Revised Spec 7, Section 1
All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) * Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements [https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements] (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman [a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e]
All, to be clear, I shared my concern with the language. The issue here is that full intent of the RPM PDP Working Group has not fully been conveyed, and one additional (and reasonable) change will make it so. (Quick note that I was Co-Chair of the RPM PDP Working Group, so I did the research to reflect the full intent of the RPM Final Report recommendations.) _Background_: Rights Protection Mechanisms or RPMs means all the RPMs: Sunrise, Trademark Claims, URS and UDRP. But our RPM Final Report used a term of art in /Sunrise Recommendation #1, /and that term was "mandatory RPMs." It was the term used by Jeff in his earlier versions of this text in this small group, so I checked. Mandatory RPMs means /“Mandatory Sunrise and Trademark Claims RPMs,”/ which is used in full in the RPM Final Report several times and then shortened to “mandatory RPMs." It is these two RPMs, and only these two RPMs to which this /Sunrise Recommendation #1 /applies, and hence my addition below makes this clarification. /_To __reflect Sunrise Rec #1 and help everyone:_ Since Specification 7, Minimum Requirements for Rights Protection Mechanisms, is an annex for all registry agreements and read by everyone, it should be very, very clear to all readers (applicants and others) which RPMs are involved. Not just with references, but in the text itself. / This is easy to do as Sunrise Rec #1 showed u/s -- and I share the change below in blue. / Best, Kathy On 8/4/2025 9:41 AM, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT wrote:
All,
I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;))
1. *Rights Protection Mechanisms. *Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. *_E_**_xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program_*_, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to *unfairly* restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the __Sunrise or Trademark Claims __RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. _Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrarauthorizingsuchregistrar(s)toregisterdomainnamesintheTLDasfollows: [Rest of Provision ok]
*Rationale and How we got here* * *
1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states:
/"*Sunrise Final Recommendation #1* The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. / / / /*Implementation Guidance*: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." /
Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM."
2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks.
This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan.
b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the *mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.* * * This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation.
If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;)
Sincerely,
Jeff Neuman
a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-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.
Hi all, Just a quick note regarding the proposed language and rationale: It’s essential that the Registry Agreement remains understandable to all stakeholders, not just attorneys. The language around RPMs—especially related to Sunrise and the implementation of Qualified Launch Programs—should be clear, accessible, and aligned with the intent of the original policy recommendations. We need to make sure that community members, registry operators, and noncommercial stakeholders can easily interpret their rights and obligations without needing a legal team to navigate every clause. Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 4 de agosto de 2025, 08:41:42 a.m. GMT-5, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) - Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent.3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise.4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman _______________________________________________ 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.
Agree! From: Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 12:47 PM To: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Revised Spec 7, Section 1 CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. Hi all, Just a quick note regarding the proposed language and rationale: It's essential that the Registry Agreement remains understandable to all stakeholders, not just attorneys. The language around RPMs-especially related to Sunrise and the implementation of Qualified Launch Programs-should be clear, accessible, and aligned with the intent of the original policy recommendations. We need to make sure that community members, registry operators, and noncommercial stakeholders can easily interpret their rights and obligations without needing a legal team to navigate every clause. Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com<http://www.jmanurojas.com/> Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 4 de agosto de 2025, 08:41:42 a.m. GMT-5, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> escribió: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) 1. Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms ("RPMs") specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party's legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the "Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements"), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited 2. registrar authorizing 3. such registrar(s) 4. to register 5. domain names 6. in the 7. TLD as 8. follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator's legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman [https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_Na0au3lFoPoPHrWAj8ua-8sA0Kn20-5...] _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
Thanks Juan. Hard to disagree with this, but do you have any recommendations? On 8/5/2025 12:47:57 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick note regarding the proposed language and rationale: It’s essential that the Registry Agreement remains understandable to all stakeholders, not just attorneys. The language around RPMs—especially related to Sunrise and the implementation of Qualified Launch Programs—should be clear, accessible, and aligned with the intent of the original policy recommendations. We need to make sure that community members, registry operators, and noncommercial stakeholders can easily interpret their rights and obligations without needing a legal team to navigate every clause. Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [http://www.jmanurojas.com] Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 4 de agosto de 2025, 08:41:42 a.m. GMT-5, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) * Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements [https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements] (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman [a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e] _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org [mailto: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. _______________________________________________ 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. [dcb2c86a-7cf3-410d-872a-1639c79b2cb6]
Hi Jeff, Some context and recommendations from our point of view: 1) What the Original Recommendation Said The RPM Phase 1 Final Report stated: “Sunrise Final Recommendation #1: The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.” It also included the following Implementation Guidance: “This recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.” 2) What ChangedNote difficulty implementing this language, particularly the phrase “intentionally circumventing,” because intent is hard to objectively measure. As a result, the draft Registry Agreement published for public comment removed the "intent" language and simplified the clause to say that Registry Operators may not restrict trademark holders’ use of the Sunrise RPM. While this may seem like a minor clarification, the removal of key language and context introduces several serious issues: A. It weakens the policy’s original balance.By removing the word “intent” and the phrase “reasonable use of the Sunrise”, and by not incorporating the Implementation Guidance, the new draft creates an overly restrictive interpretation. This conflicts with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) documents, which allow for Registry Operators to delegate names through Qualified Launch Programs (QLPs) or Approved Launch Programs (ALPs) before Sunrise. Since the Registry Agreement overrides the TMCH documents, this could prevent ROs from assigning names like fire.miami, police.lasvegas, beats.hiphop, or subway.nyc through a launch program—even if these names serve clear public interest or civic functions. B. It threatens legitimate noncommercial and public-interest uses.The original policy aimed to balance brand protections with flexibility for ROs to serve local governments, Indigenous communities, NGOs, and others with meaningful use cases for geographic or thematic terms. Under the revised language, any name matching a registered trademark could be blocked, regardless of whether the applicant is a city, public service, or community group with a legitimate need. This would undermine diversity and inclusivity in the DNS, and contradict ICANN’s broader commitment to supporting underserved and noncommercial stakeholders. 3) What We’re Proposing To address these concerns, we propose the following changes:Reinstate language covering “intentional circumvention” and “reasonable use” to align with the original policy recommendation. Apply the language to all mandatory RPMs, not just Sunrise, which is consistent with the recommendation’s wording. Explicitly allow exceptions for Qualified Launch Programs and Approved Launch Programs, as intended by the Implementation Guidance. Add the word “unfairly” to clarify that Registry Operators can have legitimate restrictions, as long as they are not abusive or discriminatory. Our goal is to ensure that Registry Operators can follow legitimate business and public-interest practices without violating RPM obligations, while also ensuring that trademark holders' rights are protected in accordance with ICANN policy. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El martes, 5 de agosto de 2025, 12:57:40 p.m. GMT-5, jeff@jjnsolutions.com <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> escribió: Thanks Juan. Hard to disagree with this, but do you have any recommendations? On 8/5/2025 12:47:57 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick note regarding the proposed language and rationale: It’s essential that the Registry Agreement remains understandable to all stakeholders, not just attorneys. The language around RPMs—especially related to Sunrise and the implementation of Qualified Launch Programs—should be clear, accessible, and aligned with the intent of the original policy recommendations. We need to make sure that community members, registry operators, and noncommercial stakeholders can easily interpret their rights and obligations without needing a legal team to navigate every clause. Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL ColombiaNPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 4 de agosto de 2025, 08:41:42 a.m. GMT-5, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) - Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent.3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise.4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.orgTo 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.
Thanks Juan. Very clear. I think the language we all agreed on during the call achieves the points raised with the exception of the word "intentionally." Like you, many of us agree with using that word, but the reason we have been discussing this for so long is that ICANN compliance came back and said that they cannot enforce a state of mind like "intentional" and therefore they objected to that language. Hopefully where we ended up on the call will suffice. Sincerely, Jeff On 8/5/2025 2:10:28 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi@yahoo.com> wrote: Hi Jeff, Some context and recommendations from our point of view: 1) What the Original Recommendation Said The RPM Phase 1 Final Report stated: “Sunrise Final Recommendation #1: The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.” It also included the following Implementation Guidance: “This recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures.” 2) What Changed Note difficulty implementing this language, particularly the phrase “intentionally circumventing,” because intent is hard to objectively measure. As a result, the draft Registry Agreement published for public comment removed the "intent" language and simplified the clause to say that Registry Operators may not restrict trademark holders’ use of the Sunrise RPM. While this may seem like a minor clarification, the removal of key language and context introduces several serious issues: A. It weakens the policy’s original balance. By removing the word “intent” and the phrase “reasonable use of the Sunrise”, and by not incorporating the Implementation Guidance, the new draft creates an overly restrictive interpretation. This conflicts with the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) documents, which allow for Registry Operators to delegate names through Qualified Launch Programs (QLPs) or Approved Launch Programs (ALPs) before Sunrise. Since the Registry Agreement overrides the TMCH documents, this could prevent ROs from assigning names like fire.miami, police.lasvegas, beats.hiphop, or subway.nyc through a launch program—even if these names serve clear public interest or civic functions. B. It threatens legitimate noncommercial and public-interest uses. The original policy aimed to balance brand protections with flexibility for ROs to serve local governments, Indigenous communities, NGOs, and others with meaningful use cases for geographic or thematic terms. Under the revised language, any name matching a registered trademark could be blocked, regardless of whether the applicant is a city, public service, or community group with a legitimate need. This would undermine diversity and inclusivity in the DNS, and contradict ICANN’s broader commitment to supporting underserved and noncommercial stakeholders. 3) What We’re Proposing To address these concerns, we propose the following changes: Reinstate language covering “intentional circumvention” and “reasonable use” to align with the original policy recommendation. Apply the language to all mandatory RPMs, not just Sunrise, which is consistent with the recommendation’s wording. Explicitly allow exceptions for Qualified Launch Programs and Approved Launch Programs, as intended by the Implementation Guidance. Add the word “unfairly” to clarify that Registry Operators can have legitimate restrictions, as long as they are not abusive or discriminatory. Our goal is to ensure that Registry Operators can follow legitimate business and public-interest practices without violating RPM obligations, while also ensuring that trademark holders' rights are protected in accordance with ICANN policy. JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [http://www.jmanurojas.com] Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El martes, 5 de agosto de 2025, 12:57:40 p.m. GMT-5, jeff@jjnsolutions.com <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> escribió: Thanks Juan. Hard to disagree with this, but do you have any recommendations? On 8/5/2025 12:47:57 PM, Juan Manuel Rojas via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote: Hi all, Just a quick note regarding the proposed language and rationale: It’s essential that the Registry Agreement remains understandable to all stakeholders, not just attorneys. The language around RPMs—especially related to Sunrise and the implementation of Qualified Launch Programs—should be clear, accessible, and aligned with the intent of the original policy recommendations. We need to make sure that community members, registry operators, and noncommercial stakeholders can easily interpret their rights and obligations without needing a legal team to navigate every clause. Best Regards, JUAN MANUEL ROJAS, M.Sc. Director - MINKA DIGITAL Colombia NPOC Chair - NCSG/GNSO M.Sc. Information Technology Registered Linux User No.533108. http://www.jmanurojas.com [http://www.jmanurojas.com] Cel. +57 301 743 56 00 Instagram: jmanurojas -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GIT d- s: a+ C+++ UL P+ L+++ !E !W+++ !N !o K+++ w-- !O M- V PS+ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t+ 5 X++ R tv+ b+ DI D G e+++(+++)>+++ h+ r++ y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ El lunes, 4 de agosto de 2025, 08:41:42 a.m. GMT-5, Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escribió: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) * Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements [https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements] (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman [a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e] _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org [mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org] To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org [mailto: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. _______________________________________________ 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. [4a776ba6-34ff-4ca9-802f-3ecd36d7e73d] [dd2cbc3b-c199-4247-aaab-8040d9a34555]
in the language shown below, I would recommend that the word "*unfairly*" be replaced with "*unreasonably*" which is a much more settled legal reference in the realm of enforcement. *E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. * Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
All,
I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;))
1. *Rights Protection Mechanisms. *Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. *E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. *Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok]
*Rationale and How we got here*
1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states:
*"Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. *
*Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." *
Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM."
2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC.
a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks.
This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan.
b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the *mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.*
This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation.
If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;)
Sincerely,
Jeff Neuman
[image: a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e] _______________________________________________ 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.
Combining all of the edits coming in: *_E_**_xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program_*_, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to *unfairly* restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the __Sunrise or Trademark Claims____, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. _ On 8/5/2025 1:21 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
in the language shown below, I would recommend that the word "*unfairly*" be replaced with "*unreasonably*" which is a much more settled legal reference in the realm of enforcement.
*_E_**_xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program_*_, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to *unfairly* restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. _
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
All,
I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;))
1. *Rights Protection Mechanisms. *Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. *_E_**_xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program_*_, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to *unfairly* restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. _Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrarauthorizingsuchregistrar(s)toregisterdomainnamesintheTLDasfollows: [Rest of Provision ok]
*Rationale and How we got here* * *
1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states:
/"*Sunrise Final Recommendation #1* The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. / / / /*Implementation Guidance*: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." /
Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM."
2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc <http://subway.nyc>, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks.
This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan.
b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the *mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.* * * This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation.
If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;)
Sincerely,
Jeff Neuman
a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-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.
Kathy, i was suggesting "unfairly" be REPLACED by "unreasonably" as follows: *E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unreasonably restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. * Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 10:27 AM Kathy Kleiman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
Combining all of the edits coming in: *E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the **Sunrise or Trademark Claims**, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. *
On 8/5/2025 1:21 PM, Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT wrote:
in the language shown below, I would recommend that the word "*unfairly*" be replaced with "*unreasonably*" which is a much more settled legal reference in the realm of enforcement.
*E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. *
Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com
On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT < subpro-irt@icann.org> wrote:
All,
I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;))
1. *Rights Protection Mechanisms. *Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. *E**xcept as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program**, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. *Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok]
*Rationale and How we got here*
1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states:
*"Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. *
*Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." *
Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM."
2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC.
a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks.
This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan.
b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the *mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM.*
This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation.
If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;)
Sincerely,
Jeff Neuman
[image: a69ec41d-944e-42ca-8597-adbe54bf8f2e] _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
I agree, Anne. From: Anne ICANN via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2025 1:22 PM To: Jeffrey J. Neuman <jeff@jjnsolutions.com> Cc: subpro-irt@icann.org Subject: [SubPro-IRT] Re: Revised Spec 7, Section 1 CAUTION: This email has originated from a source outside of USPTO. PLEASE CONSIDER THE SOURCE before responding, clicking on links, or opening attachments. in the language shown below, I would recommend that the word "unfairly" be replaced with "unreasonably" which is a much more settled legal reference in the realm of enforcement. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Anne Aikman-Scalese GNSO Councilor NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2026 anneicanngnso@gmail.com<mailto:anneicanngnso@gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 4, 2025 at 6:41 AM Jeffrey J. Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org>> wrote: All, I have been working with Susan Payne, Susan Anthony, Katrin Ohlmer, Anne Aikman-Scalese, and Kathy Kleiman on the language for Specification 7. I can't say that everyone "approved" the language yet, but we wanted to get it out to the team with enough time for review. Below is the language followed by an explanation. Note: This includes incorporation of the IPC comment received during public comments (I hope ;)) 1. Rights Protection Mechanisms. Registry Operator shall implement and adhere to the rights protection mechanisms (“RPMs”) specified in this Specification. [and shall not restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise Period (each as defined in the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements) in contravention with the intent of such RPMs]. In addition to such RPMs, Registry Operator may develop and implement additional RPMs that discourage or prevent registration of domain names that violate or abuse another party’s legal rights. Registry Operator will include all RPMs required by this Specification 7 and any additional RPMs developed and implemented by Registry Operator in the Registry-Registrar Agreement entered into by ICANN accredited registrars authorized to register names in the TLD. Registry Operator shall implement in accordance with requirements set forth therein each of the mandatory RPMs set forth in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of the date hereof, as posted at https://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/tmch-requirements (the “Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements”), which may be revised in immaterial respects by ICANN from time to time. Except as permitted by a Qualified Launch Program or an Approved Launch Program, Registry Operator shall not operate the TLD in such a way as to unfairly restrict the ability of Trademark Holders to use the Sunrise or to otherwise circumvent the purposes of the RPMs, which are set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements. Registry Operator shall not mandate that any owner of applicable intellectual property rights use any other trademark information aggregation, notification, or validation service in addition to or instead of the ICANN-designated Trademark Clearinghouse. If there is a conflict between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Trademark Clearinghouse Requirements, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control. Registry Operator must enter into a binding and enforceable Registry-Registrar Agreement with at least one ICANN accredited registrar authorizing such registrar(s) to register domain names in the TLD as follows: [Rest of Provision ok] Rationale and How we got here 1) The text of Sunrise Recommendation #1 and Implementation Guidance in the Final RPM Phase 1 report states: "Sunrise Final Recommendation #1 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. Implementation Guidance: The Working Group agrees that this recommendation and its implementation are not intended to preclude or restrict a Registry Operator’s legitimate business practices that are otherwise compliant with ICANN policies and procedures." Despite it being called a "Sunrise Recommendation", the recommendation states that the RO shall not operate its TLD in such a way to to have the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs....or restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM." 2) ICANN staff has now come back and said we don't know how to implement this recommendation in the way it is worded because we don't know how to measure someone's intent. 3) In the version ICANN sent out for public comment it eliminated the "intentionally circumventing" language, and said simply that ROs may not restrict a TM owners ability to use the Sunrise. 4) ICANN's language has at least two problems which were pointed out in the comments the Registries (and Jeff) made and the comments made by the IPC. a) By removing the intent language, the words "reasonable use of the Sunrise", and ignoring the Implementation Guidance which talks about ROs legitimate business practices, the language creates a conflict between what is allowed in the TMCH documents (Separate from the Contracts). And all conflicts according to the provision state that the language in the Agreement control (meaning that even is something is allowed in the TMCH documents, if it is not allowed by the language in the agreement, ROs cannot do it. Therefore, the language in the Agreement would prevent ROs from delegating names through a Qualified Launch Plan prior to Sunrise. And this could prevent ROs from assigning names like subway.nyc<http://subway.nyc/>, fire.miami, police.las vegas, beats.hiphop, Zoom.photo, etc. if it had to go through a Sunrise first as all of the terms are ones in which large companies own trademarks. This is why we have proposed making it clear that ROs CAN restrict trademark owners from using the Sunrise for these names IF they have been approved for use in a Qualified Launch Plan or an Approved Launch Plan. b) Our interpretation of the IPCs main comment is that the RPM Phase 1 recommendation includes all mandatory RPMs and not just Sunrise. And if you look at the language of the Recommendation, that appears to be true. The recommendation states ROs may not operate the TLD in a way that has the effect of intentionally circumventing the mandatory RPMs OR restricting brand owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise RPM. This is why we: (1) Made it apply to all mandatory RPMs, (2) exempted the QLPs and ALPs (which we believe was the intent for the Implementation Guidance), and added the word "unfairly" (as we believe was also the intent of the Recommendation. If you made it this far in reading the rationale, thank you for your attention ;) Sincerely, Jeff Neuman _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org<mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org<mailto: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.
participants (6)
-
Anne ICANN -
Anthony, Susan -
jeff＠jjnsolutions.com -
Jeffrey J. Neuman
-
Juan Manuel Rojas -
Kathy Kleiman