Before I comment, let me first apologize for parachuting into this working group every so often. I admittedly don’t have the context for the entire conversation. I have great respect for those who contribute to this group on a regular basis, from each of the groups represented, and I thank you for considering these comments, for whatever they are worth.

I don’t understand the vehemence of the debate, on either side.

It strikes me that (1) we had a sunrise process that more or less worked as intended, but (2) had some notable, identifiable flaws. From that, I would obviously retain the sunrise for subsequent rounds but try to articulate why a California company with a Swiss trademark (but no U.S. trademark) on a generic word like “Christmas" (see whois record for Christmas.guru) or “Online” (see whois record for Online.Plumbing) should have been ineligible for the sunrise.

There is too much brainpower on this list not to be able to fashion a bright-line rule that takes the gamers out of the equation.

        Bret


_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________