June 2019 - Gnso-rpm-sunrise

UPDATE: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 27, 2019

June 27, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the attached Status Check Document based on the Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on Tuesday, 25 June. The attached version of the status check document is the version that will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meeting at ICANN65 TODAY (see details below). Sub Team members are requested to review this document prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

REMINDER: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sunrise Sub Team Co-Chairs, we would like to bring to your attention this important reminder: REMINDER: The attached version of the status check document is the version that will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings at ICANN65 starting tomorrow (see details below). Sub Team members are requested to review this document prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Draft Slides and Updated Status Check Document re: Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Further to the message below, please see the attached revised status check document to reflect the proposal relating to Q6 as provided to the list by Kristine and Susan. In addition, please see the attached draft slides for the Sub Team update to the full WG during the meeting on Thursday, 27 June. These slides are based on the revised version of the status check document as provided here. They will be updated as necessary following the discussion during the Sunrise Sub Team meetings at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 at 3:06 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 [65.schedule.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__65.schedule.icann.org_…> Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] RE: Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Ariel Liang June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Hello Kristine, Thank you for pointing out about the delay in updating the wiki. We have now uploaded the latest Status Check document to the wiki as well. Staff can incorporate your proposed text in the Status Check document (in green) and also include your proposed text in the slide deck as additional slides to be consistent. We will also post the updated version Status Check doc in the wiki. Thank you again for your feedback. Best Regards, Ariel From: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Monday, June 24, 2019 at 9:38 AM 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] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Thanks Ariel, Mary, and Julie, We had taken the most current status doc from the wiki as the most current doc and didn’t realize that the emailed doc was something different. Our proposal is different from your text because we didn’t understand there to be wide divergence as your proposed answer suggests. Indeed, we had taken a stab at language because we felt there was good agreement on the call (albeit tentatively, as everyone wanted to think a little more about it). I’d like to propose that we consider the text Susan and I submitted because if we do have consensus, it would help move our report along. The status doc is full of “we can’t agree” and it would be nice to capture places where we did agree. If people in the group disagree with our text, then we could, as you propose, include our language in the deliberations section, but at this point, we believe our text is more than deliberations and may in fact represent a consensus view. I understand we don’t want to open up the doc to wordsmithing viewpoints that are divergent, but I’m deeply concerned that we’re going to submit an initial report that has almost no actual recommendations because we can’t agree on anything. If we can find places where we agree, it’s critical that we include that. Best, Kristine From: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang(a)icann.org> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2019 1:46 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink(a)amazon.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hello Kristine and Susan, Thank you very much for proposing the new language for Q6(a)-(c). On Wednesday, 19 June, staff sent out the updated Status Check document which include proposed language by the Co-Chairs in collaboration with staff. This email (attached) may be missed due to travels. We have included the proposed language for Q6 in the updated status check document below. As you can see, the updated version is much briefer; the discussions and deliberations text will be included in the Summary Table, so nothing will be lost. Please be so kind to review the updated version below and let us know if you have any additional feedback / see whether any revision to your proposed language is needed. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team noted that SDRPs are explained in the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook. The Sub Team generally recognized that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend changes to any Registry Operator specific SDRPs. The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether any changes, deletions, or additions to the mandatory grounds are needed. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Since the Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, it did not consider this question. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the “some subteam members” language. ☺ Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3 [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.trademark-2Dcleari…>. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 – the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

2 1

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Ariel Liang June 24, 2019

June 24, 2019

Hello Kristine and Susan, Thank you very much for proposing the new language for Q6(a)-(c). On Wednesday, 19 June, staff sent out the updated Status Check document which include proposed language by the Co-Chairs in collaboration with staff. This email (attached) may be missed due to travels. We have included the proposed language for Q6 in the updated status check document below. As you can see, the updated version is much briefer; the discussions and deliberations text will be included in the Summary Table, so nothing will be lost. Please be so kind to review the updated version below and let us know if you have any additional feedback / see whether any revision to your proposed language is needed. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel == Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team noted that SDRPs are explained in the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook. The Sub Team generally recognized that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend changes to any Registry Operator specific SDRPs. The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether any changes, deletions, or additions to the mandatory grounds are needed. Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Since the Sub Team had widely diverging opinions on whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, it did not consider this question. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of "Dorrain, Kristine via Gnso-rpm-sunrise" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Reply-To: "Dorrain, Kristine" <dorraink(a)amazon.com> Date: Friday, June 21, 2019 at 8:53 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Question 6 (a-c) proposed text Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the “some subteam members” language. ☺ Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3 [trademark-clearinghouse.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.trademark-2Dcleari…>. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 – the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

2 1

Question 6 (a-c) proposed text
by Dorrain, Kristine June 21, 2019

June 21, 2019

Hi everyone: In an effort to move things along on the murky SDRP questions, Susan and I worked to come up with some initial report language that we think the group might be able to agree on and submit it here for your review. If we can get consensus, we can remove all the "some subteam members" language. :) Thanks and safe travels, Kristine Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Model of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator's Allocation and registration policies, on four non-exhaustive grounds, including on the grounds that the domain name that was registered does not identically match the Trademark Record on which the Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder based its Sunrise Registration. In the time between when the AGB was written and the TMCH requirements were established, the TMCH dispute procedure was created. This procedure allows for challenges to the recordal of marks in the TMCH that underlie Sunrise Registrations. As a result two of AGB requirements for Registry Operator SDRPs are moot; and in any event the registry operator is not the best-placed party to adjudicate these challenges due to the fact that the registry operator is reliant on trademark eligibility information provided to it by the TMCH. We propose a resolution that codifies the current practice, with no changes. Recommendations: The SubTeam recommends that the next Applicant Guidebook be amended as follows: 1. We recommend: the new version of the AGB should include the TMCH dispute resolution procedure for challenging the validity of trademark recordals entered into the TMCH. This procedure is currently published at: https://www.trademark-clearinghouse.com/dispute#3.3. ICANN Org should ensure that its contract for the provision of TMCH services makes the operation of the TMCH dispute resolution procedure a requirement for the TMCH Provider. 2. We recommend: What is current AGB (Module 5) Trademark Clearinghouse Model, section 6.2.4 be amended to remove (i) and (iii). 3. We recommend: The AGB (Module 5) 6.2.4 be amended to include 6.2.6 - the Registry Operator will, upon receipt from the TMCH of a finding that a sunrise registration was based upon an invalid TMCH record (pursuant to a TMCH dispute resolution procedure), immediately cancel the domain name registration. Note: Registry Operators should continue to have the option to offer a broader SDRP to include optional/additional Sunrise criteria as desired. [The below are just edited from the staff doc using both color (red/green) and traditional strike-through/underline to identify deletions/additions.] Q6(b):Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: The Sub Team had difficulty determining whether SDRPs are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created, as each TLD has its own SDRP and there is hardly any data or analysis of the SDRP decisions across all new gTLD. Some sub team members have proposed a solution in Q6(a) that will eliminate the non-functional parts of the SDRP requirements and codify the current practice. Some Sub Team members believe that, in general, SDRPs do not seem to serve the purpose(s) for which they were created. One Sub Team member believes that SDRPs seem obsolete because the TMCH already has a mechanism to challenge the underlying trademark record of a Sunrise registration. Another Sub Team member believes that the limited access to the TMCH and the lack of trademark information to identify whether a complaint is well-grounded makes it difficult to challenge a registration via the SDRP. Nevertheless, one Sub Team member believes that the SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created despite their low usage. Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: Some SubTeam members have proposed some useful changes in Q6(a). One Sub Team member commented that whether SDRPs should be better publicized is contingent on whether they are serving the purpose(s) for which they were created. However, it is not harmful for Registry Operators to periodically remind registrants of the existence of SDRPs. One Sub Team member believes that it is not within the scope of the RPM PDP WG to recommend how SDRPs can be better used. It is up to the Registry Operators and challengers to decide.

1 0

Sunrise Sub Team: ICANN65 Preparation and Meeting Details
by Julie Hedlund June 19, 2019

June 19, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of David McCauley and Greg Shatan, Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached revised version of the status check document in preparation for ICANN65 and the meeting details below. This version of the status check document will provide the framework for discussion at the Sub Team meetings. Sub Team members are requested to review the content prior to the meetings and come prepared to finalize the answers to charter questions, preliminary recommendations, and questions for community input at ICANN65. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs ICANN65 RPM PDP WG & Sub Team Meeting Schedule: Tuesday, 25 June: TM Claims Sub Team: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058263 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Sunrise Sub Team: 13:00 - 15:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058264 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Thursday, 27 June: Sunrise Sub Team: 08:30 - 10:15 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058271 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg Full WG Meeting: 10:30 - 12:00 -- Orangeraie Room: https://65.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1058272 Proposed Agenda: https://community.icann.org/x/b4uGBg

1 0

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat / RPMs Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call / Wednesday, 12 June 2019 18:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 12, 2019

June 12, 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, 12 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8Y_jBg Audio Recording: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-rpm-sunr… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/g4sJIDQSWy7ioORMvNXkFCW5zT8OONcFmSYowm… Chat Transcript: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/hZVr2Uk-Dq2avdZ5yJsxzBnn9Lz9XcQM2_… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** 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

[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

[HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 12 June 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda
by Ariel Liang June 12, 2019

June 12, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework The Sunrise Sub Team is tasked to review the updated Status Check document (see details in “Resource”) by focusing on the draft text for: * Q6 * Q7 * Q8 * Q9 * Q10 * Q11 * Q12 * Q5(b) * Preamble Q 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 12 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 for the remaining agreed charter questions (tackle as many as possible): 1. Q6 (finish discussing proposed ideas for preliminary recommendations) 2. Q7 3. Q8 4. Q9 5. Q10 6. Q11 7. Q12 8. Preamble Q 9. Q5(b) 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 07 June 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sta… Compared to the 24 May 2019 version, this updated version has the following changes: * Added a new Table 1 that provides a snapshot of the Sub Team’s deliberations on all questions, highlighting “open items” based on staff’s preliminary assessment * In Table 2, included draft text for Preamble Q, Q5(b), Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12 based on transcripts, chats, discussion thread comments, and Q8/Q12 google doc * Updated text for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), and Q6, incorporating Sub Team’s input provided during meetings on 29 May and 5 June and from discussion threads * Added a new column for proposed question for community input (if any) * Per Sub Team’s suggestion, removed all discussions/debates/deliberations, particularly for questions that the Sub Team has diverging opinions * To facilitate discussions of Q8 and Q12, posted Sub Team members’ proposed questions for community input from the Google Doc * Updated color coding: Grey text – discussions during meetings; green text – excerpts from discussion threads; blue text – excerpts from Q8/Q12 Google Doc; red text – staff notes. All colored text are deliberations, which will NOT be included in the “status check” document when it is finalized * Updated Table 3 that provides a snapshot of Sub Team’s review of individual proposals, based on Co-Chairs’ preliminary assessment 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. Google Doc for Sunrise Q8/Q12 (created by Kristine D and Maxim A as of 22 May 2019): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y-ld2R-JNL1Ra9KPKpTjLGjaZvjrIFDscsuMMic… Two Sub Team members created this Google Doc to facilitate the discussion for Q8/Q12 and review of preliminary recommendations and proposed questions for community input. 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

4 4