E1.Please
provide a full and detailed description of all the policies to be followed in
the TLD (other than those covered in response to items E11-E21). If the TLD’s policy on
a particular topic is proposed to be identical to that reflected by a
particular version of any of the following documents, it is sufficient for your
response to identify the topic, to give a brief summary of the policy, and for
the details to reference the document and section:
·
ICANN-NSI
Registry Agreement;
·
NSI Registrar
License and Agreement;
·
ICANN
Registrar Accreditation Agreement; and
·
Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy.
General
Telnic will at
all times use its reasonable endeavors to implement and adhere to any and all consensus
policies introduced by ICANN, so as to further the development and stability of
the Internet and the global Internet community.
Telnic intends
to create a Policy Advisory Board (the “PAB”), which will consist of legal,
technical, commercial, business and/or other advisors, to review and propose
policy and advise Telnic’s management and, if appropriate, to also advise
Telnic’s registrars on matters directly relating to the performance,
functionality, management and delegated policy of the .TEL domain name. The PAB’s functions will include reviewing
and making decisions on the following policies:
·
the distribution
of SLDs and ccSLDs (and sub-levels) and their restricted and/or unrestricted
status;
·
ICANN issues and policies;
·
the issues and policies of other recognized authorities, such as WIPO;
and
·
any charitable
work undertaken by Telnic through its Foundation.
It is envisaged
that the PAB’s policies will (as appropriate) encompass the policies and
current thinking of the Internet’s recognised authorities together with the
policies developed in-house by the PAB with input from ICANN. Telnic will adopt a number of policies
including, but without limitation, policies relating to data protection,
privacy, equal employment opportunities, and the transfer of domain names
between registrants and/or registrars.
Should Telnic,
however, have a requirement to modify any existing ICANN policies, Telnic
intends to consult with ICANN and any other authorities of competent
jurisdiction, with respect to such changes to ensure that the Internet
community is not adversely affected by their implementation.
In addition to
adhering to ICANN’s current policies, where appropriate, Telnic realises that
there is likely to be a need to develop, create and introduce new policies
regarding the .TEL domain name. This
will be particularly relevant as and when technologies with respect to the
Internet and Voice-over-Internet Protocols converge. Telnic will also consult
and involve ICANN in the decision making process regarding these new
policies.
Regarding the
ICANN/NSI agreements and/or the policy referred to in question E1 (as set out
above), Telnic intends to implement agreements and policies which will mirror
those listed to a large extent. Telnic sets out its comments in respect of each
agreement and the policy in turn below.
ICANN-NSI
[Telnic] Registry Agreement (the “Registry Agreement”)
In respect of
the Registry Agreement, Telnic agrees in principle to its terms and conditions.
However, this Registry Agreement contains a number of terms specific to the
ICANN/NSI relationship. Telnic would be grateful for clarification to the
extent, if any, such terms would be applicable to Telnic.
Telnic would
like clarification in discussions from ICANN in respect of the following
sections:
·
Section 6: NSI
Registry-Level Financial Support of ICANN
The extent to which, if any, pre-payments will be required to be paid by
Telnic to ICANN.
·
Section 16:
Relationship to Cooperative Agreement between NSI and US Government
The applicability of this section in respect of ICANN/Telnic is sought.
·
Section 20:
Price for Registry Services
Telnic would like to discuss with ICANN the pricing policy for
registrars.
·
Section 22:
Designation of Successor Registry
Telnic would like clarification in discussions from ICANN with respect
to the applicability of this section.
·
Section 23:
Expiration of this Agreement
Telnic would like clarification from ICANN as to the intended duration
of the Registry Agreement.
Telnic
Registrar License and Agreement
Telnic intends
to build a worldwide network of Registrars based on the existing ICANN
Accredited Registrars model, who will support the .TEL domain name. This will
be via the registry website at www.telnic.org. Telnic further intends to adopt
the principles of the NSI Registrar License and Agreement (the “NRLA”)
including the Registrar’s Dispute Policy, the Policy on Transfer of Sponsorship
of Registrations Between Registrars and the Confidentiality Agreement. However, Telnic recognizes that certain terms
and conditions of the NRLA may not be directly relevant to the Telnic approach
and also that the NRLA does not necessarily reflect Telnic’s use of the DNS,
which will be designed to meet a diversity of community needs. Whilst the precise issues have not yet been
recognised in their entirety, the following is a list of the terms and
conditions of the NRLA which may not be relevant to Telnic’s relationship with
its registrars:
·
Section 2.3: New
Architectural Features
Whilst this section is specific to NSI, Telnic will endeavor to provide
its registrars with all software that will enable the secure and stable access
to the system for the registration of second-level domains in the .TEL
TLD. All upgrades of such software will
be provided to all registrars following successful testing and evaluation.
·
Section 2.5: Data
Submission Requirements
In addition to the requirements as listed under this clause, Telnic will
ensure that the registrars obtain the consents of their customers to place
their personal data on the Whois Service and in Escrow, in accordance with
relevant data privacy legislation.
·
Section 2.7:
Registrar’s Registration Agreement and Domain Name Dispute
Telnic intends to adopt the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy and
expects its registrars to adopt the same ICANN accredited policy.
·
Section 2.9:
Domain Name Lookup Capability
As with the Data Submission Requirements, Telnic will ensure that it is
not liable for misuse of an individual’s personal data and will insist that its
registrars must obtain the prior consent of all customers in order to place
such information on the Whois Service.
·
Section 2.15:
Prohibited Domain Name Registrations
Unregisterable domain names will be shown as “unavailable” on Telnic’s
Whois Service. The unregisterability of
a domain name will be determined solely and exclusively by Telnic.
·
Section
3.2(iii): Limitations of Use
Telnic will allow its registrars to reverse engineer any of the software
provided by Telnic from time to time for the purpose of enabling the registrar
to develop compatible and/or interoperable software products.
·
Section 5.1:
License Fee
Telnic would like to discuss with ICANN the license fee structure.
·
Section 5.2:
Registration Fees
Telnic would also like to discuss with ICANN the registration fee
structure.
·
Other
As mentioned above, all references to the US Department of Commerce and
NSI’s Cooperative Agreement with the US Government are unlikely to be
applicable.
ICANN
Registrar Accreditation Agreement
With respect to
the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Telnic agrees in principle to its
terms and conditions, in particular, with respect to the data protection and
privacy policies dealt with in sections E, F and G of the agreement.
Telnic would
like clarification in discussions from ICANN in respect of the following
sections:
·
Section 6b:
Public Access to Data
Telnic would like to discuss with ICANN the annual fee structure.
·
Section 6f:
Public Access to Data
Telnic will not allow individuals the opportunity to elect not to have
their “personal data” disclosed.
·
Section O Term
of Agreement
Telnic would like clarification in discussions from ICANN as to the
intended duration of this agreement and its possible renewal.
·
Other
All references to the US Department of Commerce are unlikely to be
relevant.
Uniform
Dispute Resolution Policy
Telnic’s dispute
resolution policies in respect of the .TEL SLD and other disputes will be
governed by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (the “Policy”) as adopted by
ICANN on 24 October 1999. The Policy
will be incorporated by reference into all Registration Agreements. It is also intended that the Telnic.org
website (Telnic’s Registry website) will set out a procedure to explain to
registrants in a user-friendly manner how they can initiate proceedings under
the Policy.
Telnic does not
intend to participate in any dispute between a registrant and a third party,
all proceedings will be administered by an approved ICANN dispute resolution
provider (the “Provider”). A list of
the approved ICANN Providers will be made available to registrants by way of a
hyperlink from the Telnic.org website to the list maintained by ICANN.
In order to
facilitate the dispute resolution process, Telnic will work with the Provider
by developing an administration process to help ensure the smooth operation of
the dispute resolution process. As an
example, Telnic will also allocate each complaint with a number upon receipt,
and record the date and time of such receipt.
To assist the Provider, Telnic will confirm that the complainant is the
registered domain name holder and that the complainant’s details are
correct. Telnic will also track the
status of domain names which are the subject of a dispute and will block any
attempt to transfer a domain name which is the subject of a dispute with a
third party.
Telnic is not
proposing to adopt any additional, alternative or supplemental dispute
resolution procedures.
E5 Intellectual Property
E5.1 What
measures will be taken to discourage registration of domain names that infringe
intellectual property rights?
Proposal
1. Telnic
is considering the provision of an information service to prospective
registrants on its www.telnic.org website which will set out ways in which
registrants can avoid infringing intellectual property rights belonging to
another when registering and using a .TEL domain name. The information to be
provided by Telnic will briefly describe trademarks, passing off and
cybersquatting and the remedies which may be sought by the third party in each
case.
Telnic is also considering providing the registrants with directional
guidance to check whether the proposed domain name, which they wish to
register, might infringe someone else’s intellectual property rights before the
registrant applies for the registration of the domain name. As a part of this
pro-active policy, Telnic is likely to provide:
a) on
its www.telnic.org website one or more hyperlinks to sites which will allow the
registrant to carry out some initial trademark searches (for example,
hyperlinks to the UK Patent and Trade Mark Office, the US Patent and Trademark
Office, the OHIM (organization in charge of registering Community Trade Marks)
and the Japanese Trade Mark Office). In addition it is likely that Telnic will
also provide hyperlinks to websites which will allow the registrant to carry
out additional checks of registered domain names and company names in the
United Kingdom and the United States of America. Access to websites which will
provide the registrant with valuable information relating to the protection of
intellectual property rights on the Internet (for example, the World
Intellectual Property Organisation (“WIPO”) websites) will also be provided; or
b) alternatively,
Telnic may let the registrant know on its website which organizations and/or
website addresses the registrant could access to either carry out the trademark
searches or inform the registrant on how the registrant should proceed in order
to ensure that the domain name that the registrant wishes to register does not
infringe third party intellectual property rights.
Furthermore, Telnic will always advise registrants not to register a
domain name if the registrant becomes aware that a registered trademark is
either identical and/or confusingly similar to the proposed domain name. In
addition, Telnic will advise registrants to seek professional advice and
assistance before registering their domain name.
In respect of the above, Telnic is aware that it will not be able to
provide the registrant with an exhaustive list of the relevant organisations
and/or websites and that it cannot compel the registrant to carry out such
checks. Nevertheless, Telnic believes that by providing links and/or
information in respect of say, the four main trademark registries around the
world (as listed above) together with WIPO, the registrant should be better
informed to determine whether or not his/her domain name is protected by third
party trademark rights.
2. Telnic
envisages that its standard Registration Agreement (an example of which can be
seen on the www.telnic.com website) will include the following provision:
“In making an application, the registrant represents and warrants to
Telnic that the registrant has the right to use that part of the domain name to
which the application relates and that if the registrant is to use such domain
name such use will not infringe the rights of any third party, wheresoever
situated. Acceptance of a domain name
by Telnic shall not be construed as Telnic approving or agreeing that the
registrant has any right to register and/or use that name.”
3. Telnic
will also adopt by way of reference in its Registration Agreements, the Uniform
Domain Name Dispute Policy (the “Policy”) as adopted by ICANN on 24 October
1999. The Policy sets out the process to manage disputes between domain name
holders and trademark owners. Under the Policy, Telnic will have the right to
cancel, assign and/or otherwise transfer domain names if the ICANN dispute
resolution provider (Please refer to section E6.1 below.) finds that the domain
name infringes a third party’s trademark.
Technical
Solution
The way in which
Telnic envisages delivering part one of the proposal above is by way of
technical solutions. Telnic will design
and/or develop its website in such a way whereby the registrant is provided
with information and/or links to carry out pre-registration checks if the
registrant wishes to do so.
This will be
achieved by incorporating into Telnic’s website a way that the registrant will
be able to access a website which contains the following information:
1. a
brief explanation of trademarks, passing off and cybersquatting and the
consequences that may arise if a person should be found to have done one of
these acts;
2. either
hyperlinks (as mentioned above) to or contact details of the organizations
which would be able to assist the registrant in ensuring that the proposed
domain name does not infringe any third party intellectual property rights; and
3. a statement advising the registrant to
seek independent professional assistance.
By using the
Telnic’s website in this way, Telnic places the onus on the registrant to take
the necessary measures to ensure that the proposed domain name will not
infringe any third party intellectual property rights. This technical solution
falls in line with the accepted policy that the Registry will not be
responsible for policing trademark violations when registering domain names for
registrants.
Conclusion
Telnic has
considered whether the technical solution will be practicable and effective if
launched by Telnic. Although, the above-mentioned solution goes some way in
trying to minimise infringements of third party intellectual property rights,
Telnic is conscious of its potential “downsides” and these are briefly
summarized below as follows:
1. even
if Telnic provides the registrants with information relating to trademarks,
passing off and cybersquatting and gives registrants a chance to establish
whether or not their proposed domain name will infringe third party
intellectual property rights, Telnic cannot guarantee that the registrant will
actually read and/or understand the information provided by Telnic and/or carry out the necessary searches; and
2. with
respect to providing the registrant with either hyperlinks and/or information
relating to informative sites, Telnic is unlikely to be in a position where it
can say that the registrant has access to all the relevant sites and/or is
provided with the information relating to all necessary and useful websites,
for the following reasons:
a) many of
the Trade Mark Registries around the world will not allow or facilitate the
carrying out of on-line trademark searches; and
b) if an
exhaustive list of hyperlinks and information were to be provided in their
entirety, then the registrant would be overwhelmed by the links and information
provided.
Nevertheless,
Telnic believes that the proposal and the technical solution suggested above
will go a fair way towards discouraging registrants from registering domain
names which are likely to infringe third party intellectual property rights.
Telnic also believes that the proposal and/or solution is equitable in that it
provides the registrant with suggestions on how the registrant can ensure that
the domain name which the registrant applies for does not infringe any third
party intellectual property right(s) but at the same time preserves Telnic’s
position in that Telnic will not take any responsibility for policing trade
mark violations.
E5.2 If
you are proposing pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations, how
will the pre-screening be performed?
Pre-launch Period
Background
When ICANN
announced that it was considering introducing new TLDs, trademark owners
expressed their concern that the issuance of new TLDs will increase the amount
of potential trademark infringement, passing off and cybersquatting cases to
such an extent that it would be virtually impossible for trademark owners to
police the Internet effectively for trademark violations.
Consequently,
ICANN created a “Working Group B” in July 1999 whose responsibility was to
discuss and consider ways in which this problem could be dealt with. It was
suggested by a number of corporations that a “Famous Trade-Marks List” be
created and that any domain name application comprising in part or in whole of
any trademark on that list, would be refused registration.
After long
discussions, it was agreed that a Famous Trade-Marks List was not the most
effective solution, for the following reasons:
1. it would expand the existing rights of
famous trademark holders;
2. it
would block others from using domain names comprising of famous trademarks in
non-commercial and generic ways;
3. the
number of so-called famous trademarks could potentially grow into millions;
4. it
would be extremely difficult to decide the criteria that should be considered
to decide whether a trademark should be added to the Famous Trade-Marks List;
and
5. who would be responsible for creating
the Famous Trade-Marks List.
Therefore, in
lieu of creating a Famous Trade-Marks List, the
“Sunrise Proposal plus Twenty” was tabled. Under this proposal, it was
suggested that famous trademark owners should get a chance to pre-register
domain names comprising of their trademarks (plus twenty variations thereof)
before the new TLD is opened to the general public.
Telnic’s solution
Telnic will put forward for debate an
approach whereby it will allow registered trademark or service mark owners (of
either famous or non-famous marks) to pre-register their second level .TEL
domain names during a “Pre-Launch Period”.
The Pre-Launch Period is currently scheduled to last for 2 months. The
registration of .TEL domain name during the Pre-Launch Period will be
undertaken by Telnic.com (i.e. which Telnic envisages as to be an ICANN
accredited registrar) which is a distinctly separate entity to Telnic.org (i.e.
the .TEL sponsoring organization domain name registry).
Notification
Prior to the Pre-Launch Period,
Telnic will use its reasonable endeavors to inform as many Trade Marks
Registries and Trade Mark Agents around the world that the pre-registration
period will begin on, say, 1 January 2000 for a period of 2 months, during
which time all registered trademark and service mark owners will have a right
to pre-register their second level .TEL domain names.
In addition, Telnic will post a
notice on its www.telnic.org and www.telnic.com
websites informing such trademark and service mark owners when the Pre-Launch
Period will begin. This way, Telnic hopes to ensure that a large number of
registered trademark and service mark owners will have sufficient notice to
allow them to apply for their new domain names as soon as the Pre-Launch Period
starts.
Search
A registrant will be able to carry out initial on-line searches to
verify whether or not a his proposed domain name has already been applied for
during the pre-registration stage. If
any prior registrants have filed an application with Telnic for the same domain
name, Telnic’s search results will inform the registrant where in the queue the
registrant is. Therefore, if the registrant is the third person to file an
application for a specific domain name then the registrant will be informed of
this, so that the registrant can decide whether to go ahead with the domain
name application.
Naturally, as part of this search
sequence the registrant will be able to refer to Telnic’s appropriate
Registration Agreement.
Application
During the Pre-Launch Period,
trademark and service mark owners will have the right to apply for domain names
using an on-line “application template”. The trademark or service mark owner
will need to provide Telnic with the following information when completing the
application template:
a) the full name of the domain name
pre-registration registrant;
b) the corresponding domain name
(subject to normal conventions);
c) the trademark or service mark (word
mark only);
d) the country of registration of the
trademark or service mark;
e) the registration number of the
trademark or service mark;
f) the name of the legal owner of the
registered mark;
g) confirms the
registrant in (a) acts with the full authority of the entity referred to in (f)
(if these are not the same); and
h) pre-registration payment provision.
Submission
Once the registrant has completed the application template it will be
submitted on-line by the registrant to Telnic. Shortly thereafter the
registrant will receive an e-mail from Telnic confirming the appropriate
registrant’s record details.
Verification
Option: Proposal 1
Telnic will then verify, through its
Trade Mark Agents worldwide, the details provided by the registrant in respect
of each domain name application, which if verified successfully will proceed to
registration. Whether or not an application will go through to registration
will depend on the “first-come-first-served” principle. This means therefore,
that if, say, ten individuals apply for the “mycompany.tel” domain name, only
the first application that was received by Telnic for that domain name will be
verified. If Telnic, when verifying the
details, finds that the registrant’s details do not match the details held at
the various Trade Mark Registries around the world, Telnic will reject that
application and will begin the verification process in respect of the second
application filed for the “mycompany.tel” name. This procedure will continue
until Telnic is able to verify the details of an application successfully. Telnic believes that in most cases it will
only need to verify one or two applications (at the most) before it is able to
successfully register a domain name.
Option: Proposal 2
In the alternative, Telnic will
require the registrant of each new proposed .TEL domain name to provide Telnic
with a certified copy of their trademark or service mark registration
certificate.
In this case, the verification
process will require Telnic to review all the trademark and/or service mark
registration certificates received from the registrants and to compare these
against the details provided by the registrant on the application template. If
the details on the certified trademark and/or service mark registration
certificate correlate with the details provided by the registrant, Telnic will
register the proposed domain name.
Once again, Telnic will apply the
“first-come-first-served” principle in deciding which domain name will be
accepted for registration (provided that the verification is successful).
Post-Launch Period
Telnic does not
propose to carry out any pre-screening for potentially infringing registrations
during the Post-Launch Period for the following reasons:
1. domain
name registries cannot reasonably be expected to be responsible for policing
trademark violations on behalf of trademark owners and English and American
courts have adopted this position in the past for the following reasons:
a) the
Trade Mark Acts place the burden of policing trademark violations onto the
trademark owners themselves; and
b) the
registries do not have the time, knowledge and capacity to check each domain
name they register to determine whether the registration may or may not
infringe third party intellectual property rights.
2. If
Telnic were to adopt a policy whereby it took it upon itself to police
trademark violations when registering domain names, it would potentially set a
precedent, which could require all future domain name registries to police
trademark violations.
This would be an unacceptable position for domain name registries
because they would be unlikely to have the resources required for such a
task. In addition, the adoption of
policing trade mark violations would be likely to have adverse affects for the
Internet community, as the domain name registries:
a) would
need to increase the registration fees to ensure that they have the financial
resources to carry out the necessary trademark searches;
b) the
time in which a domain name will be registered may extend to weeks and/or
months; and
c) the
registries would be extremely cautious of registering any domain names.
E5.3 What
Registration practices will be employed to minimise abusive registrations?
Telnic has
interpreted this question as asking:
1. What
registration procedures will be put in place by Telnic to minimise the number
of domain name applications which comprise in part or in whole of abusive,
offensive and/or obscene words; and
2. What
registration procedures will be in put in place to minimise the number of
domain name applications that are filed in “bad faith”?
Telnic answers these questions in turn below.
1. Abusive,
offensive and obscene domain name applications
In order to deal
with potentially, abusive, offensive and obscene domain name applications
Telnic will incorporate in its Registration Agreements a provision which
provides that:
“Telnic shall have a right to reject, cancel or invalidate any domain
name application and/or registration which, it in its sole discretion,
reasonably believes to be abusive, offence and/or obscene. Telnic’s decision in
this regard shall be final and binding.”
“Abusive, offensive and obscene” will be defined as meaning what is
generally accepted by the public as being abusive, offensive and/or obscene at
any given time, as determined solely and exclusively by Telnic.
In addition,
Telnic has also considered whether to develop and/or create software which
would be able to detect and block domain name applications for domain names
which in whole or in part comprise an abusive, offensive or obscene word(s).
Telnic can envisage that it may develop this type of software in the future,
should it become the registry for the new .TEL TLD. Telnic will, however, look
to amalgamate appropriate databases of abusive, offensive or obscene words
prior to going live with the .TEL domain name registration service.
2. Domain
name applications filed in “bad faith”
With the
evolution of the Internet various individuals and organisations have been and
still are involved in the practice of stockpiling Internet domain names comprising
of trademarks and/or brands (usually famous) purely for the purpose of selling
them on for a profit (i.e. cybersquatting).
In order to
overcome this problem, Telnic proposes to:
a. introduce
a Pre-Launch Period of two months during which time trademark and service mark
owners will be allowed to register domain names with the new .TEL TLD, before
the new domain is opened up to the general public; and
b. adopt
a dispute resolution, which will mirror ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution and which will be used to resolve disputes between domain name
holders and trademark owners. When the domain name holder applies for the
domain name the registrant will be required (as part of the terms and
conditions of Telnic’s Registration Agreement) to agree to this Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution process.
a. Pre-Launch Period
Please refer to
Telnic’s answer at E5.2 above.
b. Implementing the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution
The dispute
resolution policies in respect of the .TEL TLD and other disputes will be
governed by the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (the “Policy”) as adopted by
ICANN on 24 October 1999. The Policy
will be incorporated by reference into all Registration Agreements.
For further
information on Telnic’s dispute resolution policy, please refer to section E6
below.
E5.4 What
measures do you propose to comply with applicable trademark and
anti-cybersquatting legislation?
Telnic shall
ensure that all of its policies and terms and conditions, relating to the
registration of a .TEL domain name, will allow Telnic to take all necessary
steps to ensure that it can comply with any and all orders and/or judgements
granted by an authority of competent jurisdiction in respect of a dispute
between a domain name holder and trademark owner.
Telnic’s
Registration Agreement shall include a provision, whereby Telnic reserves the
right to cancel, assign and/or otherwise transfer the right in a domain name to
another, if so required either under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
or in order to comply with any order and/or judgement passed by an authority of
competent jurisdiction.
E5.5 Are
you proposing any special protection (other than during the start-up period)
for famous trademarks?
Telnic does not
intend to provide special protection for famous trademarks either during the
Pre-Launch Period or during the Post-Launch Period, because such special
protection could be discriminatory against trademark owners who do not own
“famous” trademarks.
Background
With the
announcement by ICANN that it is considering issuing new gTLDs, the trademark
community became very concerned that cases of trademark infringement, passing
off and cybersquatting would increase as soon as the new gTLDs are issued. In
view of their concern ICANN set up a Working Group B which would address these
issues.
The main
proposal considered and discussed by the working group was the issuance of a
“Famous Trade-Marks List” (“List”) which would be created by the main
corporations worldwide. The idea was that any trademark that is listed on the
List would be prevented from being registered as a domain name, thereby
preventing trademark infringement and confusion.
This proposal
was, however, rejected by the working group in so far as they felt that:
1. it
would expand the existing rights of famous trademark holders;
2. it
would block others from using domain names comprising of a famous trademark in
non-commercial and generic ways;
3. the
number of so-called famous trademarks could potentially grow into the millions;
4. it
would be extremely difficult to establish an exhaustive list of criteria that
would need to be satisfied for a trademark to be considered famous; and
5. who
would be responsible for deciding whether a trademark is famous or not.
In lieu of setting
up a “Famous Trade Marks List”, the working group recommended that famous trademark owners should be given a chance to
pre-register their domain names before the new gTLD is opened to the general
public. This proposal was accepted by the working group and was called the
“Sunrise Proposal plus Twenty”.
Subsequently, Internet registrars
suggested that the Sunrise Proposal plus Twenty should be extended to anyone
with a registered trademark and/or service mark, as it would otherwise be
discriminatory against trademark owners of non-famous marks.