ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Comments from CORE Association: General Comments (1 of 3)

  • To: comments-rpm-requirements-06aug13@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Comments from CORE Association: General Comments (1 of 3)
  • From: Amadeu Abril i Abril <amadeu.abril@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:23:56 +0200

Dear ICANN Board and staff,

CORE Association wishes to thank the staff for the efforts made into the 
improvement of the RPM Requirements Document. A group of applicants from NTAG 
has worked closely with ICANN staff to bring necessary amendments and 
improvements to this text. While some have made it to the new version, some are 
somehow summarized in the additional memo submitted for public comment, and 
some are still absent.

As general points, CORE would like expressing its support for proposed revision 
contained in the Memorandum:

1. Proposal on notice of Sunrise Period (as it makes everybody's life easier, 
while guaranteeing that no surprises will occur as the allocation of names 
cannot be performed during the first 30 days, so the required protection 
demanded by trademark holders remains intact).

2. Proposal for allocation of 100 names (as this is a barebones, minimal even 
if probably not sufficient way to adopt a minimalist Pioneers' Program, by this 
or any other name. Indeed, guarantees that the program will not allow abuse of 
legitimate legal rights, including trademarks, should be provided by Registry 

3. Proposal for Exception Procedure. Geographically-oriented TLDs, community 
TLDs, restricted TLDs, and probably other groups certainly will have legitimate 
reasons to require adapted RPMs. Very often this will not be an *exception* to 
the Rights Protections Mechanism, but an extension thereof. Schedule 7 of the 
TLD Agreement expressly acknowledges that Registry Operators may adopt 
additional rights-protection mechanisms. And indeed, TMCH-validated trademarks 
are valid, legitimate rights that must be protected, but there are others that 
may require protection. 

In most cases, this would be necessary to make any sense of the TLD for the 
general public at all. In some cases, such as geographically bound TLDs, this 
will already be mandated by local law. And abiding by local law, protecting 
legitimate rights from abuse and protecting consumers can never be an exception 
or a privilege. It is a mandate and a responsibility. We would therefore 
request that such procedure be termed "Procedure for Validation of Additional 
RPMs". The intent should not be an exception, that is, a permission not to 
protect rights, but should be based on additional or alternative rights being 
protected, or additional mechanisms to protect them all. And this is not pure 
semantics: it goes to the core of the issue. Legitimate rights should be 
protected without exception; some TLDs may require specific mechanisms, or some 
reordering of rights' priorities, which is very different in nature and 
results. It is not an exemption, it is a complement.

In this regard we support the different examples discussed between the NTAG 
team and the staff, some of which have made their way as examples in the 
proposed alternative text for geographically-oriented TLDs, or community TLDs. 
We will provide more detail in separate mails.

We also believe that additional RPMs for the Launch phase described in the 
Application should benefit form a rebuttable presumption of acceptance from 
ICANN. In principle, these proposals have been reviewed and evaluated, and 
ICANN had to send unacceptable applications to Extended Evaluation. But we 
could also understand that ICANN could have some time, upon reception of those 
proposals, once again, this time as Qualified Launch Periods, in order to 
justify its opposition to any aspect of them. At very least, though, the 
presumption should be that they are accepted. In this regard, the proposed 5.3 
(in the proposed new Section 5) should be reversed, and, for the plans 
submitted in the applications, deem them approved unless ICANN justifies in 
writing its opposition in a period of 30 days from notification.

CORE also supports the newly proposed 5.2 (in the Memorandum), except that we 
don't understand the limit to a single additional provider. Nor are we sure 
what are the "protections for verified legal rights that meet or exceed the 
validation standards of the TMCH". While TMCH requirements for trademarks are 
all known, we are unsure to have ever seen their validation standards.

Best regards,

Amadeu Abril i Abril
CORE Associtation


CORE Association (dba CORE INternet Council of Registrars) is both an 
ICANN-accredited registrar since the initial Testbed in 1999 and the Registry 
Operator of two new gTLDs (.сайт and .онлайнI. It is in the contractual 
negotiations phase for a third new TLD (بازار).

It also provides Backend Registry Services for existing and new TLDs (and in 
some cases, front end services), alone or in cooperation with other providers. 
The new TLDs CORE works for include .art, .barcelona, .bcn, .erni, .eurovision, 
.eus .gal, .madrid, .mango, .movistar, .paris, .quebec, .radio, .seat,  .scot, 
.sport, .swiss, .telefonica and .terra

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy