Attached please find the Intellectual Property Community's (IPCs) sunrise proposal. I believe this represents a significant step forward in the consensus building process toward the controlled responsible growth of the name space. I have spoken with Mike Kirk, the President of the IPC, and have also included below some of his comments about the process to date. Let me STRESS that this IPC proposal DOES NOT represent a final document. Both constituencies realized that there are some details and issues to be resolved in a drafting committee. However, it is important to realize that we are now working on a common ground, i.e. a Sunrise Period. Although there may be some registrars that will have concerns about this proposal, I believe they can be worked out as the consensus process moves forward. Please keep in the back of your mind some of the other alternatives that have been considered in the past: First, is the WIPO "famous marks" list which would have included a black list that the registration authorities would have had to maintain. One problem with the famous marks list is the limited amount of time available to create it. Based upon what I heard, this task could have taken anywhere from a couple of weeks to a couple of years. Considering that nothing in the ICANN process can be done in a couple of weeks I believe that the later was more likely. Second, is the IPC proposal that called for the use of FILTERS in connection with the registration process. Please keep in mind that in both of these proposals the registrars were to receive ZERO compensation. I have already discussed the "discounted basis" that appears in the IPC proposal. I explained that many registrars were eager to solicit the IPC's business and that a "fixed" discounted basis would raise potential anti-trust concerns, and would limit the flexibility with which a registrar could cut and attractive deal. There also needs to be some additional language dealing with the take down provision. Although I have heard no protests so far from any registrar canceling a registration based on faulty information, the authority and procedure must be clearly spelled out to avoid any potential liability to the registrar. As Chair of Working Group B I am required to submit a report to the Names Council this weekend. I originally contemplated a teleconference but I had only minimum feedback so I did not schedule one. Please review this e-mail and the attached document and provide your comments to me ASAP. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to pick up the phone and give me a ring as it will be much quicker. +1 (561) 741-7880. Mike Palage Message from Michael Kirk, President of the IPC: First, I am pleased to report that every IPC Member that responded to my request for comments on the "Sunrise Plus Twenty". The comments ranged from 'prepared to accept the proposal and to go along with it', to 'willing to go along with it', to 'a good compromise which protects famous marks as well as other marks', to 'support for the proposal as a means of protecting consumers and trademark owners'. Accordingly, in the view of the Task Force which drafted the proposal as well as all those responding, the proposal offers a way forward. Having said that, several members decried the lack of time to more fully reflect on the proposal, but agreed to it nonetheless in recognition of the time crisis we face. In addition, there were several suggestions for tailoring the proposal as it reaches the implementation stage. These suggestions include defining the type of variations that could be submitted along the lines of the definition of "nearly identical marks" spelled out in the original IPC proposal, clearly setting forth the details of the "take-down" procedure so that both registrars and mark owners would know the rules, and strengthening the UDRP process to address problems that might arise during the sunrise period. These are not all of the suggestions. In addition, the IPC has not, in view of the shortness of time, had the opportunity to consider and debate the suggestions. It would be my expectation that some of the suggestions may not find majority support and that some alternative ways of accomplishing the goals of other suggestions may be found. I mention these issues because, as you know, while we are able to say that the Registrars and the IPC are prepared to proceed along the lines of the Sunrise Plus Twenty proposal, there is a lot of hard work left to arrive at a final solution. However, our discussions to date encourage me to believe that you and I can guide this proposal to a successful conclusion.