+1 to what Jeff said, both about not needing Sunrise/Claims and having them if the gTLD is opened afterwards. I would just add exclusive use non-Spec 13 gTLDs to the list of gTLDs with no use for sunrise and claims. Rubens
Em 31 de mar. de 2025, à(s) 12:20, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Karla,
Thanks for forwarding this along. I notice a comment/question you have posted in the draft.
You state: “Note to IRT: Given that a .BRAND TLD could include registrations of the Registry Operator's Affiliates and Trademark Licensees, is there a use case for a .BRAND to offer a sunrise period, claims period, or Launch Program? We could not think of such a case, but want to understand whether there is. And, if there is such a use case, is it the intent of the RPMs policy recommendations that the Registry Operator must follow the TMCH requirements when offering a sunrise, claims, or Launch Program? We’re asking this question because these periods/programs are referenced in the Trademark Clearinghouse requirements.”
My view on this is that I do not believe there is a use case where a .Brand would offer a Sunrise or Claims service. Or even a launch program for the following reasons:
The TLD by definition is closed and therefore the registry will ensure that its registrants (which is basically itself, its affiliates and trademark licensees) are legitimate entities that have a right to have such names in the TLD. Third Party trademark owners still have recourse if there is an issue with a registration under the UDRP
All that said, consider the following:
If the brand decides to later open up the TLD (no longer qualifying for brand status), then it should have a Sunrise / claims; or If a brand transfers its TLD to another entity, and that entity intends to open up the TLD, then there should be a Sunrise / Claims service.
I note that (b) happened with several TLDs in the last round where an acquiror purchased a TLD that was once protected by Spec 13, but the new owner opened it up. I believe .food is an example…but not sure the new owner had to do a sunrise.
P.S. Note: This is my personal view and not a view of the RySG.
Sincerely.
Jeff
<image001.png>
From: Karla Hakansson via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 10:17 AM To: subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Proposed Specification 13 with questions
Hello SubPro IRT members,
As you know, Org is meeting with the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) and the SubPro IRT to review the proposed Next Round Base Registry Agreement. These discussions focus on policy related issues with the SubPro IRT and operational updates with the RySG.
Attached is an excerpted draft of Specification 13 that was sent to the RySG to address questions and proposed redlines from members of the RySG who are also members of the SubPro IRT. As Specification 13 is a policy related topic I am sending the excerpted draft Specification for consideration by the SubPro IRT. In addition to the proposed redlines, there are questions in the draft for the SubPro IRT members to consider in advance of our next meeting.
This topic will be added to the next SubPro IRT meeting to discuss the Next Round Base RA currently scheduled for Tuesday, 8 April.
Best Regards, Karla _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.