Dear all, As it may be appropriate to consider the substantive issues and new suggestions raised as part of the ongoing Working Group email discussions during the Working Group’s review of the Sunrise RPM, staff has noted Brian’s suggestion below regarding the use of Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies, and will continue to track any other suggestions made to this mailing list. If I may, please also take this note as a reminder to review the latest Sunrise Charter Questions document containing the most up-to-date comments and proposed revisions. You can find the document posted here (dated 14 July): https://community.icann.org/x/c3vwAw. Please post any comments you may have on the document to this mailing list. To aid in your further discussions via the mailing list, please also note that the scope of the Sunrise review (as currently envisaged by the updated Charter questions) includes a set of Preamble questions that cover consideration of whether the Sunrise RPM is serving its intended purpose or has unintended effects, and whether abuses have been documented by registries, registrars or registrants. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Beckham, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 12:56 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] PROPOSAL: to amend the SDRP All, Trying bring the discussions about TMCH/Sunrise abuse together in a more practical way, I would like to offer the following: Using the Donuts SDRP (www.donuts.domains/about/policies/sunrise-and-dpml-dispute-resolution-policy[donuts.domains]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.donuts.domains_about...>) as an example, the relevant sections are: Who can make a Complaint? Any person can raise a complaint under [the SDRP] Fees The fees are GBP 250 for a single complaint relating to up to 5 domain names registered to the same registrant. What you Need to Prove To prevail in a Sunrise dispute under this Policy, a Complainant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of the following grounds apply: at the time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; […] the Sunrise registrant does not meet the “in-use” standard; Remedies If the Panellist finds that the Complaint succeeds, Donuts in its discretion shall determine the most appropriate remedy for the parties consistent with the decision of the Panellist. The available remedies may include, but are not limited to: [i] revocation or cancellation of the disputed domain name(s) or DPML block without refund of any registration or related fees; or [ii] transfer of the disputed domain name(s) to the Complainant, provided that the Complainant agrees to the same terms as required for registration in the relevant TLD. In an email to this list last Friday (attached for reference), I noted that the LRO and UDRP in their respective ways, address the bona fides of trademark registrations. Perhaps adding some criteria along these lines to the existing SDRP challenge process (which already incorporates the “proof of use” concept) could address the concerns raised about TMCH/Sunrise gaming. Without re-opening debate about the incidence/instigators of such abuse, I am interested to hear your views on whether this could be a starting point for a forward-looking solution. Thanks, and best regards, Brian Brian Beckham | Head, Internet Dispute Resolution Section | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center 34 chemin des Colombettes, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland | T +4122 338 8247 | E brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int> | www.wipo.int[wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_&d=DwMFAg&c...>