April 2019 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 24 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear All, For the meeting on Wednesday, 24 April at 18:00 UTC for 90 minutes the Sub Team will continue the development of preliminary recommendations and the review of individual proposals. Here is a proposed Draft Agenda and links to resources below. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations and review of individual proposals: * Draft answers/recommendations for Q1 and Q5(a); * Review Proposal #9 * Remaining Agreed Charter Questions sequentially (time permitting) 3. AOB Resources: Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions:https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSun… * Q1: pp.8-12 * Q5(a): pp.24-26 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team: * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf…

1 0

[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q3
by Ariel Liang April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 3, including Individual Proposals #10 and #11. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposals: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 15-20) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise Summary Table%5D %2816 April 2019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum…>. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3(a)-(b) (Pages 15-17) (a) Should Registry Operators be required to create a mechanism that allows trademark owners to challenge the determination that a second level name is a Premium Name or Reserved Name? (b) Additionally, should Registry Operators be required to create a release mechanism in the event that a Premium Name or Reserved Name is challenged successfully, so that the trademark owner can register that name during the Sunrise Period? Proposed Answer: ICANN Org should establish a uniform mechanism that allows trademark owners to challenge a determination by a Registry Operator that a second level name is a "Premium Name" or a "Reserved Name" during the Sunrise Period. ICANN Org should require Registry Operators to create a release mechanism in the event that a Premium Name or Reserved Name is challenged successfully, so that the trademark owner can register that name during the Sunrise Period. Draft Recommendation: The Sub Team recommends that ICANN Org establish a uniform mechanism to allow trademark owners to challenge a Registry Operator’s determination that a second level name is a “Premium Name” or “Reserved Name”. The Sub Team recommends, further, that the following Implementation Guidance guide the Implementation Review Team (IRT), which will be created to implement approved policy recommendations from this PDP: * The mechanism could be a component of an enhanced Sunrise Dispute Resolution Procedure (SDRP), where the challenger brings the issue to the Registry Operator first via a formal process within the registry, with the possibility of an appeal to a neutral third party if the initial direct registry interaction does not result in the desired outcome for the challenger. * If the challenger ultimately prevails, the Registry Operator would be required to change the designation of the domain name at issue such that it is no longer identified as a "Premium Name" or a "Reserved Name" and becomes available for registration by the challenger. * As part of the proposed challenge mechanism, a defense, or ground for denying the challenge, should be that the registry must continue designating a certain name as "reserved" to comply with other ICANN policies or applicable law or due to other reasonable justifications. * The IRT should consider building carve-outs/caveats into the suggested challenge mechanism. The challenge mechanism is not an absolute/automatic challenge; it should include the legitimate grounds for the Premium Name designation or Reserved Name status. * To avoid overcomplication, the IRT should consider restricting the challenge mechanism to unique non-dictionary trademarks that are recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse, and/or consider placing a numeric limit on the number of Reserved Names challenged by a trademark owner. * The IRT should consider modeling the challenge mechanism after the Passive Holding doctrine developed in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) jurisprudence, with clear definitions to prevent potential misinterpretation by the panelists. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3(c) (Pages 16-17) (c) What concerns might be raised by either or both of these requirements? Proposed Answer: One Sub Team member noted that Registry Operators may be concerned that any change to the Reserved list will affect their ability to run the required real-time platforms. This may subsequently result in unpredictable consequences, including: violating applicable law/ICANN policies, raising security and stability concerns, undermining Spec 11, rendering the reserved GEO TLDs ineffective. The Sub Team member also noted that Registry Operators may have concerns about gaming by trademark owners and the number of challenges brought by multiple trademark owners that registries have difficulty handling. Another Sub Team member noted the concern that the suggested challenge mechanism may be of little/infrequent use due to the subjectivity, complications, and expense, as well as potentially fewer domain name applications in the next round of TLDs. Draft Recommendation: The Sub Team recommends that the RPM Working Group refer the following question to the SubPro Working Group: would it be feasible to recommend that the names recorded in the TMCH either cannot be designated premium or can be designated premium at a certain price ceiling as an exception to ICANN’s position about pricing? Individual Proposals Please reference the following pages in the Summary Table for the draft answers to the three questions regarding the individual proposals. Links to the individual proposals are also included below. Proposal #10 (Pages 17-18): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… Proposal #11 (Pages 21-22): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

[HOMEWORK] Due Wed 24 April 18:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang April 18, 2019

April 18, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 24 April at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3 and Question 4, including Individual Proposals #10 and #11 2. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9; 3. Review Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a). Resource Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) contains draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals in relation to the Agreed Charter Questions: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum… * Q1: pp.8-12 * Q3: pp.15-20 * Q4: pp.20-24 * Q5(a): pp.24-26 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… Intended Scope of Work for the Next Meeting According to the current workplan, during the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 24 April, the Sub Team is expected to proceed with developing preliminary recommendations for Questions 1 and 5(a), as well as the review of Individual Proposal #9. If the Sub Team progresses quickly and if time permits, the Sub Team will work on the remaining Agreed Charter Questions sequentially. While the discussions of Questions 3 and 4 and review of Individual Proposals #10 and #11 have not been completed during the call this week, Sub Team members have been asked to provide any additional input via the discussion threads by 15 May 2019 (unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise). Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 17 April 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 17, 2019

April 17, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 17 April 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-04-17+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Action Items: 1. Staff will update the summary table based on the transcript from the 17 April meeting. 2. Staff will open email threads on the Sub Team distribution list to facilitate drafting of the answers to charter questions and preliminary recommendations. 3. Staff will send a message to the Sub Team concerning the homework/preparation for next week’s meeting. 4. Sub Team members will be encouraged to continue discussions on the email threads and complete the homework. Brief Notes: Question 3: The Sub Team has completed this discussion; it can continue and further discussion on the thread on the list. Question 4(a): Are Registry Operator Reserved Names practices unfairly limiting participation in Sunrise by trademark owners? -- Have a discussion around “unfairly”. -- On the use of the word “unfairly” that is there for us to think about balance. On balance is this such an overarching problem that we should be amending the RPMs. Don’t think the data supports that. We do see what we expected that some names would be suppressed. -- Could look at Sunrise challenge mechanisms. -- On the use of PICs - individual proposal 11 doesn’t relate to Q4, it relates to Q3. -- Could look into justification for dealing with this and the hurdles one would have to get over to challenge a reserved name. -- Susan Payne’s proposal to add a contractual obligation to the Registry Agreement (if agreement that there is a problem to be addressed). Question 4(b): Should Section 1.3.3 of Specification 1 of the Registry Agreement be modified to address these concerns? Section 1.3.3: reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); and -- Seems like this might be out of scope. Relates to consensus policies. -- How would one change 1.3.3 if at all? -- Could be that the original charter question does not make sense. -- Everything in 1.3.3 relates to 1.2 -- scope of consensus policies in the Bylaws. The Bylaws that reflect the scope of the Consensus Policies spelled out in Spec 1 are in Annex G-1 & G-2: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#annexG1 . -- 1.4.4 prevents that from Spec 1. -- Perhaps the answer is “no” to this question as this is outside the scope of the WG. Question 4(c): Should Registry Operators be required to publish their Reserved Names lists -- what Registry concerns would be raised by that publication, and what problem(s) would it solve? -- Support for publication. -- Some registries allow you to check if you can register a name or not -- and if not it is likely in the reserved names list, but not mandatory. -- Reasons to not publish depend on jurisdiction and laws. -- Move from a challenge mechanism to an inquiry mechanism. Flesh out on the email thread. -- List is not static and varies from registry operator. Those that they are choosing to reserve at this time to just not release them. -- 100 list are those you are reserving for your own use (different list). -- In Spec 5, Section 3.2 speaks to the 100 names; Section 3.3 to the ones withheld pursuant to Section 2.6 of the main agreement. And the Sunrise Charter Questions Sub Team’s proposed definition of Reserved Name referred expressly to those withheld under Section 2.6.  -- Perhaps consider the inquiry mechanism, but not necessarily a clear path forward. Question 4(d): Should Registry Operators be required to provide trademark owners in the TMCH notice, and the opportunity to register, the domain name should the Registry Operator release it – what Registry concerns would be raised by this requirement? -- Continue discussion on the thread on the Sub Team email distribution list.

1 0

Updated Sunrise Summary Table + Homework Reminder
by Ariel Liang April 17, 2019

April 17, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, This is a reminder for the homework due on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC. To facilitate your completion of homework and the discussions during the meeting, staff have now included an updated Sunrise Summary Table (draft as of 16 April 2019), which has been reviewed by the Sub Team Co-Chairs. This updated Summary Table will be used during the meeting. What’s New: Compared to the 8 March version Summary Table, this update version has included the tentative answers to agreed charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and summaries of Sub Team review of the individual proposals so far. The new content has been developed based on staff’s encapsulation of the Sub Team discussions. Where We Stand on Preliminary Recommendations: So far, the Sunrise Sub Team has developed draft preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, and Q7. The discussions of Q2 and Q7 are likely completed; the discussions of Q1, Q3, and Q4 are not completed due to the review of individual proposals. The Sunrise Sub Team needs to finish reviewing Proposal #10 (related to Q3) and Proposal #11 (related to Q4) in order to conclude the discussions of Q3 and Q4. Then the Sunrise Sub Team needs to revisit the preliminary recommendations for Q1 when reviewing Proposal #9. What to Focus on Now: When reading the updated Sunrise Summary Table, the Sub Team should focus on reviewing the items that are bolded and colored in green. These items are expected to be covered during the upcoming meeting. * Sunrise Q1: p.8 * Sunrise Q2: pp.12-13 * Sunrise Q3: pp.15-18 * Sunrise Q4: pp.20-22 * Sunrise Q7: pp.32-33 Next Steps: Staff will let the Sub Team know how to provide input to the draft preliminary recommendations. As a heads-up, a discussion thread for each agreed charter question, which includes its relevant individual proposal(s), will be launched gradually to facilitate review/feedback. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Date: Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 2:30 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [HOMEWORK] Due Wed 17 April 18:00 UTC Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to complete: 1. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10; 2. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11; 3. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9; 4. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a). Resources NOTE: Staff have been informed that there are temporary tech issues with the community wiki, so please use the attachments for now. Summary Table (draft as of 08 March 2019): It contains all Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, as well as the reference to and summary of all data gathered to assist answering these questions. Regarding the most updated version that contains the draft preliminary recommendations that staff have already encapsulated, Sub Team Co-Chairs will discuss with staff about the best approach and timing to circulate them to facilitate the Sub Team’s review. We will keep the Sub Team posted. * Question 1: pp.8-11 * Question 3: pp.13-15 * Question 4: pp.15-18 * Question 5(a): pp.18-20 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Initial staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Individual Proposal #9 (Q1) * Individual Proposal #10 (Q3) * Individual Proposal #11 (Q4) Intended Scope of Work for the Upcoming Meeting According to the current workplan, during the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 17 April, the Sub Team is expected to have completed the preliminary recommendations for Questions 3 and 4, as well as the review of Individual Proposals #10 and #11. If the Sub Team progresses faster than expected and if time permits, the Sub Team can also proceed with developing preliminary recommendations for Questions 1 and 5(a), as well as the review of Individual Proposal #9. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Update - Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 17 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 16, 2019

April 16, 2019

Dear All, Please see the agenda below and the attached documents for the meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC. Note the update that because the meeting will be run in Zoom, rather than Adobe Connect, we have included a brief introduction to Zoom on the agenda. 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Zoom Introduction 3. Development of Preliminary Recommendations: * Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10 (see attached PDF) * Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11 (see attached PDF) * Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9 (see attached PDF) * Discussion agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a) (see attached summary table) 4. AOB Thank you very much. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Proposed Agenda - RPM PDP WG Sunrise Sub Team - 17 April 2019
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear All, Please see the agenda below and the attached documents for the meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC. 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) * Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10 (see attached PDF) * Continue discussion of agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11 (see attached PDF) * Discuss agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1 (see attached summary table), in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9 (see attached PDF) * Discussion agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a) (see attached summary table) 2. AOB Thank you very much. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

Actions & Notes: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 10 April 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 10 April 2019 (18:00-19:00 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Staff, as a continuation of the action item from the 03 April call, will continue to compile into the summary table draft language for preliminary recommendations as suggested in the Sub Team discussions. Staff will initiate email threads on charter questions under discussion and associated draft preliminary recommendations for Sub Team members to review and discuss. 2. Sub Team members: Complete the homework (see separate [HOMEWORK] email with PDFs) in preparation for the next meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC: * Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10; * Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11; * Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9; * Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a). Notes: 1. Updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs): No updates provided. 2. Development of Preliminary Recommendations: Overview: -- Focus attention on the work between now and mid-May (6 meetings). -- Supplement what we are doing on the calls with work on the list. -- Thinking of creating email threads per charter question. -- Staff is encapsulating potential preliminary recommendation language to share with the sub team for review. -- Only forwarding to the WG the proposals that have broad support. -- Consider moving to 90-minute meetings. a. Discuss individual proposals relating to question 3 (see individual proposals at: https://community.icann.org/x/R6EWBg) -- #10 -- Seems like this could be an outlier behavior. -- Where you have generic words or non-fanciful/famous marks that is one case; fanciful/famous marks is another case. -- Registry operators usually have a basis /case for why they are placing a premium pricing or reserve on a name -- usually to protect the TM holder. -- We do have the issue of pricing, which is out of scope. -- Might consider an informal approach, such as a best practice. -- Registries cannot look into the TMCH for any name; they need to be able to verify against the TMCH list for necessary circumstance. -- Maxim Alzoba: 1. As I understand the 'not fair' point happens where Sunrise has differentiated pricing (and not just - any word = same price), but this can be used only as a good practice suggestion (outside of picket fence) -- Maxim Alzoba: 2. TMCH subscribers need to be verified by TLDs, in case of this hypothetical procedure (currently Registries are prohibited from looking into TMCH) -- Maxim Alzoba: 3. the hypothetical process (if we go there) should have safeguards from not very good actors (like parties lost URDP too often), and parties registering TMs on basis of how word is good in the dictionary , (I am not talking about good TM owners, who protect their business and ventures) -- Helpful to get input from Compliance. But they can enforce only what is in the contract, around the contract, and policies. b. Begin discussion of preliminary recommendations and individual proposals for question 4 -- #11 Individual Proposal #11: -- On picket fence and pricing: there can be pricing provisions in the registry agreement. -- Seems that this would be a highly subjective process to come up with a formal system for how to adjudicate these. -- What about a general policy recommendation that pricing policies should not circumvent other policies (e.g., RPMs)? -- Registry Agreement Spec 1 is one approach, PICs are another. -- Doesn't seem a big a risk for the PIC process to be abused. -- TMCH has been abused.

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Proposal to Extend Sunrise Sub Team Meetings to 90 minutes as of 17 April
by Julie Hedlund April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear all, Further to the message below, as we’ve heard no objections and there was general agreement on the call yesterday, we will proceed to schedule the next call for 90 minutes. Best, Julie From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 3:21 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Proposal to Extend Sunrise Sub Team Meetings to 90 minutes as of 17 April Dear all, Per the discussion on our call today, the Sub Team Co-Chairs and support staff have suggested extending the calls, beginning with the call on 17 April at 18:00 UTC, to 90 minutes to help in expediting the work. If there is general agreement the invite to the next call will be sent out with the new call duration. Thank you very much. Best, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1 0

[HOMEWORK] Due Wed 17 April 18:00 UTC
by Ariel Liang April 11, 2019

April 11, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 17 April at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to complete: 1. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 3, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #10; 2. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 4, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #11; 3. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1, in conjunction with Individual Proposal #9; 4. Reviewing Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 5(a). Resources NOTE: Staff have been informed that there are temporary tech issues with the community wiki, so please use the attachments for now. Summary Table (draft as of 08 March 2019): It contains all Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, as well as the reference to and summary of all data gathered to assist answering these questions. Regarding the most updated version that contains the draft preliminary recommendations that staff have already encapsulated, Sub Team Co-Chairs will discuss with staff about the best approach and timing to circulate them to facilitate the Sub Team’s review. We will keep the Sub Team posted. * Question 1: pp.8-11 * Question 3: pp.13-15 * Question 4: pp.15-18 * Question 5(a): pp.18-20 Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Initial staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Individual Proposal #9 (Q1) * Individual Proposal #10 (Q3) * Individual Proposal #11 (Q4) Intended Scope of Work for the Upcoming Meeting According to the current workplan, during the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 17 April, the Sub Team is expected to have completed the preliminary recommendations for Questions 3 and 4, as well as the review of Individual Proposals #10 and #11. If the Sub Team progresses faster than expected and if time permits, the Sub Team can also proceed with developing preliminary recommendations for Questions 1 and 5(a), as well as the review of Individual Proposal #9. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0