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

REMINDER: Definitions for premium names, reserved names, premium pricing ... ?
by Mary Wong May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Dear Sub Team members, As you may recall, it was agreed that the Sub Team will start a discussion of what, if any, definitions it might want to develop for terms such as “reserved names”, “premium names”, and “premium pricing for Sunrise” – with the aim to make it clear that these cover different matters and to assist the Working Group with its review of the Sunrise RPM. Note that the idea is not to engage in a substantive discussion of the merits/disadvantages of these various items but rather to see if we can come up with an agreed list of definitions. Would someone like to kick us off? ☺ Thanks and cheers Mary

1 0

Follow up on two staff action items from Sunrise Sub Team requests
by Mary Wong May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Dear all, We are pleased to provide you with updates on two action items on the staff side from the last two Sub Team calls. The first relates to documented rationale for a Sunrise RPM. As mentioned during the last Sub Team call, we were not able to find specific text in either the IRT or STI final reports that directly addressed this question. However, in a 2005 paper on intellectual property considerations in introducing new gTLDs, WIPO’s Arbitration & Mediation Center had made a few observations that we thought might be possibly helpful, particularly in relation to its examination of how previous gTLD launches had dealt with Sunrise. An extract from that 2005 paper is attached, and includes a link to the full paper for your reference. (FYI you may also be interested to know that the IPC had produced a booklet on “The Perfect Sunrise” in 2008 where you can find a summary of the Sunrise mechanisms adopted by some of the gTLDs launched in the 2004 round (.aero, .asia, .biz, .mobi and .museum): https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/perfect-sunrise-jun08-en.pdf (from pages 10-26).) The second staff action item was for us to recirculate the information that Deloitte had provided to our Working Group in relation to SMD files and the TMCH: · Here is the question that our TMCH Data Gathering Sub Team asked Deloitte and Deloitte’s answer (in January): “Q: How many SMD files has the TMCH revoked as a result of cancellation or expiration of the underlying trademark(s)? How many TMCH disputes have been brought relating to SMD file validity for trademarks that are cancelled/expired? A: Please note that are numerous reasons why a SMD file is revoked. A SMD file, as requested by the community, contains the trademark information and the contact information. This entails that each change revokes the current SMD file and a new SMD file is generated. In addition, a user can opt out of the sunrise services at any time which revokes the current SMD file as well as the fact that the information of trademark record is no longer accurate. Consequently, we do not keep track of the reasons why a SMD file is revoked as this is technically linked to the different stages and interactions with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Due to this and the mere fact that this was never imposed by the community, the validity of a SMD file is not a reason for dispute with the TMCH.” · In Copenhagen, Deloitte provided an updated report on TMCH numbers where it also explained what a deactivated TMCH record means: “What happens if a trademark record goes to invalid? Does it need the database? So for trademark clearinghouse purposes it was always requested that no data would be deleted. So that's why it … becomes deactivated. So in the event that a client wishes no longer to have anything to do with the clearinghouse those trademark records will indeed become - I mean, will have the deactivated status now.” · This followed from Deloitte’s response to the additional questions it had been sent by our Working Group, noting that when a TM holder informs the TMCH that a mark has been cancelled, the TMCH record becomes deactivated and Sunrise services are cancelled within 24 hours. We hope the above is useful. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, May 12, 2017 at 22:33 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017 Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr

1 0

Action Items from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call on Friday, 12 May 2017
by Amr Elsadr May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear Sub Team Members, Below are the action items from today’s Sub Team call. The action items, notes, recordings, transcripts and documents/materials for today’s call are all posted on today’s meeting wiki page here: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw Action Items: 1. Changes to the table in the Google Doc a. Staff to repurpose the Comments/Discussion column - populate it with contextual information already gathered to provide reference on changes made to the Charter questions, enabling a clear and comprehensive explanation of Sub Team deliverable to the broader Working Group (including the original Charter question 16) b. Staff to insert previous notes already collected in the column for data collection c. Staff to merge updated question 12 with updated question 11, and incorporate new wording provided by Susan Payne - to be reviewed by the Sub Team, then flagged to the broader Working Group for further follow-up 2. Staff and Sub Team to follow up on pending actions items from previous week: a. Staff to find and circulate earlier answers to the SMD issue provided by Deloitte (in CPH and previously in writing) b. Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list c. Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion d. Coordinate discussion on Reserved Names with SubPro (esp WT2) - action for meeting between WG, Sub Team and Work Track chairs (and liaisons) Thanks. Amr

1 0

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations
by Terri Agnew May 12, 2017

May 12, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 12 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/Ow3fAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-12may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p8nxmqhvv2d/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=029929868fed1ad2 8d0b8d51c4d9985cb1e68d6f0272a40c48270918080ea07a> https://participate.icann.org/p8nxmqhvv2d/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 12 May 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 12 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minute duration Terri Agnew:wiki agenda page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_O w3fAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ Ow3fAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0N M&s=dLAYHUwTsuuU4so8QosJR7KDGp11vyj0Np-sQuZmpBA&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0NM&s=dL AYHUwTsuuU4so8QosJR7KDGp11vyj0Np-sQuZmpBA&e= Phil Marano::) Phil Marano:+1 Phil Marano:Folks still traveling after the GDD Summit possibly. Susan Payne:hi Susan Payne:I'm afraid I won't make next 2 week's calls either due to INTA and travels Amr Elsadr:You bet, Lori. Good luck. Susan Payne:But we could do over list Susan Payne:what are we due to do? Philip Corwin:Good day all Philip Corwin:We have the magnificent 7 ;-) Terri Agnew:@Mary, we heard you for a moment but no longer Susan Payne:same examples relevant to 2 were captures here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis play_RARPMRIAGPWG_Additional-2BDocuments-2Band-2BMaterials-2Bon-2Bthe-2BTM-2 DPDDRP-3Fpreview-3D_61606586_62399692_Collated-2520Examples-2520of-2520Perce ived-2520Registry-2520Conduct-2520within-2520TM-2DPDDRP-2520scope-2520-2D-25 2017-2520Oct-25202016.pdf&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4 I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=gFKBN0gp-Q4UBs0Dnm7t1R_ wqO-9LWMoBqLvhoxR0NM&s=IkgXRSEk1R32wUwSGxoCVnvwXfRCYJtRbAOUgd-b870&e= Mary Wong:Sorry my audio isn't working Kathy:Hi All, Apologies for joining late. Mary Wong:@Susan, wasn't Q11 put into the TMCH list? Mary Wong:So the question is whether Q11 is even needed here (as several Sub Team members have noted in past discusions) Mary Wong:Maybe park this for now and suggest that the WG look at all parked questions when they are done with the other questions? Kathy:What question are we on? Mary Wong:Q16, for instance, was also noted as being something that's being discusssed as part of the broader TMCH deliberations. This could conceivably be parked and returned to. Kathy:Agree with Kristine Amr Elsadr:@Kathy: Questions 13 and 22, or updated questions 11 and 12. Susan Payne:exactly Lori Kathy:yes Mary Wong:SUGGESTION - make a notation where the queston is being covered in the general or TMCH discussion, and consider refining the question to make it specific to Sunrise. Mary Wong:Then the WG can decide whether to take it up as part of a Sunrise review, defer it till the end of Sunrise review, or park it until general TMCH/other relevant discussions have concluded. Susan Payne:and of course legally-similar goods can be across different classes Lori Schulman:yes, Susan, thank you. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Agree, Mary. Philip Corwin:To be clear, I was not proposing a particular implementation approach. I was trying to find out if we all have a common understanding of what would be required to implement the contemplated restriction. Kathy:@Phil: I think you have one good implementation path. Kathy:But it may be easier... Susan Payne:@ Kathy Yes, it is in scope - although just because we have been asked to deal with it it does not pre-suppose we will say "yes" to the Q :) Kathy:yes Susan Payne:yes Philip Corwin:To further clarify, what would be the method of limiting sunsrise registrations to a mark's goods and services? And would the generation of claims noticesbe similarly restricted? Philip Corwin:what is question? Kathy:I don't understand the "parking" Kathy:Meaning it becomes part of our WG questions for this area? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Phil, part one of what you asked belongs here. Part 2 is on the claims list of Qs Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Parking in my mind simply means, we might have already answered it by the time we get here (or have suffienctly changed things by the time we get there). Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:It's my understanding that neither sub team is doing substantive work...right? The entire WG will answer these Qs. did I miss something? Lori Schulman:Kristine that is my understanding Susan Payne:25 Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:All excellent questions, Phil Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: That is my understanding as well. Perhaps the two Sub Teams can coordinate their proposals on these questions, as I believe Phil has suggested? Susan Payne:yep all good points Phil Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Including the reluctance of most Registry Operators to "restrict" their TLDss Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:.HORSE may not want to "categorize" their TLD Susan Payne:This obviously is an interesting debate but can we hold it over to when we are supposed to talk about it Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Amr, I agree. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1Susan Susan Payne:Yes Lori, I do think this is relevant to prioritisation Mary Wong:Is there a particular wording that this group can agree to, mindful that the general question will be noted as also being covered in the TMCH discussion? Susan Payne:yes Kathy:yes Lori Schulman:I support Kristine's suggestion Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes Phil, I think the WG will need to answer those Qs. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:In its entirety. :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:As in, the WG, in its entirety. Not our little puddle of 9 people. :) Philip Corwin:We are not a puddle. We are a lake on a diet ;-) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:LMAO Kathy::-) Philip Corwin:When will our next call be, or are we wrapped ip? I am unable to make the next two Fridays due to INTA Annual in Barcelona. Lori Schulman:Our next call will be in 3 weeks as I am tied up too Amr Elsadr:Before we end the call, I wanted to note that Lori won't be available for calls over the next two weeks. Can we confirm that we will still hold calls? Lori Schulman:I think that many will be at INTA Lori Schulman:but i am happy to cede the chair if others want dial in Kathy:Should we skip next week? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Perhaps if we do good work this week suggesting data sources via email, we can do the work online? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'd hate to lose momentum Amr Elsadr:@Kristine: I think that's doable. Susan Payne:sounds good. apologies, I need to jump off for another call Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:What Phil did was a good example a model Kathy:How many people would be on the call next week? Philip Corwin:Must leave call Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'll here, but if you look at the list on today's call, I might be it. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks. Kathy:Bye All Kathy:Safe travels! Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Thanks Lori, great job Lori Schulman:thank you Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye.

1 0

Updated Table for Sunrise Charter Questions
by Amr Elsadr May 11, 2017

May 11, 2017

Hi, An updated table has been prepared for use by this Sub Team, and is available in a Google Doc here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9… This updated table includes the original Charter questions, and the final updated/refined and batched versions. The Sub Team will be using this table during its discussion of additional data that may be required to answer the Charter questions, during tomorrow’s Sub Team call. Thanks. Amr

1 0

Action Items from RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting on 5 May 2017
by Mary Wong May 5, 2017

May 5, 2017

Dear all, Here are the Action Items noted by staff from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting held earlier today; we have reordered them slightly to make sure that the Sub Team Action Items are listed first. We have highlighted the imminent Action Items for the full Sub Team in red. Please RESPOND to this email if you CANNOT make it for the next Sub Team call, planned for next Friday 12 May at 1400 UTC. · Sub Team to discuss/develop definitions on premium names, reserved names, premium Sunrise pricing on mailing list · Sub Team: When presenting the final questions to the full WG, in relation to those questions that are informational/educational in nature, Sub Team to request that WG members first review any existing materials (to be circulated by staff, e.g. as with the question on SMD files) and respond as to whether additional discussion is required · Sub Team to suggest to other Sub Teams that they consider a similar approach concerning “informational/educational” questions · Lori and staff to coordinate a discussion on Reserved Names with the SubPro WG (especially Work Track 2) – suggestion is to do a between the two WG leadership teams, to include the Sub Team and Work Track chairs and Council and community liaisons · Staff to prepare a new Google Document with the original Charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column to clarify outputs of the Sub Team being delivered to the full Working Group · Staff to add a column to new Google Document to include the Sub Team’s suggestions on "Data Collection" · Staff to find and circulate the answers that Deloitte had provided previously on the SMD issue (at ICANN58 and in writing) · Staff to match and integrate original and reworded questions with data and timeline discussion · Staff to go back to the IRT and STI reports, and published AGB materials, to try to find documented rationale for the Sunrise RPM We hope the above is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary & Amr From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 20:02 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. · Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc… · And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: · Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) · Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task · Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods) How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: · Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 · Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 · Batching of questions 7 and 9 · Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” · Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included · Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist · Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? · Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions · Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used · Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? · Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

2 1

Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations
by Terri Agnew May 5, 2017

May 5, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 05 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/TwTfAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-05may17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: <https://participate.icann.org/p87ze0chjn1/?OWASP_CSRFTOKEN=029929868fed1ad2 8d0b8d51c4d9985cb1e68d6f0272a40c48270918080ea07a> https://participate.icann.org/p87ze0chjn1/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Adobe Connect chat transcript for 05 May 2017: Terri Agnew:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations call on Friday, 05 May 2017 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minute duration. Terri Agnew:agenda wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_T wTfAw <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_ TwTfAw&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpC IgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxse Q&s=jfL9g970fVZyy0DC_Aht8Eyr8vPkt99FOeGqE7fAZ9I&e> &d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXh FzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk&m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxseQ&s=jf L9g970fVZyy0DC_Aht8Eyr8vPkt99FOeGqE7fAZ9I&e= Julie Bisland:Hi Amr! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Hi ALl Amr Elsadr:Hi Maxim. Mary Wong:Good idea, Lori! Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):could we resize windows - so the shared one is bigger (by making notes bit smaller)? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):that is why I drag with me 2 LTE phones + one modem from 2 porviders :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and another ISP at home Mary Wong:Hmm I'm not sure it makes much difference, Maxim - maybe Terri or Julie can confirm (or better yet, help!) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it is enough, on the second thought Jeff Neuman:I am in listen only mode for today Mary Wong:Me too, mostly - this seems to be the noisiest airport lounge ever (Newark). Sorry. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):please post the URL to Google doc to the chat Matt Mlsna:https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOuj WWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc-ciM/edit?usp=sharing Mary Wong:@Lori, that was going to be the staff suggestion as well. Terri Agnew:@Maxim, pod have been adjusted slightly, I don't think it helped much Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also there were some comments made by me, which are not visible on the shared PDF Mary Wong:That was in case there are further updates from today. Terri Agnew:Sync is on, everyone can adjust size of screen themselves Mary Wong:So basically the final document will have the original Charter question (not in this document, sorry), and whateve final updated version is proposed by the Sub Team (right most column) Griffin Barnett:same here Amr Elsadr:And distorted. Matt Mlsna:same here Terri Agnew:@Kristine, your audio is not clear, please let me know if a dial out on the telephone is needed Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):too close to mic Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:BRB Philip Corwin:Kristine's audio is unintelligible Mary Wong:@Lori, when circulating the links to the materials along with the question, the Sub Team can also ask if Working Group members think there needs to be further discussion after they have reviewed the materials. We can also suggest to other Sub Teams that any time a team feels an "informational/educational" type question is included, a similar approach be proposed. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm back...if I can get back in the queue Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I have a question about 2. comment - I think we mix premium names and reserved names - I do not think it is right Amr Elsadr:Much better Kristine. Mary Wong:@Maxim, that's why there was an earlier suggestion that we've carried over, as to whether definitions are needed. Most people felt it would be helpful, I believe. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):definitions are good idea Mary Wong:Deloitte also provided that information in writing, in their initial response to the data gathering questions. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Even better, Mary! I definitely remember the verbal presentation. Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: regarding question 2, this comment is in the google doc, but couldn't be exported into the pdf version. Apologies. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):shall I add it to the text? Mary Wong:@Lori, shall we make it an action item to discuss possible definitions for premium names, reserved names and premium Sunrise pricing on the list? Mary Wong:@Lori (sorry) - yes to the time estimation. I think we'd gotten to 3.5 - 4 calls for the first few questions. I will check exactly where we stopped. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ok - I will move it from the comments to the text Amr Elsadr:Thanks. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):about publishing of reserved names - I'd like to try to speak Jeff Neuman:I would change "words" to "strings" since that would be more accurate Lori Schulman:good suggestion Jeff -- strings Mary Wong:@Lori I've pasted the data discussion and timeline estimates from last week to the Agenda pod on the right. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:To be clear, I don't believe Maxim claimed to speak for the registries as a whole. :) Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Kathy Mary Wong:J. Scott had suggested that any questions that need data gathering be dealt with last in order by the WG, to allow for the data to be obtained Jeff Neuman:This issue will take a while Jeff Neuman:Lots of complexities Mary Wong:@Lori, all, see the time estimates from last week on the right (Agenda pod) Jeff Neuman:Where to publish, how often, etc. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):it may vary from country to country ... Jeff Neuman:The list of stings changes when any changes are made in the TMCH Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):in our case it is 9k lines of really bad language ... Mary Wong:Note that we've not had good luck with registry responses to date Mary Wong:And no luck at all with registrars. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Fair point, Mary, but this one might get some attention Mary Wong:Yup, not disagreeing, Kristine, just noting for realistic expectations :) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):though - providing ICANN with reserved lists on requests of the group looks fine on terms of non-disclosure of the lists Jeff Neuman:I think more calls Jeff Neuman:Lots of complexities Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so tests on examples could be ran, but nothing more Jeff Neuman:I am multi-tasking so cant talk Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Reserved names MAY be released at some point. Philip Corwin:Exactly. Reserved names for this exercise are those not available for sunrise registration but that may be released subsequent to it (or may never be released). Mary Wong:All, just a head's up that since some of the original questions have been rephrased and/or combined, staff will go back to check that the timeline estimates and data discussion from last week match up (or are updated following today, as the case may be). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):for example- single letters - they are limited to 26 ascii and there is a reason for having them inpremium Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):*in premium pool Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and example for unavailability of POLICE in GEOs - for example is that local police have right to use it Mary Wong:@Phil, that sounds useful - the Sub Team will probably need to discuss what data points can be used for the sampling, though. Philip Corwin:@maxim--would agree that single letter domains would likely be on any registry's premium list, and hard to fault Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):the same with 2 letters Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):at least those available Amr Elsadr:@Maxim: Could you clarify if you believe the question shouldn't be asked, or if you were trying to answer the question by saying "no"? Mary Wong:@Lori, on the scope/reason for this question - from the public comments received it's more likely that Sunrise can be the mechanism, but may not be the only or preferred one. Kathy Kleiman:Data gathering: what type of overhead, cost and management would then be required? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):The reason is poor design of ALP - GEOs cound not use it ... only one tried and still not launched Philip Corwin:Should there be a sunrise registration period for any domain released from a registry's reserved list? -something like that for rephrasing Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and the reserved lists is the only way to deliver names to city - POLICE should go to Public Authority and not to Eyewear maker Mary Wong:Sunrise was suggested, but I believe the commenters were open to other mechanisms if they exist or can be developed and are viewed as "better" than Sunrise. Kathy Kleiman:Data gathering: what other mechanisms might be available? Jeff Neuman:There alreadi is a requirement for claims when a name is released. That is already required Mary Wong:@Jeff, should the question then be whether Sunrise, or an equivalent mechanism, also be required? Jeff Neuman:Reserved Names is a complicated matter and involves a number of thorny issues because names are reserved for lots of different reasons. This discussion needs to be coordinated with Subsequent Procedures PDP Jeff Neuman:@Mary - Understood. But this needs to be coordinated with Subsequent Procedures as perhaps a joint discussion. Mary Wong:We can hear you, Lori Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):clames are not required ATM for release of names (they required only 90 days following the beginning of GA) Kathy Kleiman:sorry, just lost my connection :-( Mary Wong:@Jeff, point taken. We'll note as Action Item. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):+1 @Jeff about coordination with Subsequent Procedures PDP Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:+1 Jeff Mary Wong:@Lori, @Jeff - how about the Sub Team agrees on the rewording (per Kristine) and suggest to the WG that we park this question until it can be discussed with SubPro? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:My current wording: Are ROs using features like pricing and reserved lists to avoid the sunrise RPM? Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Which hopefully limits the discussion here to ONLY sunrise issues. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Jeff? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):RPMs is about not giving names to wrong people Mary Wong:@Lori, it depends. An initial discussion with the relevant Chairs (Sub Teams, Work Tracks) would be the start. Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and not about delivering it to particular parties Mary Wong:And yes, sorry, WG chairs obviously too (left that out from my response as a result!) Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):but the coordingation should be done between whole PDP and not with subgroup and another PDP Jeff Neuman:Susan Payne I think was the other Mary Wong:@Jeff, for that discussion - if it's on specific questions - inviting the Sub Team and Work Track chairs would be good, won't it? Mary Wong:Yes, Susan Payne. Jeff Neuman:yes sub-team chairs too Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I'm thinking... Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):which question are we now on? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):9? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and what is the final version of 5? Mary Wong:@Maxim, Kristine suggested rewording (see above) Jeff Neuman:What is the "intended" effect of Sunrise? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):do we know it? Roger Carney:+1 Jeff Philip Corwin:I would think the intended effect was to give rights holders a fair chance to register as domains those marks that they have placed in the TMCH. Mary Wong:For the TM Claims Sub Team, staff went back and looked at the IRT and STI reports and ICANN documents for the AGB to try to find rationale. Shall we do the same hre? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Rightholders are not limited to TMCH Roger Carney:@Mary, makes sense Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):so we had to have local LRP for the small TM owners Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:I would love that Mary Jeff Neuman:a "fair chance" pr "first chance" Jeff Neuman:or Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):ASCII in moscow Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):and Cyrillic in .MOCKBA Kathy Kleiman:I have to run - great meeting, Lori! Mary Wong:There's no RPM WG call next Weds so the Sub TEam can use that Weds time rather than Friday, if preferred. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):also there might be a community restrictions Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):like only citizens of particular city .. so not all TMCH entries are good Lori Schulman:That could work. I have the CCT-RT plenary next Wed. May 10, If it doesn't overlap, I could chair Mary Wong:@Kristine, @Maxim - do we know if there is any centralized data location to track all RO LRPs? I'm not sure the ICANN site has that info (but could be wrong). Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):yes Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):there is good resource for LRPs Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann .org_en_program-2Dstatus_sunrise-2Dclaims-2Dperiods&d=DwICaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrc rwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DRa2dXAvSFpCIgmkXhFzL7ar9Qfqa0AIgn-H4xR2EBk &m=cs9pcufFpgluTy-fivI6_JPf9vV8neWvqpOcwyDxseQ&s=LY9okvZzKchoPnV3CiyycohZ-08 htaZHV7puKmr9Uuk&e= Kristine Dorrain - Amazon Registry Services:Have to run for another meeting..talk to some of you in a bit. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):where ICANN could check how many TLDs used LRPs and for what reasons Mary Wong:@Lori, got it Mary Wong:Any preference for Weds or Fri? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):next week is a GDD summit Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):I suggest we skip it Mary Wong:Yes Mary Wong:OK Mary Wong:Friday? Or none? Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):Friday is good - the same time Mary Wong:@Lori, good idea, will do Mary Wong:Or yeah ok Friday plus poll Roger Carney:Thanks!! Philip Corwin:happy weekend Mary Wong:Thanks Lori and all! Lori Schulman:ciao Amr Elsadr:Thanks all. Bye. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):safe travels Maxim Alzoba (FAITID):bye

1 0

Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] Re: FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan
by Mary Wong May 3, 2017

May 3, 2017

Oops, sorry about that, I meant to have the usual option of “anyone with the link can EDIT” so I’ve fixed it now: https://docs.google.com/a/icann.org/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXs… Thanks for spotting that, Maxim! Cheers Mary From: Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba(a)gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 05:23 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan Dear Mary, Could you grant us rights to comment on the new Google Doc (so comments are visible to others, but they can not change the main text). I think It would be helpful to clarify points of disagreement and/or confusion. 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 May 3, 2017, at 03:01, Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. • Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> • And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion):https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 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: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: • Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) • Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task • Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods)[newgtl…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_…> How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 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: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_…> We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 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: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…>. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 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] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: • Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 • Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 • Batching of questions 7 and 9 • Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” • Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included • Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist • Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? • Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions • Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used • Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? • Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

1 0

FOR DISCUSSION: Updated (simplified) Google Doc and Work Plan
by Mary Wong May 3, 2017

May 3, 2017

Dear all, After consulting with Lori, staff has prepared a more simplified and updated version of the original Google Doc that reflects the most current suggested formulations for the various Sunrise-related Charter questions. Hopefully seeing the updated suggestions in one column (rather than scattered across various columns and comments) will help with your review and continuing discussion. · Here is the new, simplified Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc… · And here is the original Google Doc (please refer to it for the original questions and initial comments/discussion): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… In addition, and again after consultation with Lori, staff has updated the overall Working Group Work Plan to take into account the timings suggested by various Sub Team members on the Friday call. The suggestions (as noted below) basically amount to 3.5 or 4 Working Group calls – which, if the Working Group keeps to schedule and commences Sunrise discussions on 31 May, looks doable at this point (see attached, circulated for further discussion by the Sub Team this Friday). Please note that in the interests of time we are sending these to everyone before Lori has had the chance to review them. As such, they are subject to any further changes or corrections she may wish to make. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 28, 2017 at 11:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Notes & Action Items from Sunrise Sub Team meeting (28 April 2017) Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1… Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: · Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) · Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task · Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods) How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong(a)icann.org> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1…. As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr(a)icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: · Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 · Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 · Batching of questions 7 and 9 · Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” · Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included · Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist · Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? · Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions · Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used · Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? · Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list

1 0

FW: Mp3, Attendance, AC recording & AC Chat Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations
by Julie Bisland April 28, 2017

April 28, 2017

Dear All, Please find the attendance of the call attached to this email. The MP3, Adobe Connect recording and Adobe Connect chat below for the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 28 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Attendance of the call is posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/HNnRAw MP3: https://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-rpm-review-28apr17-en.mp3 Adobe Connect recording: https://participate.icann.org/p1l2io6pio2/ The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/msrRAw Thank you. Kind regards, Julie Adobe Connect chat transcript for 28 April 2017: Julie Bisland:Welcome to the Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sub Team for Sunrise Registrations on Friday, 28 April 2017 at 14:00 UTC. Julie Bisland:Agenda Wiki page: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_… Terri Agnew:We would like to introduce Julie Bisland as GNSO SO/AC Support coordinator. Maxim Alzoba:Hello All Maxim Alzoba:I think we might see more people in 5 min Lori Schulman:Hi, Lori Schulman:Adobe took 7 mins to load today J. Scott Evans:yes J. Scott Evans:Yes Terri Agnew:Yes we can Lori J. Scott Evans:Can you hear us? Philip Corwin:Hello all Jeff Neuman:I hear Kathy J. Scott Evans:I hear kathy too Lori Schulman:i only hear bits of Kathy Maxim Alzoba:I heard Kathy susan payne:Kathy was very clear Matt Mlsna:i could hear Kathy Griffin Barnett:heard Kathy just fine before Terri Agnew:@Lori, op is dialing you Mary Wong:I can hear J Scott clearly and Kathy as well Jeff Neuman:what number is it? Maxim Alzoba:which # do we discuss? Maxim Alzoba:I do not hear Lory now Lori Schulman:Now, I can't hear anything. Philip Corwin:i'm getting radio silence Jeff Neuman:Can Mary take the reigns for a few minutes? Mary Wong:I think the SMD file question is #5 Mary Wong:#Jeff, that was the original question - I think Kathy's suggestion is in the last column Mary Wong:Kathy's rephrased question: "What does the TM Owner hold when it has an SMD file? How does it use it use an SMD file in the Sunrise Period? If a registration in the TMCH database is not longer valid, will the TM Owner's SMD file continue to work?" Maxim Alzoba:TMCH confirms records and is not aware of the legal status of the TM in the real time Mary Wong:@Maxim, yes. Maxim Alzoba:and after the registration ... it is not important , domain is still registered (if the TLD does not have a policy which demands active TM) Jeff Neuman:what was the charter question J. Scott Evans:Kathy. Don't take this personally. J. Scott Evans:Asked and answered by Deloitte J. Scott Evans:No it cannot J. Scott Evans:Let's quite wasting time J. Scott Evans:Do we have any proof that there has been abuse or a problem? Mary Wong:Also , every time a trademark record is renewed or updated based on new information, a new SMD file isgenerated. You can't use the old SMD file once you get your new SMD file as well. susan payne:Revocation:Revocation is the process executed by the Trademark Validator, Deloitte, to invalidate an SMD.Revocation may be triggered, for example, when an SMD has been compromised or when a record isremoved from the Trademark Clearinghouse. Once an SMD has been revoked, the SMD cannot be usedanymore.RenewalEvery time a trademark record is renewed or updated based on new information, a new SMD file isgenerated. The validity period of the new SMD file starts at the moment of trademark record renewaland ends at the new expiration date of the trademark record. After the trademark holder downloads thenew SMD file for the first time, the previous SMD file is revoked. Terri Agnew:@Mary, you are correct, one document at at a time Jeff Neuman:I need to drop. Thanks. Maxim Alzoba:I heard Lory susan payne:yes J. Scott Evans:agree J. Scott Evans:45 minutes J. Scott Evans:no. I think it should only take one call. 90 minutes Maxim Alzoba:when do we paln next one? could we have doodle poll? Mary Wong:@Maxim, do you mean for this Sub Team? Maxim Alzoba:yes Maxim Alzoba:the week after the next one is GDD summit Maxim Alzoba:may 10th is a bad idea , middle of the summit susan payne:thanks, that's useful Lori J. Scott Evans:we aren't have a call may 10th Maxim Alzoba:ok J. Scott Evans:no susan payne:I do J. Scott Evans:discussions are organc Maxim Alzoba:I will have to drop by the end of this hour J. Scott Evans:I would not see all of this taking place on one call J. Scott Evans:work would e taken offline and then brought back, but a discussion of whether we need to take action should not be endless Philip Corwin:Any discussion of mechanisms to challenge registry pricing practices are likely to be lengthy and possibly contentious, IMHO. Maxim Alzoba:+1 Maxim Alzoba:also ICANN regulating not only policies but prices ... does it look safe from market regulators perspective? Griffin Barnett:I'm a little confused by why we are trying to project/estimate how long discussion on each question will take? I thought our task right now is to review these Sunrise questions, agree as to whether they need any clarification or revision, potentially identify questions where we need to collect additional factual data and design means of acquiring such data J. Scott Evans:Griffin. The hope is to give the whole group an idea of how our discussions will map to the overall workplan prepared by staff Griffin Barnett:Ok thanks for the clarification on that Mary Wong:And once both Sub Teams can provide some recommendations on timing, staff will try to integrate them into an updated Work Plan. Kathy:do we have 2 down for data gathering? Kathy:Sorry if I missed it, but Kristine's rephrasing would require it... Mary Wong:Kristine Dorrain has suggested a rephrasing for 3A J. Scott Evans:I have to drop now. Good luck. Lori, you all are doing a great job organizing things. Thanks to you all. I'd like more subteam members to speak up and provide their thoughts though. Lori Schulman:My call just dropped Terri Agnew:calling lori Lori Schulman:I can hear you through the computer Lori Schulman:Thank you Mary. Lori Schulman:For asking about KD rephrasing Lori Schulman:I think we would have to ask registries susan payne:I think we said 1 call for this Lori Schulman:I said, 1 call Maxim Alzoba:Registires will have no RySG meetings till after the GDD summit susan payne:Maxim as a RO would you be willing to provide your reserved names list? I would imagine not Maxim Alzoba:we are prohibited from publishing profanity language Maxim Alzoba:and some of those list consist of that susan payne:yes Maxim Alzoba:basically that is the reason thos lists limited ro registrars Maxim Alzoba:bye all Maxim Alzoba:have to drop Roger Carney:+1 Susan, sounds easy to find Mary Wong:@Susan, yes Mary Wong:We will send around the page you mentioned Kathy:Before we end the call, let me thank Lori for dealing so well with a call that had so many audio gremlins. Kathy::-) susan payne:great, thanks Lori Mary Wong:Will do, Lori Griffin Barnett:thanks all, jumping to another call Mary Wong:Thanks Lori and everyone! Kathy:By All Philip Corwin:Have agood weekend, all

1 0