Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH
I must admit I'm troubled at the suggestion that registries attempt to enforce TM infringement standards. E.g. Hanson.entertainment How would the registry effectively parse the rights to registration of: * Hanson the band could use it for a music channel * Hanson Concrete could use it for how-to videos * Hanson Professional Services may register the domain for future use to stream marketing videos There are plenty of courtrooms where reasonable parties using the same mark disagree on who's rights have primacy, I don't believe registries should be asked to spit that baby. Cyntia King CEO & Founder <mailto:cking@modernip.com> cking@modernip.com Modern IP, LLC PO Box 609 Forsyth, MO 65653 +1 81-ModernIP / +1 816.633.7647 <http://www.modernip.com/> www.modernip.com <http://www.twitter.com/modernip> <http://www.facebook.com/modernipllc> -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:11 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Jeremy: First, even in a .fruit there is no guarantee that apple.fruit would be used for supporting the benefits of the fruit. However, if someone would take responsibility for the use of the second level TLD, that would be different. I am sure a multi-national computer company would have no problem with folks registering and using domains for generic or descriptive purposes or for unrelated purposes. The problem that there is no easy way to thwart having to file an expensive UDRP or more expensive lawsuit to police the misuse of one's mark. If registries and registrars would enforce the provision of their contracts where the registrant represents that its domain does not infringe on the rights of others that would be one thing, but they don't. If all new TLDs were sponsored or chartered wherein registration in the TLD required upfront verification that the registrant was in the class of persons for whom the TLD operates (e.g., like a .bank) or if domains were not sold on a first come, first served basis (like Yellow Pages ads in the old phone books), then we wouldn't have the issues we do. There are many cost-effective and efficient solutions beyond the Sunrise, but it also would greatly effect the artificial scarcity created by first come, first served sales and the bottom-line of registries that would actually need to take some responsibility to police their TLDs or at least assist TM owners by taking down infringements. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. <mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> jsevans@adobe.com <http://www.adobe.com> www.adobe.com On 4/14/17, 10:11 AM, " <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20Jeremy%20Malcolm> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm" < <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20jmalcolm@eff.org> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote: On 13/4/17 8:47 pm, Greg Shatan wrote: > However, I don't think number 2 qualifies as gaming or abuse -- except > to the extent the trademark owner is being gamed or abused. Indeed, > one of the failed assumptions of the New gTLD Program seems to have > been that trademark owners would buy even more defensive registrations > than they did. So there's nothing wrong with a company that has a trademark for computers sunrise registering that trademark in a gTLD that relates to fruit on the strength of its computer trademark, locking out those who would actually use that domain name to sell fruit? Sounds like abuse to me. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA. [ttps://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, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com From: Cyntia King <cking@modernip.com> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 12:08 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: J Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com>, 'Jeremy Malcolm' <jmalcolm@eff.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH I must admit I’m troubled at the suggestion that registries attempt to enforce TM infringement standards. E.g. Hanson.entertainment How would the registry effectively parse the rights to registration of: * Hanson the band could use it for a music channel * Hanson Concrete could use it for how-to videos * Hanson Professional Services may register the domain for future use to stream marketing videos There are plenty of courtrooms where reasonable parties using the same mark disagree on who’s rights have primacy, I don’t believe registries should be asked to spit that baby. Cyntia King CEO & Founder cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> [IP Email Composite Logo] Modern IP, LLC PO Box 609 Forsyth, MO 65653 +1 81-ModernIP / +1 816.633.7647 www.modernip.com<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modernip...> [Twitter Button (Email)]<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter....> [Facebook Button (Email)] <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook...> [LinkedIn Button (Email)] -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 1:11 PM To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] A Brave New World Without Sunrises or the TMCH Jeremy: First, even in a .fruit there is no guarantee that apple.fruit would be used for supporting the benefits of the fruit. However, if someone would take responsibility for the use of the second level TLD, that would be different. I am sure a multi-national computer company would have no problem with folks registering and using domains for generic or descriptive purposes or for unrelated purposes. The problem that there is no easy way to thwart having to file an expensive UDRP or more expensive lawsuit to police the misuse of one’s mark. If registries and registrars would enforce the provision of their contracts where the registrant represents that its domain does not infringe on the rights of others that would be one thing, but they don’t. If all new TLDs were sponsored or chartered wherein registration in the TLD required upfront verification that the registrant was in the class of persons for whom the TLD operates (e.g., like a .bank) or if domains were not sold on a first come, first served basis (like Yellow Pages ads in the old phone books), then we wouldn’t have the issues we do. There are many cost-effective and efficient solutions beyond the Sunrise, but it also would greatly effect the artificial scarcity created by first come, first served sales and the bottom-line of registries that would actually need to take some responsibility to police their TLDs or at least assist TM owners by taking down infringements. J. Scott J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com> www.adobe.com<http://www.adobe.com> On 4/14/17, 10:11 AM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20Jeremy%20Malcolm>" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org%20on%20behalf%20of%20jmalcolm@eff.org>> wrote: On 13/4/17 8:47 pm, Greg Shatan wrote: > However, I don't think number 2 qualifies as gaming or abuse -- except > to the extent the trademark owner is being gamed or abused. Indeed, > one of the failed assumptions of the New gTLD Program seems to have > been that trademark owners would buy even more defensive registrations > than they did. So there's nothing wrong with a company that has a trademark for computers sunrise registering that trademark in a gTLD that relates to fruit on the strength of its computer trademark, locking out those who would actually use that domain name to sell fruit? Sounds like abuse to me. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation _______________________________________________ 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<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C2c2738cee0024cc813fb08d48369aa00%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636277937232180867&sdata=hjE2DZaG6QKU9vhE45r5fPzdLqvzgMRKaPs015JHCcw%3D&reserved=0>
Hi J. Scott, On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising. With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc. http://domainnamewire.com/2008/02/22/theglobecom-to-sell-travel-domain-name-... With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it? What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to the above questions are simple: money. No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing. It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being registered in landrush, on average? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD. But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.). Sincerely, George On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi J. Scott,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising.
With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc.
http://domainnamewire.com/2008/02/22/theglobecom-to-sell-travel-domain-name-...
With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it?
What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to the above questions are simple: money.
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing.
It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being registered in landrush, on average?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees? J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD. But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.). Sincerely, George On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi J. Scott, > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: >> My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA. > > We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising. > > With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a > disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out > their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were > mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc. > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewi... > > With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? > Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the > domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it? > > What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes > tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go > straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to > the above questions are simple: money. > > No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to > solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start > interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of > the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing. > > It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in > sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on > average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being > registered in landrush, on average? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
You're absolutely right: http://domainincite.com/21659-new-gtld-registries-want-a-17-million-icann-re... They want a bailout. Yet, then they argue there should be a 2nd round. Talk about sending mixed messages. (the stories from some of their blogs about their "successes", etc., too) To the extent that some of these RPMs undermined or burdened the registry operators, they might want to speak up about that (e.g. the $5K/string (or whatever the exact amount was) to Deloitte for the TMCH). Effects of delays in rollouts due to sunrises, etc. Folks know I'm no fan of them. If it was up to me, they'd be removed from the root, with refunds and a big "sorry, about that, our experiment failed". Since that's unlikely to happen, consider fixing some of the obvious issues. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:56 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees?
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD.
But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.).
Sincerely,
George
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > Hi J. Scott, > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg > <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote: >> My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA. > > We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising. > > With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a > disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out > their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were > mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc. > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewi... > > With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? > Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the > domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it? > > What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes > tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go > straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to > the above questions are simple: money. > > No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to > solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start > interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of > the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing. > > It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in > sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on > average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being > registered in landrush, on average? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com... _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
The reasons for that request are laid out quite well in the letter; it's not a "bailout"; and I fail to see the relevance to our chartered task. Reg Levy (310) 963-7135 Sent from my iPhone.
On Apr 14 2017, at 15:05, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
You're absolutely right:
http://domainincite.com/21659-new-gtld-registries-want-a-17-million-icann-re...
They want a bailout. Yet, then they argue there should be a 2nd round. Talk about sending mixed messages. (the stories from some of their blogs about their "successes", etc., too)
To the extent that some of these RPMs undermined or burdened the registry operators, they might want to speak up about that (e.g. the $5K/string (or whatever the exact amount was) to Deloitte for the TMCH). Effects of delays in rollouts due to sunrises, etc.
Folks know I'm no fan of them. If it was up to me, they'd be removed from the root, with refunds and a big "sorry, about that, our experiment failed".
Since that's unlikely to happen, consider fixing some of the obvious issues.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 5:56 PM, J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote: I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees?
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD.
But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.).
Sincerely,
George
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi J. Scott,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising.
With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewi...
With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it?
What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to the above questions are simple: money.
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing.
It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being registered in landrush, on average?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
J. Scott: To correct the record on a couple of your posts: 1. New TLD registries asked for a relatively small refund of the almost $100M in excess application fees we paid to ICANN in the form of a fee reduction. That doesn't mean they are a "disaster" or "unsuccessful" or whatever else you are insinuating. 2. I haven't seen any evidence that New TLD registries are generally in violation of their registry agreements with regard to the provision about registrant misuse of domain names. If you have evidence of such, let's work together with ICANN compliance to go after these registries. Those of us spending a great deal on compliance don't like to see others skirt the rules. Could we deal with the legitimate concerns of the current system without leveling attacks and unfair insinuations against other groups? It seems like registries on this list are ok with the current use of the TMCH and the sunrise process. We want to address the small subset of sunrise gaming where folks register dictionary-word trademarks for the sole purpose of registering during sunrises in related TLDs. One solution to this problem is to give registries better access to the clearinghouse to deal with these issues, but with strict guidelines of how that information could be used. I also have heard many concerns about the 90 day claims requirements, as many registrars declined to build the infrastructure to process such domain names during the first 90 days. Thanks. jon
On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:56 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees?
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD.
But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.).
Sincerely,
George
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi J. Scott,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising.
With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewi...
With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it?
What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to the above questions are simple: money.
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing.
It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being registered in landrush, on average?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 on all points, Jon. Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 15, 2017, at 10:09 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
J. Scott:
To correct the record on a couple of your posts:
1. New TLD registries asked for a relatively small refund of the almost $100M in excess application fees we paid to ICANN in the form of a fee reduction. That doesn't mean they are a "disaster" or "unsuccessful" or whatever else you are insinuating.
2. I haven't seen any evidence that New TLD registries are generally in violation of their registry agreements with regard to the provision about registrant misuse of domain names. If you have evidence of such, let's work together with ICANN compliance to go after these registries. Those of us spending a great deal on compliance don't like to see others skirt the rules.
Could we deal with the legitimate concerns of the current system without leveling attacks and unfair insinuations against other groups?
It seems like registries on this list are ok with the current use of the TMCH and the sunrise process. We want to address the small subset of sunrise gaming where folks register dictionary-word trademarks for the sole purpose of registering during sunrises in related TLDs. One solution to this problem is to give registries better access to the clearinghouse to deal with these issues, but with strict guidelines of how that information could be used.
I also have heard many concerns about the 90 day claims requirements, as many registrars declined to build the infrastructure to process such domain names during the first 90 days.
Thanks.
jon
On Apr 14, 2017, at 5:56 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
I think you could say that about 99% of the new gTLDs. Didn’t they recently ask for a reduction in fees?
J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com
On 4/14/17, 2:54 PM, "gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Just to correct my prior email, .pro technically wasn't a "sponsored" TLD.
But, the other ones that were sponsored weren't very successful (.post, .aero, .asia, .jobs. mobi, .xxx etc.).
Sincerely,
George
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: Hi J. Scott,
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 4:22 PM, J. Scott Evans via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
My suggestion would be that either we have sponsored TLDs with up front verification or we have a challenge system whereby the challenging party that wants to us the string for a non-infringing purpose could obtain the domain name; provided, however that their use was subject to the requirement that they stick to the stated non-infringing purpose. Failure to do so is a breach of the TOS and the Registry would takedown the domain name if it received a valid complaint. Similar to DMCA.
We're trying to achieve the same result, which I see as promising.
With respect, it's unfortunate that sponsored TLDs turned out be a disaster. Either they were outright gamed (e.g. people renting out their ".pro" qualifications/credentials/whatever), or domains were mopped up by insiders (e.g. .travel), etc.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdomainnamewi...
With a "challenge" system, what if there were multiple challengers? Who gets the domain name? What if the sunrise registrant wants the domain name more than the "challenger(s)" does(do)? Who gets it?
What I proposed (auction system in landrush, which is how landrushes tend to operate anyhow; i.e. just eliminate the sunrise and go straight to landrush) is entire neutral and "clean." The answers to the above questions are simple: money.
No need to reinvent the wheel here. Money has always been the way to solve these allocation issues for scarce resources. Once you start interfering in that (to suggest that someone is "more deserving" of the asset), it invites the gaming we're seeing.
It'd be interesting to know the stats on average domains registered in sunrise, by the way, if anyone has those handy. i.e. we know that on average 130 per TLD are registered in sunrise. How many more are being registered in landrush, on average?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leap.com...
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (6)
-
Brian F. Cimbolic -
Cyntia King -
George Kirikos -
J. Scott Evans -
Jon Nevett -
Reg Levy