- Gnso-rpm-sunrise - lists.icann.org

Statistical issues/validity of the Analysis Group survey results
by George Kirikos Dec. 12, 2018

Dec. 12, 2018

Hi folks, To prepare for tomorrow's call, I analyzed the multiple previous calls we had regarding the Analysis Group survey results (October 21, October 22, and November 28, 2018). Sub team members might want to review the transcripts too, as an in-depth review of the transcripts and materials demonstrates that little or no weight should be attached to the results, and so it really calls into question the use of the "survey analysis tools" for those results. Below are some key snippets: ***** October 21, RPM Working Group Session 2 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-2-21oct18-en… a) Bottom of page 6: I specifically ask about how they determined sample size, etc. Answer (which goes into page 7): "No, that's a really good question, George, and I appreciate it. I mean, I think that the - I have a couple of thoughts and responses to what you were raising and I essentially kind of, well, I won't say agree with everything but I think I do. You know, it's - given the available budget for this project, it was difficult for or I think it would have been impossible for us to get the number of responses that one would have wanted to have to kind of - relatively small margin of errors on each of the different estimates in the, you know, that we ultimately kind of were able to provide in the various tables in the report. And so I wouldn't say that this is a statistically representative sample and I wouldn't say that it comes with small margins of error but I would say that the trends, at least that we're seeing in the data, I would say are informative. I wouldn't, you know, hang my hat if my life depended on it in terms of relying on these results but I think you see some pretty clear trends, at least with respect to the registrants, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys. " "But George, and I think just to go back to your point, it's very well taken. You know, I think for the registrant, the potential registrant and the trademark surveys, given the number of responses that we received, I feel pretty confident about what those results are saying with respect to how people view various components of the rights protection mechanisms. Sorry. " "And but, with respect to the registries and the registrars, where we received a very small number of respondents, I would view that data as more anecdotal than anything else." [admits that it's not a statistically representative sample; note how the statement of "confident about what the results are saying" is entirely inconsistent with the later answers about statistical confidence levels for November 28, 2018 meeting!, also incorrectly talks about "trends", see October 22, 2018 call snippet below that directly addresses the "trends" issue] b) Page 10: survey was done in English, excluded Asian countries which dominate new gTLDs! George Kirikos: Thanks, George Kirikos for the transcript. Given the actual distribution, country by country, of new gTLDs, particularly the high concentration of registrants from China, I was wondering if there was any thought given to doing the survey of, you know, Asian and Chinese in particular registrants, because they obviously outnumber registrants from other countries? So was there any thought given to translating the survey into Chinese and getting their feedback? Thank you. Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. Thanks for the question, George, but based on our budget limitation and discussion with Analysis Group and translating is really out of our capability in terms of the resources allocated, so we have to do the English but we did encourage our colleagues, especially in the GSC, to distribute the survey to countries outside English-speaking countries and then just tried to promote it as widely as possible. So mainly because of the budget resources, that's why we couldn't do that translation. c) page 13: admission that this was not a random sample George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos for the transcript. I'd actually like to go to the page directly before that, which is Page number 10, where you could actually look at the demographics of the countries. You can see, for example, that Canada represented 12% of the sample, which is the exact same percentage of the United States. We know that Canada has one tenth of the population of the United States, so do you actually believe that this is a randomly sampled, representative sample based on the fact that these proportions are way out of whack with the actual distribution, country by country? Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes and I would say that it is not a random sample d) page 14: we learn responses for panel survey were 75 cents/survey George Kirikos: Yes, George Kirikos here. Yes, that fraction seems very high to me and we would actually know, from the experience of the registrars, what the actual figures should be. I want to actually ask about the composition of the panel sample, I think it said somewhere in the report that these were people that were paid small amounts to participate in the survey. I know from Mechanical Turk and other things, other survey systems like that, you have a bunch of people that can take a survey for $2 or $3 and you know, make extra money in their spare time and self-qualify for the survey, declare that they are registrants, et cetera in order to make an extra few bucks. Can you tell us exactly how much the panel sample was paid per response? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I believe they were paid 75 cents. There's some variation based on the country so I think it can go as much as like a $1.25 or $1.50 but it's around 75 cents. e) page 17: obvious illogical answers contaminated the data Paul Keating: (Paul Keating), for the record. Just a quick question, because you said that people could select multiple responses here. If someone had responded with a response to a question that you - basically concludes they don't know what they're - they don't understand the issue, did you eliminate those from the statistics used if they happened to also have responded to the first two? So in other words, if someone responded to one of the first two, but then clearly responded to the last two, it seems logical that you would disregard that entire response. Thank you. Greg Rafert: Yes, that's a good point. We have not, and I think we should. Similarly on page 29: Woman 6: To the same question that was asked earlier, I think by Paul, if somebody answered yes to all of these, are you going to go back and kind of eliminate that? Greg Rafert: Yes, I think it's a really good suggestion change - suggested change. [unclear whether that's been done or not] f) page 32: members of this PDP *not* prevented from answering survey!! George Kirikos: George Kirikos for the transcript. Do - there's an echo. There's still an echo. Better now. I wanted to ask whether members of this PDP were prevented from doing - filling out this survey or is there overlap in membership of this PDP and answers to the survey? Thank you. Greg Rafert: So they were not prevented from taking the survey. ***** October 22, 2018: RPM Working Group Session 3 ***** https://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/transcript-gnso-rpm-session-3-22oct18-en… g) page 10: incorrect claim that there are "trends", another admission of not a statistically representative sample Greg Rafert: ... I think there are some useful trends and interesting data points that we've identified in the survey. But I certainly would not say that this is a statistically representative sample of registry operators, for example. h) page 13: need to be careful due to the low number of responses Greg Rafert:... I want to be of course careful with kind of how we interpret any of the results coming out of this because very few individuals actually responded to it... i) pages 17-18: Paul Keating asks about the small sample; admissions about lack of statistical validity Paul Keating: (V) Paul. Paul Keating. I have a question. It's directed at - I'm trying to solicit from you a little bit of guidance. This was a survey. A lot of work went into it, both by members of the sub teams and by yourselves. But we had a pretty small survey universe and there would be, if someone were to look at it from a statistically valid standpoint, it wouldn’t be considered very - it wouldn’t be given lots of weight. Let's put it that way. So what would - how do you think we ought to take this information and how much importance should we be placing on individual responses versus the report as a whole? Thank you. Greg Rafert: I think it's a really good question. I agree. I certainly wouldn't ascribe any kind of statistical validity to the survey instrument. I would kind of view it as part of the process. I've worked on a couple of ICANN reviews and within the context of a given ICANN review, we do surveys, we do interviews, we talk to other participants within the ICANN community. We read kind of external past year materials and reports. And so the survey is kind of one component of that data collection exercise and thinking about the problem. And we kind of - it's not weighted more or less than any of those pieces. We kind of think about it as a holistic exercise and seeing are we identifying trends that we've also kind of heard about from just discussions with people in the industry, for example. So I would view it -- and I don’t know if this is helpful or not -- I would view it as a piece of information. I think there's some interesting trends in some of the questions. Is that the exact state of the world? So is it really that 55% of all registry operators believe X? Probably not but it might give you an indication as to kind of where people's views and beliefs are headed. Paul Keating: This is Paul Keating following up. So it's more anecdotal than anything else? Greg Rafert: Certainly for the registry operator and registrar surveys I would say that it's anecdotal information. It can be informative but you have to kind of look at it through the lens of there being not a large number of responses. For the trademark owner potential registrant and registrant surveys, one thing we don’t have a large enough sample to say that it's statistically valid. But given the higher response rates there, especially for the potential registrants, I say it begins to move away from the world of anecdotes and to be something a little bit more. Paul McGrady: This is Paul McGrady for the record. Just to follow-up on the real Paul's question, which is what is better, what we have here, or no information? Right, is it better to have this, anecdotal information perhaps for the contracted parties, something more than an anecdotal for the rest. Is that a - in terms of decision making, is it better to have this or is it better to have nothing? Greg Rafert: I at least think so. I think it's of course largely up for you all to decide but I would think that it's better than having no information. j) pages 22-23: I call out the issue of whether this report actually identifies "trends", and we also learn the budget for the survey Ariel Liang: ..And then there is a question from George Kirikos for Greg. Greg has a PhD so I trust that he can answer this. Would Greg confirm that trends refer to changes of data over time and this survey was a one-time survey. Thus, isn't it entire incorrect to claim that this survey is an indicator of a trend when there is no way to detect change over time from a single survey? And then he also asked another question. What was the actual budget for this survey? Sorry, this is Ariel Liang from staff. We can probably answer George's second question. The actual budget is $50,000. Greg Rafert: And to your first question, George, yes, I was being a little loose with my language in terms of using the word trends. So I definitely did not mean to imply or suggest that we're looking at changes in perceptions or people's views over time. k) page 25-26: Paul Keating also calls out the issue of members of this PDP filling out the survey Paul Keating: Hi, Paul Keating for the record and I'm not trying to add controversy where none needs to be but I was just thinking about Paul's comment about more information is better than no information. And I remember that yesterday, you didn't have a restriction on at least the council's participation in the survey as prohibiting someone who is in the working group already from participating in in the survey. So I'm wondering how many people in any of those questions participated who were actually working group members. And the only reason is that if we're going to allocate importance in any degree to the survey, want to make sure that we're not double counting people, right, because we have our own opinions during the working group and working group sessions. And I don't want there to be a perceived even concept out there that certain people, whether it's on the domain registrant side or the trademark claimant side were in the survey pumping up the results so that effectively their position during the working group could be sustained to a higher degree of importance. So if you could verify that, if there's any way of verifying it, or just simply asking people -- members of the working group -- whether or not they participated in the survey that would answer the question and eliminate a potential source of conflict and suspicion. Thank you. Greg Rafert: So to verify, we would need them to identify to us that they took the survey and we can also identify the responses as long as they gave us some sense for - assuming they remembered how they answered certain questions. And maybe that latter part is not possible. l) page 31: admission that there's not a representative sample of trademark owners for this survey Ariel Liang: This is Ariel from staff. There is a question from George Kirikos. I'd like to point Greg to Page A2-526. Is that a representative sample of the entire universe of trademark holders given the number of firms who - and with revenues in billions of dollars? And he has a follow-up. Greg Rafert: Yes, I would say it is not a representative sample of trademark owners. ***** November 28, 2018 RPM PDP Working Group meeting ***** https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+R… https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/99483940/Questions%20%26%2… m) no statistical confidence intervals, margin of errors! Question (by George Kirikos, page 5): None of the tables include the asserted “margin of error” numbers in the current draft of the final report. Please provide them at a 95% confidence level. [one can use a standard calculator such as https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/margin-oferror-calculator/ to do this; if it’s too much work to do this for all tables, please advise what your “population” or “universe” number is, and calculate the margin of error for tables: Q1a (page 10), Q6 (page 12), Q6a (page 12), Q6a.i (page 13), Q8 (page 15), Q9 (page 21), Q4a (page 32), Q21 (page 38), Q21a.i. (page 39), Q5 (page 43) Q2 (page 47), and Q13b (page 53). Answer (from the Analysis Group): "Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results." n) from November 28, 2018 call transcript, page 6, no anti-fraud measures! https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcrip… George Kirikos: ...So I was wondering whether the list of questions and answers that we saw was complete. Or whether there are also these anti-fraud questions that were inter-mingled in the survey. To try to deter that kind of abuse. " Answer (transcript says "Greg Shatan", but should be "Greg Rafert" obviously): "Yes, this is Greg. There were no anti-fraud questions in the survey since we were just trying to keep it to be as short as possible. I don't think we will saw much evidence of people randomly answering questions in the survey. Generally, the ways in which people answered questions were pretty consistent. And I think, you know, we can certainly look into this two that received cease and desist letters. It's possible that we were mistaken in stating that. But if they did we can certainly look if there are any kind of other fishy responses by those two individuals. Thanks." (Key part of the above: No anti-fraud questions! Rebecca Tushnet obviously identified (previous to that part of the transcript) that folks from the panel were simply providing random answers that don't correspond to observable real world event proportions (i.e. lawsuits, UDRPs, etc.), in order to earn their 75 cent payouts as quickly as possible) In conclusion, there were serious issues with this survey, and it'd be difficult to attach any weight at all to the results. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/

2 1

Agenda & Materials: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 12 Dec 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund Dec. 11, 2018

Dec. 11, 2018

Dear RPM Sunrise Sub Team members, Per the Doodle poll, invites have been sent for the first recurring weekly meeting on Wednesday, 12 December at 1800 UTC for 60 minutes. Please see below the draft agenda and materials for tomorrow’s meeting. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie Draft Agenda: 1. Review agenda/Statements of Interest 2. Select Sub Team Leader 3. Introduction to the survey analysis tool: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aBw-dW2gBzvBfhUgl3u6ShWlPZt0yyNF-Vs… 4. Begin survey analysis 5. AOB

1 0

LAST CALL: Sunrise Sub Team review of updated questions
by Mary Wong Aug. 4, 2017

Aug. 4, 2017

Thanks for your review and kind comments, Lori! All – please be so kind as to let us know by COB your time on Monday what, if any, additional edits you may have on the updated Sunrise document (available, as noted, here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB and attached to my earlier 26 July email). We will plan on letting the Working Group co-chairs and members know if/that the updated Sunrise document has been reviewed by this Sub Team before on Tuesday 8 August, before the next Working Group meeting. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 15:48 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Following up (Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document) Dear Mary, I have reviewed this document and it looks like you captured the comments accurately and that you have added back Maxim’s which is much appreciated. I took about 30 mins to review and I may have overlooked something but if so, it’s not obvious to me. If anyone else finds something that should be added or noted, please let Mary know ASAP. Lori Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 1:03 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: Following up (Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document) Hello everyone – just following up on the 26 July email (below) regarding the additional edits to the Sunrise document that were made by staff at Lori’s request. You can find the document as an attachment to the original email, as well as on the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…>. We’d like to be able to let the Working Group co-chairs and the rest of the Working Group know if/that the Sunrise Sub Team has approved the edits so we’d appreciate your comments at your earliest convenience. Thanks very much, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 18:01 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document (re: Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago) Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Please find attached the update Sunrise document as requested. You’ll see that the staff-suggested edits – which I believe address all the outstanding drafting issues that were raised on the 12 July call of the full Working Group – have all been highlighted in yellow. Please review them at your earliest convenience and let us know if you have comments, or if you think we may send these updates to the full Working Group for its further review. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:58 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on: [ription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DwM…> [ription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [ription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [ription: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

1 0

Following up (Re: FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document)
by Mary Wong Aug. 2, 2017

Aug. 2, 2017

Hello everyone – just following up on the 26 July email (below) regarding the additional edits to the Sunrise document that were made by staff at Lori’s request. You can find the document as an attachment to the original email, as well as on the Working Group wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/vQchB. We’d like to be able to let the Working Group co-chairs and the rest of the Working Group know if/that the Sunrise Sub Team has approved the edits so we’d appreciate your comments at your earliest convenience. Thanks very much, Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 18:01 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document (re: Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago) Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Please find attached the update Sunrise document as requested. You’ll see that the staff-suggested edits – which I believe address all the outstanding drafting issues that were raised on the 12 July call of the full Working Group – have all been highlighted in yellow. Please review them at your earliest convenience and let us know if you have comments, or if you think we may send these updates to the full Working Group for its further review. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:58 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH: https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on: [cription: Description: Description: cid:F361C18F-02FE-4CF0-A43E-AA] Twitter[twitter.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__twitter.com_INTA&d=DwM…> [cription: Description: LinkedIn] LinkedIn[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_groupI…> [cription: Description: facebook-logo (2)] Facebook[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.facebook.com_home.p…> [cription: Description: pnpb_sig.png]

2 1

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

July 28, 2017

Hello and thanks very much for the edits, Maxim! I’ve taken the liberty of adding Maxim’s comment about geo TLDs and Reserved Names lists to the Comments column accompanying Question 4, as well as expanded on Maxim’s note on the ALP/QLP data collection suggestion for Question 8, to describe the feedback provided by Amadeo at the Working Group’s discussion of this point in Johannesburg. Please let me know if the additions are inaccurate or inappropriate. I have kept the yellow highlights from the previous version, to show the changes that were made from the last Working Group call, and also highlighted the two additions described above in yellow. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 08:41 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] FOR REVIEW: Updated Sunrise document (re: Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago) Hello Mary, Please find my edits (1 small typo and two bits of text. My note from Q4 about release of reserved names disappeared again. The issue is - it is the only mechanism GEO tlds can use to deliver names to the city, which gave letter of approval/non-objection, via reservation of names and release during the special period (LRP). Also example of POLICE is highly relevant not only to Q12, for the following reason it is a public service of the city, reserved for the public interest. the other bit - is about ALP and info from CORE (Amadeu Abril) about at least 6 other applicants who had tried to apply for ALP.Since the Program was a disaster, and we received info from the party tried it (during F2F meeting in Joburg), We need to add it to the text. (I think that bit needs to be reworded into something more polite(though it is better then expressions used by Abril :) Sincerely Yours, Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow) On Jul 27, 2017, at 01:01, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Please find attached the update Sunrise document as requested. You’ll see that the staff-suggested edits – which I believe address all the outstanding drafting issues that were raised on the 12 July call of the full Working Group – have all been highlighted in yellow. Please review them at your earliest convenience and let us know if you have comments, or if you think we may send these updates to the full Working Group for its further review. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 15:58 To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Hi Lori and everyone, Staff will draft some suggested text for the Sub Team’s review, as requested, and send them to you all as soon as we can so that the proposed updates can be circulated to the full Working Group. We have also posted the INTA survey results summaries on the Working Group’s wiki page that houses documentation gathered by staff relating to the TMCH:https://community.icann.org/x/0AusAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> (look for the “NEW” label in red, under the heading “METRICS, REVIEWS & EXTERNAL REPORTS” about halfway down the page). Thanks and cheers Mary From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org<mailto:lschulman@inta.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:43 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Follow up from Sunrise Discussion of 2 weeks ago Dear Mary and Amr, My apologies for not responding sooner but Mary had sent an email update with where we are on the completion of the Sunrise questions. She had asked whether staff could assist with updating the chart with the notes from the July 12th call. I can’t find the message but Mary and I did speak by phone last week and I am writing to confirm that I would be pleased to have staff’s assistance with adding the notes and then we send what should be a near final version to the Sunrise list before it goes back to the main list. We had discussed possible data sources to gather sunrise information. One of those is INTA’s cost impact study. While designed more to answer question from CCT-RT there is data here that could be useful to our analysis. The report was sent to all INTA members on June 26. INTA’s internet committee is still evaluating the outcomes and clarifying any open questions for the CCT-RT. Once we have substantially completed our analysis for CCT-RT my intention is to post to the full RPM list which should be in the next few weeks. If you would like an earlier glimpse of the report, it is posted on the CCT-RT wiki along with a high level presentation that I have to the CCT-RT on May 10, 2017. Lori Lori Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association 1250 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200 Washington DC, USA +1-202-704-0408, skype: lsschulman www.inta.org[inta.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.inta.org_&d=DwMFAg&…> Find us on:

1 0

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

July 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 26, 2017

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

1 0

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

July 12, 2017

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

2 1

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

July 12, 2017

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

2 2