May 2019 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q9
by Ariel Liang June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 9, including Proposal #13. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “proposed answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: 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 22 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 36-40) 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%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9 (Page 36) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 9 on 08 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q9 In light of the evidence gathered above, should the scope of Sunrise Registrations be limited to the categories of goods and services for which? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposal The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #13 on 08 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #13: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

10 39

[Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6
by Ariel Liang June 10, 2019

June 10, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. 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 consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: 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 29-32) 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%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

9 17

[HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 5 June 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Ariel Liang May 31, 2019

May 31, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 5 June at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Continue providing input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise [ NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed at 23:59 UTC on 5 June 2019 – see the mailing list archive here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ ] * Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11) * Q4 * Q5(a) * Q5(b) (including Proposal #7) * Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4) * Q8/Q12 (combined) * Q9 (including Proposal #13) * Q10 * Q11 2. Review the draft proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). Please use the Status Check document as your primary reference. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 5 June at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: 1. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 2. Q4 3. Q5(a) 4. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 5. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: 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 #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * 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… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Closing Date of Sunrise Discussion Threads
by Ariel Liang May 31, 2019

May 31, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, Staff would like to inform you that the discussion threads for the following agreed Sunrise charter questions will remain open until 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 29 May 2019 to facilitate further discussions about the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals. * Preamble Q (& Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (& Proposals #10 & #11) - extended * Q4 - extended * Q5(a) - extended * Q5(b) (& Proposal #7) * Q6 (& Proposals #2 & #4) - extended * Q8/Q12 * Q9 (& Proposal #13) – extended * Q10 * Q11 Only the discussion thread for Q1 has been closed so far. Please provide your input to the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations, as well as comment on the related Individual Proposal via the discussion threads. You may find the links to the opening messages of the discussion threads here: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Thank you for your time and contribution. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

4 5

Information for Q2 (there is no thread yet)
by Dorrain, Kristine May 31, 2019

May 31, 2019

Hi all, In addition to the Board deck describing the picket fence<https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/picket-fe…>, Maxim and I agreed to provide the actual text from the RA and RAA pertaining to the picket fence and pricing. It's in the table below, with links to the relevant agreements. To be clear, this says we may not make a consensus policy that limits prices. As Maxim noted on the call: even if we put such a comment out to the public and it became a formal recommendation, the Council would need to reject it as it's outside their authority. So our point is that it's outside the scope to even ask the question. We hope this helps. Kristine (and Maxim) Agreement link Reference Text Registry Agreement https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approve… Specification 1, Art. 1, specifically 1.4. 1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: 1.4.1 prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services; 1.4.2 modify the terms or conditions for the renewal or termination of the Registry Agreement; 1.4.3 modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies; 1.4.4 modify the provisions in the registry agreement regarding fees paid by Registry Operator to ICANN; or 1.4.5 modify ICANN's obligations to ensure equitable treatment of registry operators and act in an open and transparent manner. Registrar Accreditation Agreement (2013) https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en CONSENSUS POLICIES AND TEMPORARY POLICIES SPECIFICATION 1.4. In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: 1.4.1. prescribe or limit the price of Registrar Services; 1.4.2. modify the limitations on Temporary Policies (defined below) or Consensus Policies; 1.4.3. modify the provisions in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement regarding terms or conditions for the renewal, termination or amendment of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement or fees paid by Registrar to ICANN; or 1.4.4. modify ICANN's obligations to not apply standards, policies, procedures or practices arbitrarily, unjustifiably, or inequitably and to not single out Registrar for disparate treatment unless justified by substantial and reasonable cause, and exercise its responsibilities in an open and transparent manner. Kristine Dorrain Senior Corporate Counsel | gTLD Registry dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>| 206-740-9339

2 1

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat / RPMs Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call / Wednesday, 29 May 2019 18:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland May 29, 2019

May 29, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 29 May 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Z4SjBg Audio Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/9PrBfIKgcVlEDLslzRJKuXbPKI-EVWT-BevKpA… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/H5PmMSbIQpMkhcxgHcH0VRakkfQcGnbMz6CQhB… Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/qdmLUD94iPdkxDTxsH4hr7S12JUdLv_YSX… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://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/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Preamble Q
by Dorrain, Kristine May 29, 2019

May 29, 2019

I have a start here. I tried to stay with the principles I outlined for the Claims subteam: Short and sweet, unemotional, and with direct asks. I think we might need to flesh this out as we review proposals, but it’s a start for people to throw darts at. Best, Kristine Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose? Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period is serving its intended purpose. There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis). 1. The Sunrise period assumes that a TM holder’s rights are more valuable than another customer’s and extends trademark rights beyond those granted by relevant laws – it should be discontinued, or, at a minimum, optional. 2. The Sunrise period was part of a balanced system designed to offset the disproportionate cost of cybersquatting that the new gTLD program would create and, while it’s imperfect, it does appear to be serving its intended purpose. Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects? Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period has had unintended effects. We generally agree it’s imperfect, but for different reasons. There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis). 1. Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: perceived “price gouging” by registries and registrars, confusion about why some TMCH marks were unavailable during sunrise, confusion related to tracking multiple sunrise periods for many launching TLDs and inadequate protections because of “exact match” requirements. 2. Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: the TMCH contains some marks of dubious authenticity and several words with both TM and dictionary meanings – the TMCH is a string comparison tool and cannot consider potential non-infringing uses. The instrument is too blunt. An additional question relates to the balanced system. Is the fact that “both sides are dissatisfied” indicative of a successful outcome? Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)? Proposed Answer: The WG generally found the TMCH was properly validating “use” according to the rules. Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. We found evidence that a few TMCH entries, though they complied with the rules, appeared to have been registered solely for the purpose of entering the TMCH and getting first access to valuable dictionary words. Question for the community: The TMCH rules are fairly straightforward. How much “gaming” of the system is tolerable? Have you seen evidence of such “gaming” that is so egregious as to warrant complex rule changes? Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. Registrants are trademark owners during Sunrise, so see above. Arguably, the issue pointed out above is actually an abuse by “registrants” since the purpose is to obtain a mark simply to enter the field sooner, not to enforce trademark rights. We invite the community’s comment on this, particularly related to the magnitude of the problem. Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. Some members point to sunrise pricing and opaque reserved name lists as “gaming” of sunrise and believe some RY/RR practices circumvented the Sunrise period. Keeping in mind the “picket fence”**, what suggestions do you have for preserving not just the letter, but the spirit of the Sunrise Period? **Contractual restrictions regarding what aspects of registry operations ICANN can and cannot regulate. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Preamble Q Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Preamble Charter Question, including Proposals #1, #3, #8. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “proposed answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: 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 29 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 3-8) 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%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Preamble Charter Question on 22 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposal The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #1, #3, and #8 on 22 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Links to the individual proposals are included below. Proposal #1: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… Proposal #3: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… Proposal #8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] RE: Closing Date of Sunrise Discussion Threads
by Ariel Liang May 29, 2019

May 29, 2019

Hello Kristine, Thank you for your comments. Yes, that’s the latest Sunrise status check document we circulated last Friday. Staff plan to send an updated version of the Status Check document before next week’s call that also includes the draft text for Preamble Q, Q5(b), Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12. All Sunrise charter questions have been discussed by the Sub Team. After the Sub Team has done the first pass of all draft text and the discussion threads are closed, staff will work with Sub Team Co-Chairs to produce another updated version with consideration to all Sub Team input. By then, the Sub Team will still have chance to review / comment on the updated draft and point out any missing information or mischaracterization. Question for Kristine: Are you suggesting keeping the thread for Q5(b) open longer? Comments on the discussion threads do not necessarily need to respond to staff’s draft text, but we understand the point you raised. Transcript for last week’s call just became available (when Q5(b) was discussed) and we will include the draft text for Q5(b) in the updated status check document asap. Best Regards, Ariel From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:09 PM To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Closing Date of Sunrise Discussion Threads Ariel, is this doc current? https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Documents%2C+Drafts%2C+Res… All: I apologize I’ve just been treading water due to other constraints on my time lately. I thought my comments were being captured in the conversations, but I’m a little worried they might not be, or I’m looking at the wrong doc. I know we’ve had some good discussions on a few threads that aren’t fully captured in the doc yet, so I won’t re-hash those, but only call out a few things I noticed. If that link is right, then Q3a and b are wrong (I cannot find the thread). There is absolutely no consensus that RY/RR name lists and pricing should be restricted in any way. At best I suggested potentially finding a way to use TM-PDDRP for that, but SDRP doesn’t fit the use case at all. I guess it’s fine if we need to reflect this viewpoint, but I think the viewpoint of what is likely to be the whole of retail RYs and RRs should also be reflected and I’m troubled there is not even placeholder text for that Was someone supposed to draft that? Q4 better reflects the lack of consensus, though I think it’s still missing a basic “freedom to operate” perspective from RYs/RRs. Q5a- text in orange might related to any of the subparts, but we should also note the business issues with forcing ROs to hold off on launching their TLDs for even longer, at a daily cost to themselves. This just defers cost to another party. Q5(b)…there is no discussion on the doc so how can we close it? But in the event I didn’t make my views clear before. Sunrise should remain mandatory. No either/or. Q6a…Staff comment/note #2… All RY zone files are updated daily. I’m not sure where this recommendation came from. I opposed comments 3-5 and I think there is good discussion on this thread. No consensus, clearly. Q8&12: no comments on the work Maxim and I submitted yet? Q 9 : also good discussion on the thread that I won’t re-hash (and it looks like, I won’t have time to participate in). But no consensus. Q10 we asked and answered this. Q11 Did we discuss this at all? Sorry for my cursory thoughts, but I didn’t want the doc to be finalized yet and I can’t remember where we’re at. Best, Kristine PS: I’m going to try to make both full calls tomorrow but may have conflicts. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 12:38 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Closing Date of Sunrise Discussion Threads Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, This is the last call for comments on the Sunrise discussion threads. The scheduled closing date/time for all discussion threads is tomorrow, Wednesday, 29 May at 23:59 UTC. Per discussion with the Sub Team Co-Chairs, if you believe any Sunrise discussion thread should remain open longer, please nominate here. Furthermore, if any discussion thread were to be extended, it must be closed no later than Friday 31 May at 23:59 UTC, per Co-Chairs’ direction. Currently the following Sunrise discussion threads are open: * Preamble Q (& Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (& Proposals #10 & #11) - extended * Q4 - extended * Q5(a) - extended * Q5(b) (& Proposal #7) * Q6 (& Proposals #2 & #4) - extended * Q8/Q12 * Q9 (& Proposal #13) – extended * Q10 * Q11 Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 8:17 AM 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: Closing Date of Sunrise Discussion Threads Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, Staff would like to inform you that the discussion threads for the following agreed Sunrise charter questions will remain open until 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 29 May 2019 to facilitate further discussions about the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals. * Preamble Q (& Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (& Proposals #10 & #11) - extended * Q4 - extended * Q5(a) - extended * Q5(b) (& Proposal #7) * Q6 (& Proposals #2 & #4) - extended * Q8/Q12 * Q9 (& Proposal #13) – extended * Q10 * Q11 Only the discussion thread for Q1 has been closed so far. Please provide your input to the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations, as well as comment on the related Individual Proposal via the discussion threads. You may find the links to the opening messages of the discussion threads here: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Thank you for your time and contribution. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

[HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 29 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Ariel Liang May 28, 2019

May 28, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework (by the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC) Pending any further suggestions from the Sub Team Co-Chairs, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8), Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11), Q4, Q5(a), Q5(b) (including Proposal #7), Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4), Q8/Q12 (combined), Q9 (including Proposal #13), Q10, and Q11 -- NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed on 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019 2. Review the staff drafts of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). NOTE: * Please primarily reference the Status Check document when comment/suggest edits on staff drafts of proposed answers and preliminary recommendations. * Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ suggestion, instead of directly redlining staff’s document, please insert your suggested revisions/text via the Discussion Thread in the body of an email, or in a clean format that does not involve redlining staff’s draft text. This is to avoid any potential version confusion and keep the suggested edits easy to review/incorporate. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: 1. Q1 & Proposal #9 2. Q2 3. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 4. Q4 5. Q5(a) 6. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 7. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: 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 #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * 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… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 29 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Dorrain, Kristine May 25, 2019

May 25, 2019

So I’m probably doing this wrong because I responded to the preamble and now I’m looking at the Proposals separately, but if I don’t do it this way, it’s going to be a mess. So – Proposal #1 I strongly oppose eliminating Sunrise. It was part of the tradeoff associated with the new gTLD program. Brand owners would be exposed to exponentially more risk with hundreds of new gTLDs and in return, they’d get a first right of refusal for names that matched their marks. We can see that this is not being overwhelmingly abused because the data the proponent cites shows that the TMCH is not full of hundreds of thousands of terms, and most TLDs saw a couple hundred TM terms registered, at best. This shows not that the period is ineffective, but that brand owners are generally using these tools judiciously. This information, combined with evidence that UDRP filings are up again, indicates that brand owners continue to face growing levels of abuse despite these protections. Therefore preventative and curative mechanisms are best deployed jointly, to allow brand owners to choose the strategy that’s most effective for their marks. Furthermore, most “reputable” registries would likely offer some form of sunrise anyway – fragmenting that by letting everyone do their own thing would impose significantly higher costs on brand owners that standardization has mitigated so far. I also want to rebut a couple of incorrect assertions in the proposal. “Just as one would not buy a $500,000 security system to protect a painting worth $100, ICANN should not require mandatory RPMs that are disproportionate to the actual risks…” --> While a domain itself may be worth less than $100, the brand value often ranges into the millions of dollars. Sunrise protects the BRAND, not a domain name. “Furthermore, sunrise represents an expansion of "rights" for TM holders, relative to their actual rights in trademark law. As such, sunrise should never have existed in the first place.” --> Sunrise doesn’t expand a *legal* right. No one is saying a TM holder has a *legal* right to a domain name. The community, in balancing costs, determined that it was *equitable* to grant brand owners that already had certain rights and were willing to jump through certain hoops with a slight advantage that offsets the harm they were about to experience. This is a community decision about fairness and balance, not the law. These are my initial thoughts and now I’m going to put a pin in this and try to start my long weekend. Thanks, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 2:07 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 29 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework (by the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC) Pending any further suggestions from the Sub Team Co-Chairs, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8), Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11), Q4, Q5(a), Q5(b) (including Proposal #7), Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4), Q8/Q12 (combined), Q9 (including Proposal #13), Q10, and Q11 -- NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed on 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019 2. Review the staff drafts of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). NOTE: * Please primarily reference the Status Check document when comment/suggest edits on staff drafts of proposed answers and preliminary recommendations. * Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ suggestion, instead of directly redlining staff’s document, please insert your suggested revisions/text via the Discussion Thread in the body of an email, or in a clean format that does not involve redlining staff’s draft text. This is to avoid any potential version confusion and keep the suggested edits easy to review/incorporate. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: a. Q1 & Proposal #9 b. Q2 c. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 d. Q4 e. Q5(a) f. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 g. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: 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 #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * 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… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0