May 2017 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

Sunrise Questions - bringing wide ranging views together.
by Kathy Kleiman May 31, 2017

May 31, 2017

Hi All, In lieu of our meeting on Friday, Kristine and I sat down by phone and worked through the Sunrise questions from a number of different perspectives. We covered as many of our our almost 2 dozen Sunrise questions as possible. We tried to keep, in as neutral as way as possible, the charter questions given to us by Council and the rewritten questions that bind together overarching concepts. We found two arcs we would like to suggest for the Sunrise questions: Arc 1) Trademark Owners and Registrant Issues and Arc 2) Trademark Owners and Registry Operator Issues. Everything seems to fall fairly neatly into those two categories. We replaced language that some members of the subteam objected to as confusing or meaning something else. I took the pen from there, and Kristine is still reviewing. In the interest of time, let me circulate these questions to the full subteam. Thoughts on next steps appreciated. Should we add these to the Wiki? Best, Kathy

5 5

Cancelling Today's Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 26 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Having heard from a few of you on possibly cancelling today’s Sub Team call, and taking into consideration the already confirmed apologies, today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team call is cancelled. As has been noted, there are still open discussions on how the Sub Team will be delivering its output to the full Working Group. The Working Group Leadership Team had requested that both Sub Teams (Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims) complete the work on their respective Charter questions by 31 May. It seems fairly clear that more time will be required. However, between now and the next call, I encourage you all to continue the discussion that has already begun on the Sub Team mailing list. The next Sub Team call will be tentatively scheduled one week from today on Friday, 2 June at 14:00 UTC. Thanks. Amr

1 0

Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team
by Amr Elsadr May 26, 2017

May 26, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Following up on an action item from last week’s call, staff were asked to clarify the changes made across the different iterations of the Charter questions/google doc tables concerning batching and refinements made to the original Charter questions. The purpose of this is to provide a summary of the work done by the Sub Team to-date, which staff hopes will be helpful in providing clarity on how the Sub Team is where it now is in terms of progress. This summary will cover 6 weeks of Sub Team deliberation and agreement. The initial list of questions are posted on the Sub Team’s meeting wiki page from 14 April<https://community.icann.org/x/dM7RAw>, and can be downloaded directly here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64081524/Sunrise%20Claims%…>. On the Sub Team call on 21 April, the Sub Team instructed staff to batch and reorder questions 2, 3, 8 and 15, as well as 4, 5 and 6, and finally questions 7 and 9. This was done, and the questions were renumbered as 2A, 2B, 2D and 2C, then 3A, 3B and 3C, and finally 4A and 4B, all in respective order. These changes were listed in the column on the far left of this google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…>. Also, please refer to the action items on the Sub Team’s meeting wiki page from 21 April<https://community.icann.org/x/pNPRAw>. Further to those action items being completed, Sub Team members began to submit a number of comments and propose refinements/rewording of the original questions. These are all available in the same table, including a proposal to consolidate some of the batched questions. These proposals were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call on 28 April. Agreements on consolidation of questions, as well as reordering them to follow the logic of the Sunrise process resulted in an updated table being set up. This table can be viewed here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc…>, and the Sub Team members were asked to review this table, and provide comments to be discussed during the Sub Team’s 5 May call. On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9…>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. We hope this summary is helpful. Please also note that all action items, notes, meeting materials and documents, recordings and transcripts from Sub Team calls are posted regularly on dedicated pages for each call<https://community.icann.org/x/oMrRAw>. It is our (staff’s) hope that these wiki pages provide a reference for the ongoing progress of the Sub Team, which is helpful to both the Sub Team and the broader Working Group. Thanks. Amr

7 8

Action Items from Sunrise Registration Sub Team Call - 19 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr May 24, 2017

May 24, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Apologies for the late delivery on this, but please find below the action items from Friday’s call. The action items, notes, document, recordings and transcripts of the call are posted on the Sub Team’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw Thanks, and again, apologies about the delay. Amr Action Items: 1. To cover concerns to registrants, Sub Team to suggest possible rewording of Question 1, batching it with other questions, or possibly suggest an additional question 2. Sub Team to follow up with Lori Schulman on data (examples) to answer Proposed Final Question 2 provided in the INTA survey results/report 3. Sub Team to consider adding a fourth bullet to Proposed Final Question 2 on registry operator practices other than pricing of Sunrise registrations and Premium Names, which may have a deterrent effect on brand owners’ use of Sunrise 4. Sub Team to follow up on outstanding action item regarding definitions for Premium Names, Reserved Names and Premium Sunrise Pricing on the mailing list 5. Sub Team to consider rewording of Proposed Final Question 3 to reflect that the effect on both trademark holders and registry operators needs to be considered, when discussing the impact on geoTLDs and QLPs when reserved names are registered in the TMCH 6. Sub Team to revise Final Proposed Questions (such as Final Proposed Question 4) to ensure that they incorporate the original Charter questions, and are asking questions that are practically answerable 7. Sub Team to look over the Proposed Final Question 6, which addresses the intended effect and effectiveness of Sunrise, and consider if it requires further refinement 8. Staff to circulate previous versions and current version of the google doc tables, so that Sub Team can track changes made

2 2

Recordings, attendance & AC Chat for Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 19 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC
by Michelle DeSmyter May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 19 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-19may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p65wcrce00a/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw Thank you. Kind regards, Michelle Adobe Connect chat transcript for 19 May 2017: Michelle DeSmyter:Dear All, Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 19 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Michelle DeSmyter:Meeting agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Mary Wong:Thanks for uploading the Google Doc - I had just PFD'd it! Amr Elsadr::-) Amr Elsadr:But like you said, it doesn't include Maxim's comments. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hello All, Matt Mlsna:Hello Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):As I understand it is possible to print comments usign Griffin Barnett:Thanks Mary Griffin Barnett:Sounds good Matt Mlsna:Agreed Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: If I'm not mistaken, the only possible action on comments is to resolve them, which would remove them entirely. In the future, we could paste them into the comments/discussion column? Matt Mlsna:thanks :) Jeff Neuman:Hello. I have to leave early (at half past) as well Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please pring Google doc to PDF again an upload to Adobe Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*and Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I included comments into the last column Amr Elsadr:Am doing that now, Maxim. See your comments in the columns. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):unortunately, last call was done during the flight time from the GDD summit for many Registries. Amr Elsadr:Action items, notes, recordings, transcripts, etc... from last week's call can be found here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Griffin Barnett:+1 Kristine, fine to leave this question in, and a-is Griffin Barnett:*as-is Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Q1: as is Matt Mlsna:Agree leave as-is Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I have a notice: Do we know if ICANN is have right to regulate prices? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*have the right Griffin Barnett:I'm personally comfortable with the reformulated Q2 Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we request the answer from ICANN Legal. Amr Elsadr:I understood the question as Kristine does. I don't believe the intent was to recommend any pricing regulation via consensus policies. Griffin Barnett:Agree again with Kristine on this Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):if ICANN does not have right to regulate prices, then any kind of policy related to price regulation can not be implemented. Griffin Barnett:I think ICANN could regulate prices if policy recommendations demanded it - would require a change to the base RA presumably Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I think we need to report to our whole RPM PDP WG that we might need the answer to this question (we can not request as a subgroup) Griffin Barnett:Doesn't ICANN regulate prices in legacy TLDs? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):only increase of prices Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and old contracts are irrelevent to new RAs Kathy Kleiman:Hi All! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*irrelevant Kathy Kleiman:Was a question dropped? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):due to registries , as independant legal bodies are not responcible for actions of other non-affiliated legal bodies. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*independent Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):we might need to reword question Q2 (to show that was it a pricing or any other reason which prevented you from Sunrise registration?) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and we need to add " any additional reasons: please write more about it" Griffin Barnett:Or perhaps we add a sub-question saying "Were there other registry practices other than pricing that chilled brand owner participation in Sunrise?" or something along those lines Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):@Griffin, we need to add open field , "or was it something else"? I do not think that everithyng was only due to registries policies. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*happend this way Griffin Barnett:Point taken Amr Elsadr:I'm at Starbucks too. :-) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):additional note about challenging "premium" status - it is written in RA that names reserved according to ICANNs inclusions to contracts (like ICANN reserved lists ) and everything else it solely up to a registry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):me too Griffin Barnett:Very hard to understand Kathy...just me? Matt Mlsna:cutting out for me as well Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the sound is better now Jeff Neuman:Kathy - what is the issue with the order? Matt Mlsna:I have to drop now, but would support Griffin's proposed wording for a fourth bullet point on Question 2 Jeff Neuman:i have to drop Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Could you provide a suggested question to be added to cover the concerns you are raising? Amr Elsadr:Correct. Amr Elsadr:I believe this is the 4th version. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Amr....to be clear, the left column is directly from the charter, no changes? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:thanks Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: Yes. The last table was a comparison between the last version and the updated one. Staff were then asked to revise the table to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the most recent refinements/batching. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Great, thanks. I thought so! Griffin Barnett:I'm not sure "chiling effect" is the right terminology....the question is really getting at whether reserving names that match TMCH-recorded marks circumvents Sunrise when the reserved name is later released after Sunrise Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Do we have supporting information to these allegations? Griffin Barnett:Exactly right Kristine Griffin Barnett:and also risking losing them to a third party when they should have had the opportunity to register them during Sunrise Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):are we still on Q2 or on Q3? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:new Q3 Griffin Barnett:Maxim, that's a fair enough point, but we might be getting ahead of ourselves. Seems like you are starting to respond to the Q, while we are still working to finalize the Q wording. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is not APLs it is the single ALP .MADRID Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Maxim about the fact that putting some brands on a reserved list for registry operator reasons/plans is not always bad. I think a good WG discussion will include this. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree with Mary...it's about the effect. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):all other GEOs decided to to risk Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ith ALPs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):police is a real example Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Griffin used a good word: circumvent. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:.MADRID reserving POLICE for the actual police is not circumventing in my world. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and according to local law they have this name Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is not about premium - it is about reserved Griffin Barnett:No one is disagreeing that there may not be legitimate reasons for reserving certain names such that they are unavailable during Sunrise, but that's a discussion we can have at the appropriate time. Griffin Barnett:Sorry that was a lot of double negatives Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Griffin Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):since reserved names + release+ QLPs are quite tied, these needs to be discussed together, to avoid destruction of current GEO model. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree Maxim, that is one consideration. But the majority of TLDs are NOT Geos Griffin Barnett:Agree it may make sense to bundle any questions relating to reserved names, premium names, pricing, and ALP/QLP together, as they are inter-related Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:So we need examples from both Geos and Non-Geos Griffin Barnett:Agree Kristine. And we might ultimately decide to carve out Geos from any recommendations, or otherwise make recommendations that treat Geos differently than other TLD types Griffin Barnett:But again, getting ahead of ourselves Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):GEOs represent quite big number of real people Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Completely agree...we just need to remember that there are a lot of models Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I don't think brand owners think all the models are problematic. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ROs are prohibited from TMCH access Griffin Barnett:Ok agian, that's a fine point, but that's getting into substantive responses to the Question. Can we try and stay focused on agreeing to the wording of the Question itself? Kathty:Back to the "chilling effect" of questions 2 and 3. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Question 4 is a solution - if Question 3 is a problem. Kathty:I think this will introduce a range of questions, definitional issues, etc. Kathty:any objection to rewording?? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I like Q6 moved to the top of the list.... at this point. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Q5 is also a solution to Q3, if there is indeed a problem Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I still do not understand how ROs will access TMCH with current prohibition of access to it Griffin Barnett:It's a good point Kristine - reworded Q6 seems like it should be Q1 doesn't it Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maxim, the group may decide to make the TMCH public stilll.... if not, then the WG will need to say "sorry, no can do." Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):agree Griffin Barnett:Don't ROs have access, just limited to the specific purposes of facilitating TM Claims and SUnrise? Might need to go back and review the RA/TMCH T&C Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):then we need to add a note that since Registries do not have access to TMCH - then it is not simple Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RO's are prohibited from access ... we had issues with simple "ping" of TMCH (to understand if it works or not at all) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Maxim, it's our job as ROs to remind the group of that when we get there. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but adding notice will not allow us to forget about it Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: That corresponds to the original Charter question 13 in the column on the far left. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Kathy, the point was to make the reworded questions more general...too specific points to suggesting the solution Kathty:Can you circulate the current version and the last version? Mary and Amr? Kathty:That will be helpful, tx. Kathty:To the Notes, please add concern about phrasing, wording, need for balance, and consideration of TM owners, registries and registrants in the questions. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye all Griffin Barnett:Thank you Mary, all....bye Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:great job pinch-hitting, Mary! Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc on Sunrise Charter questions
by Mary Wong May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Hi Maxim and all – unfortunately, displaying a document in PDF means the comments in the Google Doc aren’t visible. I’ll keep tabs on the Sub Team’s discussion during the call and will be sure to raise it when we reach any point where there has been a comment added to the Google Doc. I hope that works, thanks! Cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 14:15 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc on Sunrise Charter questions Hello Mary, I provided my comments, please include it into the document we discuss today (last time they were not visible). Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On May 18, 2017, at 02:04, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sub Team members, With apologies for the slight delay in getting this to you, please note that staff has now updated the Google Doc we used on the last call in accordance with what we understood our instructions to be. As such, you should find – in the third column from the left titled “Proposed Final Updates/Refinements made by the Sub Team” – a list of 12 Sunrise-related questions in total that the Sub Team is intending to recommend be reviewed by the full Working Group:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxv…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. Please review the document, especially the above-mentioned third column, in preparation for the next Sub Team call this Friday where we will try to complete discussions on any additional data gathering that may be needed for those questions that have not yet been associated with a possible data gathering effort, as well as confirm the estimated time allocations for Working Group review of these proposed final questions. In addition, please also remember that there is another action item for this Sub Team; i.e. to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list. Please therefore send any thoughts or comments on this topic to this mailing list as well. Thanks and cheers Amr and Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 22:33 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise

1 0

FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc on Sunrise Charter questions
by Mary Wong May 17, 2017

May 17, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, With apologies for the slight delay in getting this to you, please note that staff has now updated the Google Doc we used on the last call in accordance with what we understood our instructions to be. As such, you should find – in the third column from the left titled “Proposed Final Updates/Refinements made by the Sub Team” – a list of 12 Sunrise-related questions in total that the Sub Team is intending to recommend be reviewed by the full Working Group: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9…. Please review the document, especially the above-mentioned third column, in preparation for the next Sub Team call this Friday where we will try to complete discussions on any additional data gathering that may be needed for those questions that have not yet been associated with a possible data gathering effort, as well as confirm the estimated time allocations for Working Group review of these proposed final questions. In addition, please also remember that there is another action item for this Sub Team; i.e. to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list. Please therefore send any thoughts or comments on this topic to this mailing list as well. Thanks and cheers Amr and Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 22:33 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr

1 0

REMINDER: Definitions for premium names, reserved names, premium pricing ... ?
by Mary Wong May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, As you may recall, it was agreed that the Sub Team will start a discussion of what, if any, definitions it might want to develop for terms such as “reserved names”, “premium names”, and “premium pricing for Sunrise” – with the aim to make it clear that these cover different matters and to assist the Working Group with its review of the Sunrise RPM. Note that the idea is not to engage in a substantive discussion of the merits/disadvantages of these various items but rather to see if we can come up with an agreed list of definitions. Would someone like to kick us off? ☺ Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Follow up on two staff action items from Sunrise Sub Team requests
by Mary Wong May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Dear all, We are pleased to provide you with updates on two action items on the staff side from the last two Sub Team calls. The first relates to documented rationale for a Sunrise RPM. As mentioned during the last Sub Team call, we were not able to find specific text in either the IRT or STI final reports that directly addressed this question. However, in a 2005 paper on intellectual property considerations in introducing new gTLDs, WIPO’s Arbitration & Mediation Center had made a few observations that we thought might be possibly helpful, particularly in relation to its examination of how previous gTLD launches had dealt with Sunrise. An extract from that 2005 paper is attached, and includes a link to the full paper for your reference. (FYI you may also be interested to know that the IPC had produced a booklet on “The Perfect Sunrise” in 2008 where you can find a summary of the Sunrise mechanisms adopted by some of the gTLDs launched in the 2004 round (.aero, .asia, .biz, .mobi and .museum): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/perfect-sunrise-jun08-en.pdf (from pages 10-26).) The second staff action item was for us to recirculate the information that Deloitte had provided to our Working Group in relation to SMD files and the TMCH: · Here is the question that our TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team asked Deloitte and Deloitte’s answer (in January): “Q: How many SMD files has the TMCH revoked as a result of cancellation or expiration of the underlying trademark(s)? How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for trademarks that are cancelled/expired? A: Please note that are numerous reasons why a SMD file is revoked. A SMD file, as requested by the community, contains the trademark information and the contact information. This entails that each change revokes the current SMD file and a new SMD file is generated. In addition, a user can opt out of the sunrise services at any time which revokes the current SMD file as well as the fact that the information of trademark record is no longer accurate. Consequently, we do not keep track of the reasons why a SMD file is revoked as this is technically linked to the different stages and interactions with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Due to this and the mere fact that this was never imposed by the community, the validity of a SMD file is not a reason for dispute with the TMCH.” · In Copenhagen, Deloitte provided an updated report on TMCH numbers where it also explained what a deactivated TMCH record means: “What happens if a trademark record goes to invalid? Does it need the database? So for trademark clearinghouse purposes it was always requested that no data would be deleted. So that's why it … becomes deactivated. So in the event that a client wishes no longer to have anything to do with the clearinghouse those trademark records will indeed become - I mean, will have the deactivated status now.” · This followed from Deloitte’s response to the additional questions it had been sent by our Working Group, noting that when a TM holder informs the TMCH that a mark has been cancelled, the TMCH record becomes deactivated and Sunrise services are cancelled within 24 hours. We hope the above is useful. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 22:33 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr

1 0

Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations
by Terri Agnew May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 12 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8nxmqhvv2d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=029929868fed1ad2 8d0b8d51c4d9985cb1e68d6f0272a40c48270918080ea07a> https://participate.icann.org/p8nxmqhvv2d/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 May 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 12 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minute duration Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_O w3fAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Ow3fAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0N M&s=dLAYHUwTsuuU4so8QosJR7KDGp11vyj0Np-sQuZmpBA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0NM&s=dL AYHUwTsuuU4so8QosJR7KDGp11vyj0Np-sQuZmpBA&e= Phil Marano::) Phil Marano:+1 Phil Marano:Folks still traveling after the GDD Summit possibly. Susan Payne:hi Susan Payne:I'm afraid I won't make next 2 week's calls either due to INTA and travels Amr Elsadr:You bet, Lori. Good luck. Susan Payne:But we could do over list Susan Payne:what are we due to do? Philip Corwin:Good day all Philip Corwin:We have the magnificent 7 ;-) Terri Agnew:@Mary, we heard you for a moment but no longer Susan Payne:same examples relevant to 2 were captures here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_RARPMRIAGPWG_Additional-2BDocuments-2Band-2BMaterials-2Bon-2Bthe-2BTM-2 DPDDRP-3Fpreview-3D_61606586_62399692_Collated-2520Examples-2520of-2520Perce ived-2520Registry-2520Conduct-2520within-2520TM-2DPDDRP-2520scope-2520-2D-25 2017-2520Oct-25202016.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4 I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_ wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0NM&s=IkgXRSEk1R32wUwSGxoCVnvwXfRCYJtRbAOUgd-b870&e= Mary Wong:Sorry my audio isn't working Kathy:Hi All, Apologies for joining late. Mary Wong:@Susan, wasn't Q11 put into the TMCH list? Mary Wong:So the question is whether Q11 is even needed here (as several Sub Team members have noted in past discusions) Mary Wong:Maybe park this for now and suggest that the WG look at all parked questions when they are done with the other questions? Kathy:What question are we on? Mary Wong:Q16, for instance, was also noted as being something that's being discusssed as part of the broader TMCH deliberations. This could conceivably be parked and returned to. Kathy:Agree with Kristine Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Questions 13 and 22, or updated questions 11 and 12. Susan Payne:exactly Lori Kathy:yes Mary Wong:SUGGESTION - make a notation where the queston is being covered in the general or TMCH discussion, and consider refining the question to make it specific to Sunrise. Mary Wong:Then the WG can decide whether to take it up as part of a Sunrise review, defer it till the end of Sunrise review, or park it until general TMCH/other relevant discussions have concluded. Susan Payne:and of course legally-similar goods can be across different classes Lori Schulman:yes, Susan, thank you. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Mary. Philip Corwin:To be clear, I was not proposing a particular implementation approach. I was trying to find out if we all have a common understanding of what would be required to implement the contemplated restriction. Kathy:@Phil: I think you have one good implementation path. Kathy:But it may be easier... Susan Payne:@ Kathy Yes, it is in scope - although just because we have been asked to deal with it it does not pre-suppose we will say "yes" to the Q :) Kathy:yes Susan Payne:yes Philip Corwin:To further clarify, what would be the method of limiting sunsrise registrations to a mark's goods and services? And would the generation of claims noticesbe similarly restricted? Philip Corwin:what is question? Kathy:I don't understand the "parking" Kathy:Meaning it becomes part of our WG questions for this area? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Phil, part one of what you asked belongs here. Part 2 is on the claims list of Qs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Parking in my mind simply means, we might have already answered it by the time we get here (or have suffienctly changed things by the time we get there). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's my understanding that neither sub team is doing substantive work...right? The entire WG will answer these Qs. did I miss something? Lori Schulman:Kristine that is my understanding Susan Payne:25 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:All excellent questions, Phil Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: That is my understanding as well. Perhaps the two Sub Teams can coordinate their proposals on these questions, as I believe Phil has suggested? Susan Payne:yep all good points Phil Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Including the reluctance of most Registry Operators to "restrict" their TLDss Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:.HORSE may not want to "categorize" their TLD Susan Payne:This obviously is an interesting debate but can we hold it over to when we are supposed to talk about it Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Amr, I agree. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1Susan Susan Payne:Yes Lori, I do think this is relevant to prioritisation Mary Wong:Is there a particular wording that this group can agree to, mindful that the general question will be noted as also being covered in the TMCH discussion? Susan Payne:yes Kathy:yes Lori Schulman:I support Kristine's suggestion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes Phil, I think the WG will need to answer those Qs. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:In its entirety. :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:As in, the WG, in its entirety. Not our little puddle of 9 people. :) Philip Corwin:We are not a puddle. We are a lake on a diet ;-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LMAO Kathy::-) Philip Corwin:When will our next call be, or are we wrapped ip? I am unable to make the next two Fridays due to INTA Annual in Barcelona. Lori Schulman:Our next call will be in 3 weeks as I am tied up too Amr Elsadr:Before we end the call, I wanted to note that Lori won't be available for calls over the next two weeks. Can we confirm that we will still hold calls? Lori Schulman:I think that many will be at INTA Lori Schulman:but i am happy to cede the chair if others want dial in Kathy:Should we skip next week? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Perhaps if we do good work this week suggesting data sources via email, we can do the work online? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'd hate to lose momentum Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: I think that's doable. Susan Payne:sounds good. apologies, I need to jump off for another call Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:What Phil did was a good example a model Kathy:How many people would be on the call next week? Philip Corwin:Must leave call Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'll here, but if you look at the list on today's call, I might be it. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks. Kathy:Bye All Kathy:Safe travels! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Lori, great job Lori Schulman:thank you Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Updated Table for Sunrise Charter Questions
by Amr Elsadr May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Hi, An updated table has been prepared for use by this Sub Team, and is available in a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9… This updated table includes the original Charter questions, and the final updated/refined and batched versions. The Sub Team will be using this table during its discussion of additional data that may be required to answer the Charter questions, during tomorrow’s Sub Team call. Thanks. Amr

1 0

Action Items from RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting on 5 May 2017
by Mary Wong May 5, 2017

May 5, 2017

Dear all, Here are the Action Items noted by staff from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting held earlier today; we have reordered them slightly to make sure that the Sub Team Action Items are listed first. We have highlighted the imminent Action Items for the full Sub Team in red. Please RESPOND to this email if you CANNOT make it for the next Sub Team call, planned for next Friday 12 May at 1400 UTC. · Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list · Sub Team: When presenting the final questions to the full WG, in relation to those questions that are informational/educational in nature, Sub Team to request that WG members first review any existing materials (to be circulated by staff, e.g. as with the question on SMD files) and respond as to whether additional discussion is required · Sub Team to suggest to other Sub Teams that they consider a similar approach concerning “informational/educational” questions · Lori and staff to coordinate a discussion on Reserved Names with the SubPro WG (especially Work Track 2) – suggestion is to do a between the two WG leadership teams, to include the Sub Team and Work Track chairs and Council and community liaisons · Staff to prepare a new Google Document with the original Charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column to clarify outputs of the Sub Team being delivered to the full Working Group · Staff to add a column to new Google Document to include the Sub Team’s suggestions on "Data Collection" · Staff to find and circulate the answers that Deloitte had provided previously on the SMD issue (at ICANN58 and in writing) · Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion · Staff to go back to the IRT and STI reports, and published AGB materials, to try to find documented rationale for the Sunrise RPM We hope the above is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary & Amr From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 20:02 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. · Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc… · And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: · Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) · Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task · Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods) How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: · Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 · Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 · Batching of questions 7 and 9 · Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” · Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included · Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist · Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? · Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions · Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used · Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? · Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

2 1

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations
by Terri Agnew May 5, 2017

May 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 05 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/TwTfAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p87ze0chjn1/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=029929868fed1ad2 8d0b8d51c4d9985cb1e68d6f0272a40c48270918080ea07a> https://participate.icann.org/p87ze0chjn1/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 May 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 05 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_T wTfAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ TwTfAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxse Q&s=jfL9g970fVZyy0DC_Aht8Eyr8vPkt99FOeGqE7fAZ9I&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxseQ&s=jf L9g970fVZyy0DC_Aht8Eyr8vPkt99FOeGqE7fAZ9I&e= Julie Bisland:Hi Amr! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi ALl Amr Elsadr:Hi Maxim. Mary Wong:Good idea, Lori! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we resize windows - so the shared one is bigger (by making notes bit smaller)? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):that is why I drag with me 2 LTE phones + one modem from 2 porviders :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and another ISP at home Mary Wong:Hmm I'm not sure it makes much difference, Maxim - maybe Terri or Julie can confirm (or better yet, help!) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is enough, on the second thought Jeff Neuman:I am in listen only mode for today Mary Wong:Me too, mostly - this seems to be the noisiest airport lounge ever (Newark). Sorry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please post the URL to Google doc to the chat Matt Mlsna:https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOuj WWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc-ciM/edit?usp=sharing Mary Wong:@Lori, that was going to be the staff suggestion as well. Terri Agnew:@Maxim, pod have been adjusted slightly, I don't think it helped much Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also there were some comments made by me, which are not visible on the shared PDF Mary Wong:That was in case there are further updates from today. Terri Agnew:Sync is on, everyone can adjust size of screen themselves Mary Wong:So basically the final document will have the original Charter question (not in this document, sorry), and whateve final updated version is proposed by the Sub Team (right most column) Griffin Barnett:same here Amr Elsadr:And distorted. Matt Mlsna:same here Terri Agnew:@Kristine, your audio is not clear, please let me know if a dial out on the telephone is needed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):too close to mic Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:BRB Philip Corwin:Kristine's audio is unintelligible Mary Wong:@Lori, when circulating the links to the materials along with the question, the Sub Team can also ask if Working Group members think there needs to be further discussion after they have reviewed the materials. We can also suggest to other Sub Teams that any time a team feels an "informational/educational" type question is included, a similar approach be proposed. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm back...if I can get back in the queue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I have a question about 2. comment - I think we mix premium names and reserved names - I do not think it is right Amr Elsadr:Much better Kristine. Mary Wong:@Maxim, that's why there was an earlier suggestion that we've carried over, as to whether definitions are needed. Most people felt it would be helpful, I believe. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):definitions are good idea Mary Wong:Deloitte also provided that information in writing, in their initial response to the data gathering questions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Even better, Mary! I definitely remember the verbal presentation. Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: regarding question 2, this comment is in the google doc, but couldn't be exported into the pdf version. Apologies. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):shall I add it to the text? Mary Wong:@Lori, shall we make it an action item to discuss possible definitions for premium names, reserved names and premium Sunrise pricing on the list? Mary Wong:@Lori (sorry) - yes to the time estimation. I think we'd gotten to 3.5 - 4 calls for the first few questions. I will check exactly where we stopped. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok - I will move it from the comments to the text Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):about publishing of reserved names - I'd like to try to speak Jeff Neuman:I would change "words" to "strings" since that would be more accurate Lori Schulman:good suggestion Jeff -- strings Mary Wong:@Lori I've pasted the data discussion and timeline estimates from last week to the Agenda pod on the right. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:To be clear, I don't believe Maxim claimed to speak for the registries as a whole. :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Kathy Mary Wong:J. Scott had suggested that any questions that need data gathering be dealt with last in order by the WG, to allow for the data to be obtained Jeff Neuman:This issue will take a while Jeff Neuman:Lots of complexities Mary Wong:@Lori, all, see the time estimates from last week on the right (Agenda pod) Jeff Neuman:Where to publish, how often, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it may vary from country to country ... Jeff Neuman:The list of stings changes when any changes are made in the TMCH Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in our case it is 9k lines of really bad language ... Mary Wong:Note that we've not had good luck with registry responses to date Mary Wong:And no luck at all with registrars. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Fair point, Mary, but this one might get some attention Mary Wong:Yup, not disagreeing, Kristine, just noting for realistic expectations :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):though - providing ICANN with reserved lists on requests of the group looks fine on terms of non-disclosure of the lists Jeff Neuman:I think more calls Jeff Neuman:Lots of complexities Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so tests on examples could be ran, but nothing more Jeff Neuman:I am multi-tasking so cant talk Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Reserved names MAY be released at some point. Philip Corwin:Exactly. Reserved names for this exercise are those not available for sunrise registration but that may be released subsequent to it (or may never be released). Mary Wong:All, just a head's up that since some of the original questions have been rephrased and/or combined, staff will go back to check that the timeline estimates and data discussion from last week match up (or are updated following today, as the case may be). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example- single letters - they are limited to 26 ascii and there is a reason for having them inpremium Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*in premium pool Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and example for unavailability of POLICE in GEOs - for example is that local police have right to use it Mary Wong:@Phil, that sounds useful - the Sub Team will probably need to discuss what data points can be used for the sampling, though. Philip Corwin:@maxim--would agree that single letter domains would likely be on any registry's premium list, and hard to fault Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the same with 2 letters Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least those available Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: Could you clarify if you believe the question shouldn't be asked, or if you were trying to answer the question by saying "no"? Mary Wong:@Lori, on the scope/reason for this question - from the public comments received it's more likely that Sunrise can be the mechanism, but may not be the only or preferred one. Kathy Kleiman:Data gathering: what type of overhead, cost and management would then be required? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The reason is poor design of ALP - GEOs cound not use it ... only one tried and still not launched Philip Corwin:Should there be a sunrise registration period for any domain released from a registry's reserved list? -something like that for rephrasing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and the reserved lists is the only way to deliver names to city - POLICE should go to Public Authority and not to Eyewear maker Mary Wong:Sunrise was suggested, but I believe the commenters were open to other mechanisms if they exist or can be developed and are viewed as "better" than Sunrise. Kathy Kleiman:Data gathering: what other mechanisms might be available? Jeff Neuman:There alreadi is a requirement for claims when a name is released. That is already required Mary Wong:@Jeff, should the question then be whether Sunrise, or an equivalent mechanism, also be required? Jeff Neuman:Reserved Names is a complicated matter and involves a number of thorny issues because names are reserved for lots of different reasons. This discussion needs to be coordinated with Subsequent Procedures PDP Jeff Neuman:@Mary - Understood. But this needs to be coordinated with Subsequent Procedures as perhaps a joint discussion. Mary Wong:We can hear you, Lori Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):clames are not required ATM for release of names (they required only 90 days following the beginning of GA) Kathy Kleiman:sorry, just lost my connection :-( Mary Wong:@Jeff, point taken. We'll note as Action Item. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Jeff about coordination with Subsequent Procedures PDP Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Jeff Mary Wong:@Lori, @Jeff - how about the Sub Team agrees on the rewording (per Kristine) and suggest to the WG that we park this question until it can be discussed with SubPro? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:My current wording: Are ROs using features like pricing and reserved lists to avoid the sunrise RPM? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Which hopefully limits the discussion here to ONLY sunrise issues. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Jeff? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RPMs is about not giving names to wrong people Mary Wong:@Lori, it depends. An initial discussion with the relevant Chairs (Sub Teams, Work Tracks) would be the start. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and not about delivering it to particular parties Mary Wong:And yes, sorry, WG chairs obviously too (left that out from my response as a result!) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but the coordingation should be done between whole PDP and not with subgroup and another PDP Jeff Neuman:Susan Payne I think was the other Mary Wong:@Jeff, for that discussion - if it's on specific questions - inviting the Sub Team and Work Track chairs would be good, won't it? Mary Wong:Yes, Susan Payne. Jeff Neuman:yes sub-team chairs too Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm thinking... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):which question are we now on? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):9? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and what is the final version of 5? Mary Wong:@Maxim, Kristine suggested rewording (see above) Jeff Neuman:What is the "intended" effect of Sunrise? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know it? Roger Carney:+1 Jeff Philip Corwin:I would think the intended effect was to give rights holders a fair chance to register as domains those marks that they have placed in the TMCH. Mary Wong:For the TM Claims Sub Team, staff went back and looked at the IRT and STI reports and ICANN documents for the AGB to try to find rationale. Shall we do the same hre? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Rightholders are not limited to TMCH Roger Carney:@Mary, makes sense Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so we had to have local LRP for the small TM owners Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I would love that Mary Jeff Neuman:a "fair chance" pr "first chance" Jeff Neuman:or Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ASCII in moscow Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and Cyrillic in .MOCKBA Kathy Kleiman:I have to run - great meeting, Lori! Mary Wong:There's no RPM WG call next Weds so the Sub TEam can use that Weds time rather than Friday, if preferred. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also there might be a community restrictions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):like only citizens of particular city .. so not all TMCH entries are good Lori Schulman:That could work. I have the CCT-RT plenary next Wed. May 10, If it doesn't overlap, I could chair Mary Wong:@Kristine, @Maxim - do we know if there is any centralized data location to track all RO LRPs? I'm not sure the ICANN site has that info (but could be wrong). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there is good resource for LRPs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann .org_en_program-2Dstatus_sunrise-2Dclaims-2Dperiods&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxseQ&s=LY9okvZzKchoPnV3CiyycohZ-08 htaZHV7puKmr9Uuk&e= Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Have to run for another meeting..talk to some of you in a bit. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):where ICANN could check how many TLDs used LRPs and for what reasons Mary Wong:@Lori, got it Mary Wong:Any preference for Weds or Fri? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):next week is a GDD summit Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we skip it Mary Wong:Yes Mary Wong:OK Mary Wong:Friday? Or none? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Friday is good - the same time Mary Wong:@Lori, good idea, will do Mary Wong:Or yeah ok Friday plus poll Roger Carney:Thanks!! Philip Corwin:happy weekend Mary Wong:Thanks Lori and all! Lori Schulman:ciao Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):safe travels Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] Re: FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan
by Mary Wong May 3, 2017

May 3, 2017

Oops, sorry about that, I meant to have the usual option of “anyone with the link can EDIT” so I’ve fixed it now: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXs… Thanks for spotting that, Maxim! Cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 05:23 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan Dear Mary, Could you grant us rights to comment on the new Google Doc (so comments are visible to others, but they can not change the main text). I think It would be helpful to clarify points of disagreement and/or confusion. Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On May 3, 2017, at 03:01, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. • Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> • And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: • Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) • Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task • Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods)[newgtl…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: • Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 • Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 • Batching of questions 7 and 9 • Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” • Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included • Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist • Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? • Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions • Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used • Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? • Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

1 0

FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan
by Mary Wong May 3, 2017

May 3, 2017

Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. · Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc… · And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: · Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) · Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task · Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods) How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: · Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 · Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 · Batching of questions 7 and 9 · Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” · Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included · Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist · Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? · Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions · Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used · Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? · Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

1 0