For the event this is discussed: This would not only be a loss for trademark owners, who would solely be left to resort to curative RPMs, but for consumers who would be harmed in the meantime, because brand owners could not get ahead of abusive registrations that could be used for fraud such as phishing schemes or distributing malware. In my view it is imperative that this public policy angle not be lost in the noise of protecting speculators from other speculators. ________________________________________ From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 7:29 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Inferences (was Re: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group) On 17/7/17 3:05 am, Paul Keating wrote:
If we halted all TMCH use for sunrise purposes I see no huge loss for trademark holders. And such would resolve the underlying problematic issue - the use of the TMCH in the context of providing a preemptive, perpetual, globally exclusive right to a domain name that far exceeds any right granted by any trademark law or treaty.
Very well put. Just a reminder that there is already a proposal on the table to eliminate the Sunrise. From what I can tell we haven't officially come to discussing it yet but I trust that we will. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org 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 PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg