Re: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs

["Marilyn Cade " <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andy, thanks for this. I think we originally considered 90 days. I would need 
to defer to others who are heavy users of the TMCH on the impact of your 
suggestion, but it makes sense to me. 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Abrams <abrams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:58:00 
To: <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [bc-gnso] BC Comment on RPMs



Dear All,


Many thanks to Elisa, J. Scott, Marilyn and Steve for drafting a proposed 
comment (attached) to the recent revisions in the RPM requirements.  I wanted 
to see if there was interest in further discussion on the first point made in 
the comment - the proposal on notice of sunrise period.  Specifically, I would 
be in favor of a minimum 60-day combined sunrise/notice period as opposed to a 
minimum 30-day notice period and minimum 30-day sunrise period.  I believe that 
allowing for greater flexibility in the notice/sunrise timing would encourage 
more registries to extend the sunrise period, thereby achieving in many cases 
the minimum 60-day sunrise originally requested by the BC and IPC during the 
Strawman discussions.  A longer sunrise is beneficial to brand owners, as it 
gives us more time to plan, budget and correct any errors in the registration 
process.  In addition, since many new gTLD registries may have "anchor-tenant" 
or other cross-promotional opportunities for brand owners, having extra time 
during sunrise could facilitate such negotiations.  


I understand that the primary argument for fixing a lengthy notice period is to 
perhaps give businesses more of a last-minute chance to enter the Clearinghouse 
prior to a particular registry's launch.  However, I respectfully believe that 
this is a bit of an edge case, and we would be better served advocating for a 
longer sunrise period.  There is one central Clearinghouse for all of the new 
gTLD registries, so there is no advantage to trying to strategically "time" the 
submissions, and last-minute national trademark applications would be 
ineligible for sunrise protection anyways, as it is required that all entries 
relate to trademark applications filed before ICANN announced the applications 
received (i.e., June 13, 2012).  I acknowledge that further education may be 
necessary to ensure that brand owners submit their Clearinghouse entries in a 
timely fashion, so it may be useful to encourage ICANN to team up with various 
trademark organizations (such as INTA) to publicize that the Clearinghouse is 
now open. 


I do agree with the current draft's criticism of the ability to allocate names 
30 days from the date of notice, no matter how much time is left in the 
official sunrise period.  All requests for sunrise registration should be 
compiled at the end of sunrise, and then analyzed for competing, identical 
requests.


I look forward to hearing others' thoughts.  Thank you for your consideration. 


Best,

 
Andy-- 
Andy Abrams | Trademark Counsel
 Google | 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
 (650) 669-8752 <https://www.google.com/voice#phones>