Donuts RPM Comments

[Jon Nevett <jon@xxxxxxxxx>]

On behalf of Donuts, we would like to offer these limited comments on the 
recent submissions related to Rights Protection Measures.  

Overall, we join United TLD on its comments on this issue.

We also want to focus on two simple changes to the timing of the sunrise 
period.  First, instead of the current requirement of a  mandatory minimum 
30-day notice period and a 30-day sunrise period, many applicants have 
requested holding a 60-day notice/sunrise period instead.  Some applicants may 
choose to start accepting sunrise applications as of the first day of notice 
and accept them for 60 or more days, while others may accept applications on 
day 15 after notice, and for at least 45 days.  In our sunrise, no matter how 
many days the registry accepts the applications, no names would be allocated 
until the end of the sunrise period.  Whether the sunrise period is 60 days and 
includes the notice period, or 30 days notice and 30 days sunrise, the last day 
would be exactly the same.  If more than one rights holder applies for the 
name, it will go to a sunrise auction in either scenario. 

This should not be a controversial proposition.  It benefits rights holders as 
they would have more time to apply for names at sunrise (e.g. 60 days vs. 30 
days) and fix any mistakes in their applications.  Moreover, there does not 
appear to be any downside to rights holders, especially if the registry waits 
until the end of the sunrise period (the same day in either scenario) to 
allocate the names and doesn't employ a first-come first-serve allocation 
method.  Those commenters who raised concerns about the timing only appear to 
be concerned about this allocation issue, which is easily rectified.  We 
believe that our system is reasonable, benefits rights holders, is consistent 
with the comments and demands of the IPC during the Strawman negotiations and 
would receive support in that community.  

The second change is to start the notification clock as a TLD is sent to IANA 
for delegation, as opposed to waiting until actual delegation.  There is no 
reason why a registry could not use that period efficiently to start the 
notification clock.  Applicants have been delayed long enough and ICANN should 
realize as much efficiency as possible to compensate applicants for such delay. 
 While two weeks may not seem like a lot to some, multiply that by nearly 1,000 
registries and one could see the impact of this small change.  

When applicants applied for TLDs over a year ago, the requirement was only a 
30-day sunrise period and no notice period.  Many rights holders requested a 
60-day sunrise period after the application process was complete.  Upon request 
by ICANN, many applicants did not oppose a 30-day notice period and 30-day 
sunrise period based on discussions that notice could be provided 
pre-delegation.  Once the notice period extends past delegation, the registry 
should be able to accept applications during such notice period.  To do 
otherwise would cause material detriment to applicants that relied on their 
agreements with ICANN, the Applicant Guidebook.  

This process has been delayed for long enough.  Applicants should be able to 
accept sunrise applications as soon as possible and not have to wait for an 
arbitrary notice period that they never agreed to in their contracts with 
ICANN.   Moreover, they should be able to provide rights holder with notice as 
early as possible.