[ga] Reviewing Sunrise Procedures

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

With the likely emergence of further tlds, and the whole issue of
Internationalized Domain Names and how they should be administered, there
would seem to be a strong case for reviewing the concept of Sunrise, or even
the need for it. Among issues which ought to be discussed are:

The rationale for an alternative approach to Intellectual Property
addressing : for example, a designated .reg tld.

The conflict implicit in previous Sunrise models (such as the fact that
hundreds of different companies in various countries may each hold a
Trademark for a specific word, making it impossible for any one Trademark to
claim a unique right to the name).

The need to enforce, at the point of application and registration, the
mandatory criteria of: TM name; TM country; TM number; TM date. Setting
aside the veracity of details submitted, many applications were registered
in the .info Sunrise, even though there weren't even proper details
submitted in these 4 mandatory data fields. It was a failure of enforcement,
and a willingness on the part of Afilias, to overlook its own rules
(notoriously when the registrars applying in this way were members of the
Afilias cartel).

The argument for sufficient timescale to allow for submission of
documentation and adequate checking.

The issue of pre-registration scams, and the relationship of Sunrise process
to these scams. Should pre-registration for landrush/general release of
names commence only *after* the Sunrise names have been registered?

The issue of registrars rights to reserved names in advance of the general
public (perhaps off topic, but related - there were some notorious examples
of exploitation of this privilege in the .info release, and why should
registrars have some divine right to names ahead of everyone else anyway?).

The need for enforcement and sanctions against registrars who break Sunrise
rules or submit fraudulent details. Those companies who faked their
customers TM details for them, or encouraged applications without TMs, or
simply applied for fake Sunrise names for themselves... those companies are
still trading today, often endorsed ("accredited") by ICANN. Enforcement and
definition of sanctions should be written into the Agreements.

The essential thing - if there is going to be Sunrise - is that the process
is clear, and that checks and constraints are written into the procedure.
This, however, will be an immensely complicated matter with
Internationalized names.

Another issue: if you hold a Trademark in one language, would that give you
the right to the Trademark claim on a transliterated name or a translated
name in a different script?

The issues are so complicated (and by logical process, consequently so open
to abuse) that you could argue that the only sensible way forward is to
"isolate" trademark claims on domain names, and designate a tld like .reg
specifically for that purpose, while leaving the rest of the tlds open to
the public, with the onus on companies to challenge abuses which threaten
their business.

As tlds proliferate, the cost to businesses of defensively registering the
same name again and again will spiral, and logic suggests that a simple
"single avenue" (like .reg) would help the consumer by directing them direct
to the trademarked business or businesses sites.

One thing is for sure : without clearly defined process, without adequate
checks, without enforcement of rules... you will have repeats of the
shambles and abuse of previous Sunrise processes, and nothing will have been
learned.

ICANN never properly addressed the unfolding shambles of the .info fiasco.
It presided over demonstrated fraud. It protected its registrar industry in
preference to the consumer.

It is therefore essential that this aspect of the New TLDs Evaluation
Process be given early and urgent attention. On this subject, we STILL have
seen nothing of the Registry Evaluation Reports required under Appendix U of
the ICANN-Registry agreements with Afilias and Neulevel.

It is coming up to a year since I complained to Stuart Lynn that these were
overdue. Then in the summer he explained that ICANN staff had been too busy
to put the reports online. I requested that the ICANN constituencies and
public should have access to these Evaluation reports yet again in the
Autumn and Winter. It is astonishing that - at a time when ICANN is making
claims about greater openness - it is STILL withholding these reports.

The Sunrise issue is just one part of the overall NewTLD Evaluation
process - but it is a very important part.

I do not have confidence in ICANN's management of the process to review the
New TLD process, and I cannot understand how the broader community is
expected to participate in an informed manner, if central data and documents
(which the Agreement designated for availability to the public) are not made
available.

Yours patiently,

Richard Henderson

PS: Now over 340 days since I first contacted Dan Halloran about serious
concerns regarding fraud and abuse within the ICANN process and the actions
of its accredited registrars - and I STILL haven't even had an
acknowledgement of my mail (notwithstanding repeated re-mails, publication
on ICANNWatch, on the GA lists, on the ICANN public forums etc). How does
the new ICANN leadership define "openness" or "responsiveness"?

Some people just don't want public accountability, or open dialogue and
discussion of awkward specifics.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html