July 2017 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

UPDATED FOR REVIEW: Sunrise Sub Team document
by Mary Wong July 28, 2017

July 28, 2017

Hello and thanks very much for the edits, Maxim! I’ve taken the liberty of adding Maxim’s comment about geo TLDs and Reserved Names lists to the Comments column accompanying Question 4, as well as expanded on Maxim’s note on the ALP/QLP data collection suggestion for Question 8, to describe the feedback provided by Amadeo at the Working Group’s discussion of this point in Johannesburg. Please let me know if the additions are inaccurate or inappropriate. I have kept the yellow highlights from the previous version, to show the changes that were made from the last Working Group call, and also highlighted the two additions described above in yellow. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 08:41 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document (re: Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago) Hello Mary, Please find my edits (1 small typo and two bits of text. My note from Q4 about release of reserved names disappeared again. The issue is - it is the only mechanism GEO tlds can use to deliver names to the city, which gave letter of approval/non-objection, via reservation of names and release during the special period (LRP). Also example of POLICE is highly relevant not only to Q12, for the following reason it is a public service of the city, reserved for the public interest. the other bit - is about ALP and info from CORE (Amadeu Abril) about at least 6 other applicants who had tried to apply for ALP.Since the Program was a disaster, and we received info from the party tried it (during F2F meeting in Joburg), We need to add it to the text. (I think that bit needs to be reworded into something more polite(though it is better then expressions used by Abril :) 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 Jul 27, 2017, at 01:01, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Please find attached the update Sunrise document as requested. You’ll see that the staff-suggested edits – which I believe address all the outstanding drafting issues that were raised on the 12 July call of the full Working Group – have all been highlighted in yellow. Please review them at your earliest convenience and let us know if you have comments, or if you think we may send these updates to the full Working Group for its further review. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:58 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "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: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH:https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "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: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on:

1 0

FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document (re: Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago)
by Mary Wong July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Please find attached the update Sunrise document as requested. You’ll see that the staff-suggested edits – which I believe address all the outstanding drafting issues that were raised on the 12 July call of the full Working Group – have all been highlighted in yellow. Please review them at your earliest convenience and let us know if you have comments, or if you think we may send these updates to the full Working Group for its further review. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:58 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on: [scription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DwM…> [scription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [scription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [scription: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago
by Mary Wong July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on: [escription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DwM…> [escription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [escription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [escription: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago
by Lori Schulman July 26, 2017

July 26, 2017

Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can't find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff's assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA's cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA's internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org<http://www.inta.org/> Find us on: [Description: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA8566DC2514] Twitter<https://twitter.com/INTA> [Description: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groupInvitation?groupID=69899> [Description: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/GoINTA?ref=ts> [Description: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations
by Lori Schulman July 12, 2017

July 12, 2017

Dear Amr, Please use the old chart for today’s discussion. I believe that J Scott mentioned in the F2F that we would revert to the old chart for the RPM regulars. I think that updating the new version of the chart with all of the notes is the best solution. However, we don’t seem to have time for that before the call. Can we endeavor to do this after the call? I would like for the sunrise team to check the notes for accuracy once they are copied into the new format. Also, as an agenda item, I think it would be a good idea as part of today’s call to seek permission from the entire RPM group to move forward with the proposed rewritten questions and archive the old questions. I think that the assumption that we should not rewrite the questions is becoming moot. They have been essentially rewritten based on the team’s observations and input. We just need the blessing of the working group. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:18 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Understood, Lori, with both thanks and apologies. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Amr From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 2:14 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations I will do what I can but I may not respond until early Wednesday morning. As I explained I have a very full schedule tomorrow and I am in the middle of doing another task at the moment and cannot revert to this. I have to say that I am disappointed with the short notice and how this chart issue was handled in Johannesburg. Mary explained and apologized which I accepted. Nonetheless, this switching around at the last minute is not fair to the subteam and I want to note that. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:09 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Hi Lori, Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the short notice. Since we hope to finalize the refinements to the Charter questions during the call on Wednesday, 12 July at 16:00 UTC, time is a little tight. Between now and then, if you feel you have a personal preference for which document would be more suitable for use on that call only, please do let us know. If you have any questions, or would like any clarifications, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Mary and me. Thanks again. Amr From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:59 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Dear Amr, Thank you but this is not enough notice for me. I am still digging out and have a full schedule tomorrow. May I have an extra week so I may make a decision and confer with the subteam? Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:52 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Hi Lori, You might have noticed that a proposed agenda has been circulated to the WG mailing list. The plan is to try to finalize the refinement of the questions that the WG will be answering as part of the Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims reviews during Wednesday’s (12 July) call. After consulting the WG Co-Chairs, it was thought best to ask for your input on what document would be best to use during this final refinement effort. One option would be to use the document produced by the Sub Team, including additional refinements made to-date. This has just been circulated to the WG mailing list, and is attached to this email again. Another option would be to update and use the document displayed in the AC room during the face-to-face meeting at ICANN 59 (also attached). As you will likely be called upon to address questions/comments in whichever document we use (or you may simply wish to weigh in during the discussion), it was felt important that you are comfortable with the decision made, so please let us know if you have any preference. Also noteworthy is that during our planning for future calls, it was decided that the document/questions will not be required in their entirety for presentation during the substantive review/answering of the questions. When we get to that point, it is the plan of the WG leadership team to have slides ready for display in the AC room, which only cover the questions being answered on any given call, as well as any relevant information on data requirements. It is also our intent to give you an opportunity to review these slides before they are used on a week-by-week basis. I hope you find this agreeable. One final note; staff was asked to prepare a separate document to be used to display the data requirements identified by the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. There was some concern raised that these might be missed after having been moved to the bottom of the Sub Team report. They will, of course, remain in the original Sub Team document, but an additional document will be dedicated to the data requirements, only to ensure that they are not inadvertently missed. Thanks. Amr ________________________________

2 1

FW: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations
by Lori Schulman July 12, 2017

July 12, 2017

Dear Sunrise Team, I have been asked to choose which chart we should use for today’s RPM meeting. The chart displayed at Jo’Burg was much easier to read but it left off vital notes and information. That said, I am wondering if swapping out the charts would create more confusion. I would have liked the opportunity to update the most recent chart with the full set of information and asked for an extra week to refine it with your input on list. I registered my concern with the RPM staff and volunteer leadership as you will see below. My request was not granted. Given the situation, I am wondering if this group has a strong preference for either version. I am inclined to instruct Amr to use the old version. Please respond ASAP. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:18 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Understood, Lori, with both thanks and apologies. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Amr From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 2:14 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations I will do what I can but I may not respond until early Wednesday morning. As I explained I have a very full schedule tomorrow and I am in the middle of doing another task at the moment and cannot revert to this. I have to say that I am disappointed with the short notice and how this chart issue was handled in Johannesburg. Mary explained and apologized which I accepted. Nonetheless, this switching around at the last minute is not fair to the subteam and I want to note that. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:09 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Hi Lori, Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the short notice. Since we hope to finalize the refinements to the Charter questions during the call on Wednesday, 12 July at 16:00 UTC, time is a little tight. Between now and then, if you feel you have a personal preference for which document would be more suitable for use on that call only, please do let us know. If you have any questions, or would like any clarifications, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Mary and me. Thanks again. Amr From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:59 AM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Dear Amr, Thank you but this is not enough notice for me. I am still digging out and have a full schedule tomorrow. May I have an extra week so I may make a decision and confer with the subteam? Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:52 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans(a)adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy(a)kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations Hi Lori, You might have noticed that a proposed agenda has been circulated to the WG mailing list. The plan is to try to finalize the refinement of the questions that the WG will be answering as part of the Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims reviews during Wednesday’s (12 July) call. After consulting the WG Co-Chairs, it was thought best to ask for your input on what document would be best to use during this final refinement effort. One option would be to use the document produced by the Sub Team, including additional refinements made to-date. This has just been circulated to the WG mailing list, and is attached to this email again. Another option would be to update and use the document displayed in the AC room during the face-to-face meeting at ICANN 59 (also attached). As you will likely be called upon to address questions/comments in whichever document we use (or you may simply wish to weigh in during the discussion), it was felt important that you are comfortable with the decision made, so please let us know if you have any preference. Also noteworthy is that during our planning for future calls, it was decided that the document/questions will not be required in their entirety for presentation during the substantive review/answering of the questions. When we get to that point, it is the plan of the WG leadership team to have slides ready for display in the AC room, which only cover the questions being answered on any given call, as well as any relevant information on data requirements. It is also our intent to give you an opportunity to review these slides before they are used on a week-by-week basis. I hope you find this agreeable. One final note; staff was asked to prepare a separate document to be used to display the data requirements identified by the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. There was some concern raised that these might be missed after having been moved to the bottom of the Sub Team report. They will, of course, remain in the original Sub Team document, but an additional document will be dedicated to the data requirements, only to ensure that they are not inadvertently missed. Thanks. Amr ________________________________

2 2