If a TM holder "deeply desired" a certain name, they can get it from someone else, or "win" in landrush with a level playing field. George Kirikos:One can use Google News to search for many TM blogs, too. George Kirikos:Or, the Bing equivalent. Cyntia King:The downside to TM holder is the potential for misuse of their valuable brand. Not so otherwise. J. Scott:@George. The difference is that the LAW gives the trademark owner a right that the other party probably doesn't have. Don't equate profiteers with trademark owners. Marie Pattullo:And the consumer damage when a brand they trust appears in a DN. George Kirikos:@JScott: it's a curative right, by law, not a right to go to the front of the line. If it was a right to go to the front of the line, why wasn't there a sunrise at the TOP level by ICANN? George Kirikos:That totally destroys the theory that there's a RIGHT to sunrise. Marie Pattullo:+1 J. Scott. And remembering that the TM owner has paid for the regsitration of that TM - it didn't come for free with a bag of chips. George Kirikos:No TM owner got a first right to a new TLD itself, ahead of all competing applications, just because of that TM. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@George, most probably auctions were the way to resolve it Cyntia King:My point is that several ccTLDs provide online contact forms. Could that be somehow adapted to allow potential buyers & TM owners to work this out outside of an ICANN-directed mecanism? George Kirikos:@Maxim: yes, exactly. That's how a landrush would work at the 2nd level, if there was contention. George Kirikos:Just like there was at the top level. Kathy Kleiman:But All, the law does not give TM owners an advanced right of cancellation or blockage. Many future TM owners and noncommercial users with use the same word to label their goods and services. The question legally is infringement. and other evalautions based on use and confusion, right? Kathy Kleiman:with use --> will use George Kirikos:+10 Kathy Lori Schulman:the top level has its own mechanims for resolving conflicts. costs and scale are vastly different. the RPMs were tailored to specfic circumstances. I don't think that top level and second level are fair comparisons here for sunrise George Kirikos:(warriors from Bear Island are worth 10) :-) Mary Wong:@Phil, @Susan, we will try to suggest a few keywords as well. David McAuley:I think Phil is right about 'willingness' rather than 'ability' J. Scott:No Kathy. Sunrise was developed to lower costs for trademark owners that continuously battle fraud, phising, malware and cybersquatting. The status quo should remain so long as we can tweak it to solve the few issues we have identified (gaming). Lori Schulman:Agree that we should focus on rationale for RPM's Greg Shatan:Agree with J Scott and Lori. Kathy Kleiman:@J. Scott, I think the question was legal rights... Kathy Kleiman:... not ICANN created protections Lori Schulman:I feel like we have lost sight of the fact that the issues were argued and a compromise was reached by IRT and STI. Now we look at the results not reargue the agreement. It's too soon for that if we agree that needs to be done J. Scott:@Kathy. No, it was lowering costs and creating efficieancy for dealing wtih fraud and abuse of trademark rights. J. Scott:The mandatory requirement was from the GAC. Scott Austin:+1 sUSAN Georges Nahitchevansky:Exactly. Sunrise was created to help prevent the massive abuses that were seen to occur when the first round of gTLDs were launched. The costs to brand owners were staggering and well documented as opposed to the speculative cost benfefit costs that some are now pushing George Kirikos:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002374.html Kathy Kleiman:Perhaps, but I was responding to those who raised the issue in the chat above about what "the law" requires... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@J. Scott: there is nothing about costs of Sunrises in RA or policies, thus the question is more hypothetical George Kirikos:Exactly, Kathy. J. Scott:the law requires that trademark owners police their marks to retain their rights. Sunrise is a mechanism; Cyntia King:Yes, we need an expert survey designer. Rebecca L Tushnet:I think a professional designer would be useful David McAuley:I took your answer that way @Kathy - about law rather than sunrise Kathy Kleiman:+1 Rebecca L Tushnet:(Bad internet connection, sorry) J. Scott:Expert survey designer Paul Tattersfield:@Georges and dispropoionate percentage of those stagering costs were born by the most famous Marks Lori Schulman:We need expert designers and a broad range of beta testers Lori Schulman:not just insiders Greg Shatan:Agree that an expert survey designer would be helpful. George Kirikos:Especially if it is a large $$$ contract, $50,000+, should be an invitation to bid. Lori Schulman:i think that ICANN requires bids Mary Wong:All, note that ICANN has rules and processes about when/how to tender and about doing requisitions. George Kirikos:@Lori: all too often, they simply give it to someone. Cyntia King:We should examine other prohibited registrations. George Kirikos:(without a competitive bid) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it was sent to the group Cyntia King:I am aware of a .LY being cancelled because it promoted undesireable moral behaviour. David McAuley:why not just put the question in the RO survey - about experience with profane limitations etc Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):GEOtld Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):not ccTLD Cyntia King:Yes, nTLD. But counttries in which these nTLDs exist may exert some control over offerings. Sara Bockey:I need to drop for another call. I will catch up with the recording. THanks all Lori Schulman:Not every member of IPC is an INTA member. Steve Levy:Sorry, but I've got to jump to the phone line. Lori Schulman:There are a few TM associations but none as large as INTA. We have a lot of shared membership. ASIPI, Marques, CTMA, etc. George Kirikos:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_organization has some regional ones. Lori Schulman:AIPLA is not international. Greg Shatan:That said, I very much support working with INTA on further surveys. They have great reach. Lori Schulman:INTA as large as it is, has defined resources. Depending on the scope of the survey, it would have to be planned and negotiated. David McAuley:and one education curve Kathy Kleiman:Agree, same survey group would be a good idea David McAuley:Agree that #4 seens unwieldy it is so large George Kirikos:Include those in academia and other groups who've not historically done much input into ICANN. (i.e. more Rebeccas) :-) David McAuley:is there a survey subteam? Susan Payne:thanks Mary Mary Wong:@David, not at the moment but it is something staff would like to suggest that the WG consider forming. David McAuley:might add budget to the list George Kirikos:Might be good to call it a day? George Kirikos:People might be scared off by a 1 hour survey. David McAuley:One thing to add to survey task list might be 'ranking' - I suspect a professional survey provider might say that once you exceed XX number of questions you lose interest in replying - we should be able to rank questions by importance by topic if needed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we might ask to use + for those who will finish a 1hour survey :) Michael R Graham:@Mary -- Entirely right that we need to coordinate our two lists. George Kirikos:URS cases that referenced TMCH in their decisions. Lori Schulman:Our survey was too detailed. It tooks hours to prep and complete. We should learn from that. Questions should be straight forward and absolutely ranked. Lori Schulman:Happy to share our learnings George Kirikos:(i.e. Complainant would say something like "Respondent had actual notice of the mark, as the domain owner would have seen the TMCH wording, etc." Mary Wong:@Phil, yes George Kirikos:Kristine has her hand up. Susan Payne:wouldn't UDRP cases be relevant too? George Kirikos:@Susan: Yes, those too. Cyntia King:Any possibiity to offer a small benefit for taking survey? I recently got a $10 Starbucks card for completing one Jonathan Frost (.CLUB):I believe UDRPs are still used more often, and provide more substantial arbitration opinions, so UDRPs would be just as or more useful than URS Lori Schulman:But there is also survey fatigue. Lori Schulman:We need to be mindful of that. Lori Schulman:too many surveys is not good. can't have too many and they can't be too long. George Kirikos:For some reason, in some places on page 2 it just says "URS", whereas in other places it says UDRP/URS. Lori Schulman:Agree with Kristine George Kirikos:I think those needed to be fixed. George Kirikos:(as per Susan's catch) Mary Wong:@George, this table reflects what the Sub Team proposed. George Kirikos:@Mary: then, Susan's point seems valid, shouldn't it have been both? George Kirikos:(i.e. I thought it was just a typing oversight, not an actual decision not to look at UDRP) David McAuley:these are good points Kristine is making - this sounds like a possibly masive undertaking George Kirikos:I don't think subteams make decisions, just proposals. David McAuley:am I only one to lose audio? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I didn't mean to imply we made a decision. We made a decisoin not to recommend... George Kirikos:Why is the UDRP data more difficult? Filter by new gTLDs (exclude all .com/net/org, etc.) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Greater number Mary Wong:@David, @Kristine - yes, staff review of all the suggestions so far (for both Sunrise and Claims) leads us to believe it is already a massive underatking. That is why we were thinking that a URS review now instead of also collecting all UDRP cases may be more appropriate for Phase One. George Kirikos:UDRPsearch.com and other tools. David McAuley:Thanks Mary - i have l;ost audio so may drop off for now Susan Payne:hand no longer required - :) Mary Wong:Kristine is making the point I was trying to make (and far more successfully!) David McAuley:Thanks Mary Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:FYI, the Subteam did consider asking a university researcher to volunteer students.... Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:consider *recommending* George Kirikos:We're not talking about a lot of cases for new gTLDs, see: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_export_site s_www_pressroom_en_documents_pr-5F2017-5F805-5Fannexes.pdf-23annex1 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_export_sit es_www_pressroom_en_documents_pr-5F2017-5F805-5Fannexes.pdf-23annex1&d=DwIFa Q&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Q fqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=esXLb3-jl5RwBqvMSAs-rsZZ7K0eLPevTzDCfCtBvW0&s=RZ53-5-_28 YUYbvDkE85C4CG3aF9stRGPVN34yKJMWo&e> &d=DwIFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=esXLb3-jl5RwBqvMSAs-rsZZ7K0eLPevTzDCfCtBvW0&s=RZ 53-5-_28YUYbvDkE85C4CG3aF9stRGPVN34yKJMWo&e= George Kirikos:Most UDRPs are still for .com Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:There are many domains in some UDRP cases. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:And the Whois record and sunrise dates for each would need ot be looked up. George Kirikos:Yes, exactly, Kristine. More domains per case = fewer cases. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:but the question is on a per-domain bases, not a per TLD basis\ Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I am not saying we shouldn't do it, I just want us to realize the magnitude of the project. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there could up to 13 in URS case Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Theoretically, URS is not limited either. :) Paul Tattersfield:George + 1 George Kirikos:Exactly, Phil. George Kirikos:Different legal tests in URS vs UDRP. Paul Tattersfield:Different legal tests in URS vs UDRP. exactly Michael R Graham:If we review UDRP decisions, we must do so for all the Panel providers -- not just WIPO. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It really depends on if we're doing more comprehensive research too. The ST was looking for reprepsentative data, so the URS seemed like a fair start for full WG consideration. Terri Agnew:Next meeting: Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group is scheduled for Wednesday, 23 August 2017 at 17:00 UTC for 90 minute duration. George Kirikos:@Michael: yes, that might double it. George Kirikos:Still, not huge. George Kirikos:Most UDRPs are for com/net/org, still. George Kirikos:Some of those new gTLD UDRP cases were for hundreds of domains at a time (e.g. the 1 cent .xyz names). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all George Kirikos:Bye folks. Martin Silva Valent:thanks all, see ya Michael R Graham:Bye -- Kristine -- be glad to huddle on Q!s Lori Schulman:by Paul Tattersfield:thanks, bye Susan Payne:thanks all Greg Shatan:Bye all!

1 0

Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on 16 August
by Mary Wong Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

Hello everyone, The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, scheduled for this Wednesday 16 August at 1700 UTC, is as follows: 1. Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review updated, more targeted Sunrise data collection proposal (based on the Working Group discussion on 9 August call) 3. Review initial collated draft proposal for data collection on Trademark Claims 4. Next steps/next meeting For Agenda Item #2, you can see from the attached document that we have reorganized the multiple data collection tasks (previously listed according to the corresponding Sunrise Charter question) into three main groupings: (I) tasks that staff can initiate immediately; (II) topics organized by format (mostly surveys) and target group (e.g. ICANN stakeholder groups, external communities); and (III) topics that are likely to require professional assistance. Although we are asking for overall review and comments on the entire document, the bullets in Group (II), starting on Page 2, are where Working Group input is most needed. For Agenda Item #3, we have based the initial proposal (attached) on the same format as was used last week for the initial Sunrise data gathering discussion. You will see that, as with Sunrise, there are quite a few overlapping suggestions for format (e.g. survey), target groups, and reliance on professional resources. You will see also that it may make sense in some cases to combine the data request for Sunrise and Claims. Staff is continuing to work with the Working Group co-chairs to prepare a combined data and metrics resource request for the GNSO Council, in respect of all data collection suggestions that the Working Group agrees can benefit from professional assistance. Your feedback on Agenda Item #3 will therefore be very helpful, as it was for Sunrise. We will post both documents on the Working Group wiki space ahead of the Wednesday call as well. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, August 11, 2017 at 17:24 To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items - GNSO Review of All RPMs in All gTLD PDP WG Call - 9 August 2017 Dear Working Group Members, Apologies about the delay in delivery, but below are the action items from Wednesday’s WG call. The action items, notes, meeting materials, recordings and transcripts have all also been posted on the meeting’s wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/aA4hB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to identify what data collection efforts will require surveys being conducted using professional assistance, and prepare a proposal to seek this assistance for conducting surveys, and share with the co-chairs prior to sharing with the WG and GNSO Council for their consideration 2. Staff to begin conducting a LexisNexis search for articles resulting from investigative reporting on domains registered during Sunrise that have been noted to have an impact on free expression, fair use, and the ability of registrants to register domains, and share results with the WG 3. Staff to identify which contracted parties are publicly traded, so that WG is aware that their annual reports should be publicly available in compliance with SEC regulations 4. Staff to identify what data is already currently available, and report this to the co-chairs on Friday – staff should begin collection of this data immediately

3 5

Further on text-only marks
by Rebecca Tushnet Aug. 16, 2017

Aug. 16, 2017

A data point for the group: Amazon's recently clarified guidelines for its brand protection program require a registered text-only mark; stylized or design + word marks don't qualify. This reinforces the point that a prophylactic measure online, which deals with text-based searches, should focus on text in the marks selected for extra protection. http://www.cll.com/newsroom-news-172324 Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
by Paul Tattersfield Aug. 14, 2017

Aug. 14, 2017

Thanks for all the replies. I’ll try George K’s approach and respond to all the replies in one place. Volker Greimann wrote: >Why should "Top brands" receive better protection than any other (lesser known) brands? Volker, I’m not sure all marks really need or indeed even benefit from Sunrise. Certainly in our market 1 – 500 employees I can’t think of a company, including ones which trade around the world rather than just their domestic market, for which Sunrise would serve any useful purpose. Quite simply they are just not on the radar for abuse that Microsoft, PayPal and Apple etc. have to put up with. If ICANN had taken a different approach to new gTLDs say allowing a quite limited number of new gTLDs in each round then Sunrise may have remained more critical, however it seems each release of new gTLDs generates a lower level and lower level of initial demand for which Sunrise is targeted. George, thanks for the links to the Melbourne IT proposal article at Domain Incite. I think the Melbourne IT (High At-Risk Marks (HARM) has a number of failings the largest of which is suggesting dictionary words should be treated differently. It if is deemed Microsoft warrants additional protections then Apple should enjoy the same level of protection. John, I agree the really high profile non-profits and IGOs like UNHCR would need to be included. On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Paul, > > I am not sure this method of selection is all inclusive, and thus I am > afraid we won't be able to use it > (TMCH is not only for top companies). > > Sincerely Yours, > > Maxim Alzoba > Special projects manager, > International Relations Department, > FAITID > > m. +7 916 6761580 <+7%20916%20676-15-80>(+whatsapp) > skype oldfrogger > > Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) > > On Aug 11, 2017, at 16:58, Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Could we use a list of the top brands to establish eligibility for sunise > to remove gaming once and for all? > > Here's a list of 500 as an example. > http://brandirectory.com/league_tables/table/global-500-2012 > > Best regards, > > Paul. > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Volker Greimann < > vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> wrote: > >> I will not dispute the effectiveness of Sunrise periods for rights >> holders, however there may be better options that provide just as much >> protection but have less impact on the release of a new TLD. >> >> For example, sunrise could be run concurrently with the general launch of >> a TLD simply by removing the eligible sunrise domain names from the pool of >> available domain names. Rights holders could still use their TMCH-tokens to >> register these semi-reserved strings as domain names but the release of the >> TLD to the general public would not be held back. Other potential >> registrants would merely receive a notice that this string is reserved >> until date X due to claimed rights of third parties (which could double as >> an abbreviated claims notice), or even opt to queue their registration >> request until the reservation period is over. >> >> This would actually solve many of the existing issues. >> >> Best, >> >> Volker >> >> >> >> >> Am 11.08.2017 um 15:12 schrieb Nahitchevansky, Georges: >> >>> ‎I was not going to engage in yet more back and forth on sunrise, but in >>> reading your email, and those of several others, I feel compelled to say >>> something on this by the numbers discussion. This type of metric driven >>> approach is very much akin to driving down a road with blinders on either >>> side. It's a tad pedantic and as we know from history these types of >>> approaches (many times pushed by bureaucrats) can often lead to disastrous >>> decisions (e.g. Soviet style five year plans). You need to look at the >>> overall situation and what is going on, as opposed to just getting caught >>> up in the numbers -- which after all can get sliced and diced any number of >>> ways. The reality is that brand owners are using sunrise to protect their >>> brands in the key extensions that relate to their businesses. The numbers >>> may not be huge per se, but the new gTLD program has pretty much, by all >>> accounts, not been the success that ICANN had hoped for. Moreover, we all >>> know that the success of the extensions has been quite uneven. Some are >>> barely breaking even, some have been a great success, others have failed >>> and yet others have only experienced lackluster results. What all of this >>> means is that some extensions are simply not worth registering in. >>> >>> That being said, sunrise does have an important value. If there are up >>> to 100,000 plus registrations based on bona fide brands, and some on the >>> most valuable brands in the world, then the system is working as it is >>> preventing a significant amount of cybersquatting . If we go by he metrics >>> you love, then it is not rocket science to figure out that a landrush >>> approach is going to lead to a large spike of abuse (as we have seen in the >>> past in no sunrise situations). This in turn leads to significant costs of >>> investigating and pursuing infringements, all of which ultimately leads to >>> more costs to consumers and loss of faith in the integrity of the system >>> -- particularly if consumers get tricked or defrauded by a domain name that >>> appears to be related to a brand (e.g., Gucci.shoes) and which could have >>> been registered during a sunrise period. >>> >>> So while I understand that brand owners are not making sunrise >>> registrations across 1000 plus extensions, the point is that they are >>> generally picking the most logical extensions and are not abusing the >>> sunrise system. So whether the number is one percent or less or ten >>> percent, that number doesn't really tell the story. 100,000 plus sunrise >>> registrations prevents a ton of abuse, which benefits everyone in the end. >>> The numbers only approach really misses the mark. It's like saying that if >>> a disease affects less that 1% of the world population, we should not waste >>> money on finding a cure for it and stop all funding on such research (even >>> though the costs of treating the disease for the less than 1% will be >>> staggeringly high). >>> >>> So in closing, I again urge you to concentrate on trying to find a fix >>> to address the limited speculator issue as opposed to beating a dead horse >>> on the sunrise issue. >>> >>> ‎ >>> Original Message >>> From: George Kirikos >>> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:22 AM >>> To: gnso-rpm-wg >>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate >>> per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't see the math that created your "talking point" of a "99%+ >>>> reduction >>>> in sunrise." Can you show your work please? >>>> >>> The post at: >>> >>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002321.html >>> >>> showed numerous sunrise statistics, ranging from 15,000 on the low end >>> for .mobi (.co was slightly lower, although that's a ccTLD, not a TLD >>> that ICANN is involved with in any way), 32,000 for .asia, 80,000 for >>> .biz/.xxx, and who knows what it was for .info? >>> >>> Even taking the lowest of those (15,000) as the base, 130 (average >>> new gTLD sunrise from The Analysis Group report) divided by 15,000 = >>> 0.0087 = 0.87%, which is less than 1%, i.e. a 99%+ reduction. Of >>> course, if one chose a higher base (.asia, .xxx, .biz, .etc.), or an >>> average of those other sunrises, the reduction is even greater than if >>> one had used the lowest sunrise (from .mobi). >>> >>> As for your other statement: >>> >>> We can't expect Sunrise registrations to outperform the New gTLD Program >>>> generally." >>>> >>> While the new gTLD program has been a disaster, it hasn't been an >>> underperformance of 99%+ of expectations (perhaps more like 80% to 90% >>> underperformance). Thus, while it's obvious that both have been >>> failures, sunrise usage is an even greater failure than new gTLDs >>> overall. So, even on that relative scale, the sunrise period should be >>> eliminated. >>> >>> Since I know you'll ask "George, why do you say there's been an 80% or >>> 90% underpeformance for new gTLDs?" let me answer that now to save >>> time. I'll use as my reference (besides the obvious general >>> observations of most informed observers) ICANN's own stats: >>> >>> http://domainincite.com/18857-new-gtld-sales-miss-icann-esti >>> mates-by-a-mile >>> >>> where the numbers came in at just 18% of ICANN's original 2014 >>> expectations. For the math-challenged, 100% - 18% = 82% as the level >>> of underperformance. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> George Kirikos >>> 416-588-0269 >>> http://www.leap.com/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Confidentiality Notice: >>> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the >>> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section >>> 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by >>> the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may >>> contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney >>> work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, >>> copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or >>> attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us >>> immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the >>> original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any >>> manner. >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal >>> tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is >>> not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of >>> (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, >>> marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter >>> addressed herein. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >>> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >>> >> >> -- >> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. >> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - Rechtsabteilung - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com >> <http://www.brandshelter.com/> >> >> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin >> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen >> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder >> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese >> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per >> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> >> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact >> us. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Volker A. Greimann >> - legal department - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net <http://www.rrpproxy.net/> >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com >> <http://www.brandshelter.com/> >> >> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay >> updated: >> www.facebook.com/KeySystems >> www.twitter.com/key_systems >> >> CEO: Alexander Siffrin >> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 >> >> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP >> www.keydrive.lu >> >> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom >> it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of >> this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. >> If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly >> notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list >> gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg >> > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > >

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise
by Nahitchevansky, Georges Aug. 12, 2017

Aug. 12, 2017

George K I stand by my earlier comments, disagree with your contentions and refer you back to the reams of prior communications between you and others regarding your unworkable landrush proposal, flowers example, and other contentions. I am assuming you stand by your points, so no need to write back. I think everyone in the working group knows your position by now. Original Message From: George Kirikos Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 4:34 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] 99%+ reduction in sunrise utilization rate per TLD supports EFF call for elimination of sunrise To reduce the number of emails, I'll respond to several recent emails in a single (long) email, with a table of contents (!) to help preview what's coming. Table of Contents ----------------- 1. Response to Georges N. 2. Response to Volker 3. Response to Paul T. 4. Response to John M. 5. Sunrise periods are discrimination 6. Response to Marc M. 7. Response to Cyntia 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top level? 1. Georges N. wrote: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002332.html and attempted to argue that if sunrise were eliminated, there'd be "a large spike of abuse". This completely ignores the fact that the trademark holder has the option to simply pursue the domain name in the landrush instead. In other words, giving up the sunrise doesn't mean that the former users of sunrise can't obtain the domain name --- they can, under a level playing field of landrush. I outlined the exact scenarios that would exist at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002286.html for a system without sunrise. Those are not unreasonable to trademark holders (see discussion later), especially if complemented with even more stringent requirements for landrush users (e.g. loser pays, or the other stuff discussed in April, etc.) Gucci.shoes could be registered in landrush instead. All the claimed "costs" of pursuing infringements, etc. don't materialize, because Gucci could certainly be victorious if there was any contention during the landrush period with a competing registrant for Gucci.shoes. Georges N. claims "they are not abusing the sunrise system". Many would beg to differ, when trademark holders are jumping the queue to get first dibs on dictionary words, etc. that have many competing uses. They're treating sunrises as an entitlement, but it's not a right that exists in law. ICANN repeatedly says that they only reflect existing legal rights, but instead they create *new* rights that do not exist in law. Here's an example that might be interesting. How was Flowers.delivery created on February 3, 2015? https://whois.domaintools.com/flowers.delivery by 1-800-Flowers.com? This was a domain name discussed on one of the domain industry blogs: https://www.thedomains.com/2015/09/05/google-registers-alphabet-sex-in-sunr… The same creation date as Yahoo.delivery: https://whois.domaintools.com/yahoo.delivery (presumably a sunrise?) and according to Instra, Donuts didn't launch Landrush until February 4, 2015: https://www.instra.com/en/domain-names/newgtld/delivery-domain-registration… Answer me that, please. Is that what the sunrise period (assuming it was registered in sunrise, as it appears to be) was designed for, so that 1-800-Flowers.com could apparently "beat" other competition for the Flowers.delivery domain? Oh, and of course, the TMCH is kept secret, and there's no indicator (like there was in .info/biz) in the WHOIS for sunrises that (a) a domain was registered in sunrise, and (b) which trademark was used to justify the sunrise registration. Beautiful ICANN transparency there (not!) 2. Volker's email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002333.html simply proposes new "benefits" to registry operators/registrars, i.e. GA can be sooner, a timing benefit. It doesn't address the costs/benefits equation for trademark holders and other prospective registrants who seek to register the same strings. Furthermore, it's potentially open to front-running and abuse, given attempted registrations could then be passed on to TMCH users as "someone is planning to register X". This could be used to abuse TMCH users (notices can not reflect a real registration attempt), and/or could be used to create a new "right of refusal" for trademark holders, a right that doesn't exist in law (ICANN isn't supposed to be creating new legal rights). 3. Paul T.'s email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002334.html It depends on what Paul T. is proposing, whether it's only reflecting a subset of trademark holders most at risk for abuse that could use a sunrise (which is similar to what I talked about in April when we were horsetrading, albeit I'd auction off the limited number of slots, and also make sure that it wasn't stuffed with terms that are widely used by others; so "Apple" = NO, "Paypal" = YES) In some ways, this would echo Melbourne IT's call for "High At-Risk Marks" (HARM) to be the only ones eligible for sunrise, see that proposal at: http://domainincite.com/10983-melbourne-it-scales-back-harm-proposal I'll admit I haven't read it in detail, but the summary at: https://icannwiki.org/Trademark_Clearinghouse said "Also blocked would be dictionary words from any of the UN’s six official languages." which is an important requirement that I'd need to see accepted. 4. John W. said: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002335.html that Paul T.'s proposal would be "completely unfair to small businesses, non-profits and individual brand-owners." Where is John's outrage at a sunrise period that is systematically *unfair* to legitimate prospective registrants who are *not* trademark holders? John (and others) appear to be quite vocal about "unfairness", as long as its to card-carrying members of the trademark club. Unfairness to others? Not a problem! 5. Sunrises are discrimination. Let's speak plainly here. The use of sunrise periods (a right that doesn't exist in law) is discrimination. They single out a group for disparate/special treatment. ICANN's contracts with registry operators and registrars overwhelmingly contain terms that forbid disparate treatment of registries and registrars. Yet, when it comes to disparate treatment of registrants, that discrimination is not only tolerated, but *prescribed* into policy! Registrants deserve to be treated the same as any other registrants, yet, because of lobbying by insiders (the IPC), and because there's no effective non-trademark registrants constituency within ICANN, ordinary registrants (non-trademark owners) are routinely abused and discriminated against. Now, these special privileges aren't there to support some historically "oppressed" groups, such as women, aboriginal groups, LGBT groups, various ethnic minorities, etc. Instead, they're put in place to give special rights (beyond those in law) to some of the largest and richest companies on the planet, those who already have a body of law in place to provide curative rights. They don't *need* the playing field tilted in their favour, yet they're happy to "jump the queue" when given the opportunity to do so, further advantaging them and imposing costs upon others. Jeremy's proposal isn't saying "let's now give special privileges to actually oppressed groups", but is saying "let's eliminate sunrise so that there is *equal* access for all." The same equal access and treatment that registrars and registries have obtained. [NB: I could actually see someone proposing special sunrise privileges for some actually oppressed groups --- I'm sure the IP constituency would be the first to howl, if they were then 2nd in line, instead of 1st in line] We know that discrimination has costs. e.g. even attempts to help historically oppressed groups impose costs on others, witness the lawsuit by Asian Americans against Harvard University http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affir… whereby (they argue) they've suffered due to policies that lowered the bar for other groups (and thus raised the standard for Asians). Of course, this discrimination at ICANN isn't about correcting injustices against legally recognized oppressed groups -- it's just about money! (commercial interests!) So, how is it that registries and registrars demand equal treatment in their own contracts, yet when it comes to treatment of registrants, disparate treatment through ICANN policy is acceptable, tolerated, and *instituted* through policy?!! 6. Marc M.'s email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002336.html once again essentially repeats the mantra "a trademark is a trademark is a trademark", that it's all or nothing. If that's the case, it should be "nothing", rather than "all". Once again, Marc is unable or unwilling to single out certain classes of trademark holders for separate treatment, in order to get to a compromise. But, going back to the point above, when it comes to equal treatment of prospective registrants, it's somehow fine to discriminate, as long as that discrimination puts trademark holders at the front of the line. 7. Cyntia's email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2017-August/002337.html tries to analyze the stats, but misses my point that even for those with below average registrations, the sunrises would have been even lower than the expected amount, given their size. And the whole point of sunrises was "trademark holders *need* this, to fight the scourge of cybersquatting". If you're not using something (statistically), i.e. using it far less than expected, that demonstrates you don't actually need it. The assumptions that premised the institution of the policy proved false. Thus, it's time to reverse the policy, because of the false premise (since the balance of the benefits and costs equation is now also reversed through observation, compared to expectations that had led to the policy being adopted). No one is arguing that the sunrises aren't providing a *benefit* to those who use it. i.e. the person who jumped to the front of the line obviously received a benefit! What we're saying is that the overall benefits (privatized to those using the sunrise periods) are outweighed by the costs imposed upon everybody else. [continuing with the 'jumping the queue' metaphor, the folks who didn't get a seat at all, or had to settle for a worse seat] 8. Why aren't there sunrises at the top-level?!!?? Now, here's where things get fun. ICANN explicitly rejected sunrise privileges to trademark holders at the top level! In many ways, ICANN (through IANA) is the "registry operator" of the root, setting its policies, yet no special privileges were granted to trademark holders to "jump to the front of the line" if there was contention at the top level. Why? Certainly all the same arguments that the IPC puts forth when discussing RPMs like sunrise also apply at the top level itself. All the same arguments that registry operators put forth to reject sunrises at the top level also apply to the 2nd level. Two different solutions were arrived at for top vs. 2nd level, though! (reflecting the power struggle between the various insiders at ICANN, and inconsistent analysis to similar problems; essentially, registrants are routinely thrown under the bus) There are those here who've lately chimed in with their suggestions that the sunrise at the 2nd level can be "tweaked", to fix the gaming issue. Pretend that that was true --- that would necessarily mean that such a *fix* could also be applied to sunrises at the TOP LEVEL! i.e. it's 100% hypocritical to suggest that the TLDs, and 2nd level domains should be treated differently with respect to sunrise periods for trademark holders. If there was contention at the top-level, why is the answer to the question "Should the trademark holder win?" be different than the same question applied at the 2nd level? In essence, the top-level currently has the identical "landrush" at their level that would exist if our working group eliminates sunrise period at the second-level. Trademark holders (brand owners) have no special rights to a TLD, yet are able to outbid others for it if they so desire. And they of course have recourse for abuses. Of course, the top-level has their own gaming issue, with "community" applications! Those "community applications" are akin to the gaming going on here at the 2nd level in sunrises. These demonstrate the "costs" of trying to discriminate in favour of certain prospective registrants, at either the top or 2nd level, and argue for equal treatment and a level playing field. So, here's a direct question to trademark holders and to registry operator reps (and anyone else is free to chime in). If Jeremy's proposal (to eliminate the sunrise) is rejected, that means we're as a group, saying that sunrises have been successful. Why not "share that success" (which would involve the elimination of gaming) at the top level too? Perhaps Jeremy would even consider it a "friendly" amendment to his proposal that if his proposal is rejected, that any "solution" that we arrive at for sunrises be applied to all future rounds of new TLDs at the top level? Given registry operators a "taste" of that "solution" that arrives from this hallowed working group… I hope that serves to bring in to clear focus the issues that are at stake regarding treatment trademark owners differently than other legitimate registrants/applicants… Have a nice weekend! Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

1 0