<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] FW: GNSO Council discussion Spec 13
- To: John Berard <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] FW: GNSO Council discussion Spec 13
- From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 16:39:20 +0200
- Cc: philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, martinsutton@xxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jrobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=key-systems.net; h=content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject :subject:to:mime-version:user-agent:from:from:date:date :message-id; s=dkim; t=1397572760; x=1398436760; bh=6JXsxSSSqnDi vhsZRlv04MfZqDoXLf+ZwGJa0CZlp00=; b=oqtc+w/KJ6rNQNeJnBU26tye4ntu 0tRiLBe6JA9OQdCzFKJOQc2SYTIukP/FossqA1MHA8r++caeWBWOB6IPEERpnO7R dImv8VXMXJHEyOxn5CGgJOrh/byQby09/MPIojbNWXovcvE2p4kOmmML7cAJEoAS 6jfzRbYfrrVJZu4=
- In-reply-to: <20140415140653.2E2917A00A2@mail-01.key-systems.net>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20140415140653.2E2917A00A2@mail-01.key-systems.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
Hi John,
assuming .HSBC opts for the spec, registers a bunch of domain names
where there are TMCH records by other parties and later decides to go
open, should they get to keep the domain names that they have registered
circumventing the Sunrise requirement by using the Spec?
Volker
Volker,
You have confused me.
Are you saying, for example, .HSBC (using Martin Sutton here!)
launching as a dotBRAND might distribute names that might otherwise go
in a Sunrise for trademark holders?
And if .HSBC switches to general availability down the road, those
names will have been registered in circumvention of a Sunrise?
But if HSBC allows its customers use of their name (e.g., BBC.HSBC or
Orange.HSBC) aren't they the proper registrants in any regime?
I am having a hard time finding the problem to be solved.
Help me understand.
Berard
On Apr 15, 2014 1:36 AM, Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
As obligatory Sunrise is the baby of the IPC and BC, I had
expected them to pick up on this issue as well.
IIRC, if a dotBrand gives up exclusivity, it loses the dotBrand
status and the benefits of the spec. If would have to allow all
registrars to get accredited and execute a sunrise. However, at
that time, the damage may have already been done as the delayed
sunrise may have become a farce if the RO already registered to
its name all names that would be eligible for sunrise prior to
giving up exclusivity. It would be akin to something that ICANN
has been denying to other applicants, such as geoTLDs, essentially
allowing the registry an unlimited period of exclusivity to
reserve domain names to itself and a select circle of affiliates
and licensees before a sunrise would be applicable.
I am not opposing the spec as it stands today, but I am pointing
out the loopholes that may lead to abuse.
Volker
Am 15.04.2014 09:01, schrieb Jonathan Robinson:
All,
Please see note below from Philip Sheppard.
Jonathan
*From:*BRG [mailto:philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* 14 April 2014 17:03
*To:* jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* GNSO Council discussion Spec 13
Jonathan,
I noted that Klaus on the Council list asked this question:
BTW: what happens if a brand gTLD decides down the road to give
up exclusivity and become available for general use, at some
point that might make perfect business sense.
As I cannot post to Council, perhaps you would do so for me.
Its a legitimate question and one also asked by ICANN legal staff.
The answer is in other provisions of Spec 13. In the
circumstances described by Klaus, all of Spec 13 would
immediately no longer apply, and the default RA would apply instead.
Philip
Philip Sheppard
Director General
Brand Registry Group
www.brandregistrygroup.org <http://www.brandregistrygroup.org/>
Skype phsheppard
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|