FWIW, there’s very little incentive to file a sunrise dispute. Even when successful, the remedy does not guarantee that the complainant will be awarded the domain. If a uniform sunrise dispute policy is on the table as a mechanism to prevent gaming, you would need to balance the risk/rewards to incentivize the use of the dispute process. Right now, you’re asking someone to go through the time, effort and cost of a process that could give the right of registration to an unknown third-party. Bret Bret Fausett General Counsel ____________________________ <http://www.uniregistry.link/> Uniregistry, Inc. 2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Mobile +1 310 985 1351 Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> bret@uniregistry.com From: Statton Hammock [mailto:statton@rightside.rocks] Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 9:02 AM To: Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com> Cc: Bret Fausett <bret@uniregistry.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items, Slides and Notes from the Working Group call held earlier today Kiran, That is correct. All registries must have an SDRP. BTW, Rightside has launched 40 TLDs and not a single SDRP has been filed after any Sunrise. Statton Statton Hammock Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs <http://madebygraphiti.com/rightside/signature/rightside_logo.png> Office | 425-298-2367 Mobile | 425-891-9297 <mailto:statton@rightside.rocks> statton@rightside.rocks On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > wrote: Aren't registries required to implement a sunrise dispute resolution procedure, the purpose of which is to allow other legitimate registrants to challenge the allocation of a domain name during sunrise? What role does that play, if any? I confess I haven't heard much about this since 2013. Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 <tel:415-419-9138> (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Apr 10, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Bret Fausett <bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> >> wrote:
It seems like the whole argument is on the basis of some strawman argument that brand owners are using the TMCH to take common words out of circulation.
As a registry operator, we have some insight into who is using the sunrise period. By and large, the sunrise is used for brands to register names that would not have any use for anyone except the brand owner. In other words, the trademark owner is not taking a registration opportunity away from someone else. Most of these registrations come from the registrars typically used by brands. Call this Group 1. At the same time, somewhere around 3-5% of the names registered in sunrise have been registered by companies who appear to have registered a mark solely for the purpose of gaining access to the sunrise period. These names are typically registered at registrars other than the ones used by brands. Call this Group 2. So I don't think anyone is claiming that "brand owners" are taking common words out of circulation, but there are trademark holders in some jurisdictions who appear to have gamed the system. They are not taking the name out of circulation, but they are trying to get first access to a name at registration price which may have a high resale value on the secondary market. (At our registry, we tried to anticipate this potential abuse by including restrictions on the subsequent sale of sunrise names. See Section III of our policy document here, http://uniregistry.link/registry-policies/?file=1449. So, yes, if you are a trademark owner with a trademark registered solely to get into the sunrise, you can use the sunrise, but the name has no resale value.) If this group could come up with a way of preserving sunrise for Group 1 while excluding Group 2, that would be worthwhile, in my view. Bret Bret Fausett General Counsel ____________________________ [Uniregistry]<http://www.uniregistry.link/> Uniregistry, Inc. 2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Mobile +1 310 985 1351 <tel:%2B1%20310%20985%201351> Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 <tel:%2B1%20949%20706%202300%20x4201> Bret Fausett General Counsel ____________________________ [Uniregistry]<http://www.uniregistry.link/> Uniregistry, Inc. 2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Mobile +1 310 985 1351 <tel:%2B1%20310%20985%201351> Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 <tel:%2B1%20949%20706%202300%20x4201> bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com> > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
