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

Fwd: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks
by claudio di gangi Sept. 11, 2019

Sept. 11, 2019

thanks, Phil. I think because we have different interpretations of what those practices are - and having them on the call next week would greatly clarify status from that perspective, and the options or implications of any policy changes. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> Date: Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:23 PM Subject: RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks To: ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com <ipcdigangi(a)gmail.com>, rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu < rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> In a personal capacity – before we consider asking Deloitte to speak with us, which will further prolong discussion and deliberation, why don’t we ask if there has been any material change in their practice since they answered our questions in the past? If there is no change then no point in verbal engagement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> * On Behalf Of *claudio di gangi *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 2:57 PM *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks I agree with Lori that Deloitte is doing their absolute best to follow "the letter of the law" so to speak, i.e. what is contained in the Applicant Guidebook, and that they have generated accurate results in that regard. I understand that we may have different points of view, so this would be another area where it would be benefit from Deloitte being invited to participate on our call next week to inform our discussions on the current state of play, implications of any potential changes from a policy and implementation perspective, and so we are all clear on where things stand on questions #7 and #8. Thanks! Best regards, Claudio On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:38 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet(a)law.harvard.edu> wrote: The answers from Deloitte don’t reflect this claim. They reflect a policy of putting in whatever can fit, extracting any text at all from any mark, disclaimed or not. That’s not indicative of any thought or policy based in substance. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School Sent from my phone. Apologies for terseness/typos. On Sep 11, 2019, at 1:04 PM, Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> wrote: I agree with that. Deloitte has come up with guidelines and procedures that show that thought has been put into the process and they are not letting just anything in. We can’t agree on our terminology, how can we expect them to do it? Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham(a)wipo.int> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:56 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Lori Schulman < lschulman(a)inta.org>; zak(a)muscovitch.com; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Speaking personally, I’m not sure I agree with the supposition that “Deloitte accepts marks too readily” especially given the lack of clarity on an agreed definition of text only/standard character marks. In fact, that is the very core of the discusions around Kathy and Zak’s proposal. Thank! Brian Sent from my WIPO mobile On 11 September 2019 at 18:37:05 CEST, Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG < gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org> wrote: Thanks Lori. We seem to be closing the gap. Given that there is general agreement within the WG that Deloitte accepts design marks too readily, but some remaining disagreement about how to address that, this co-chair hopes that wide support can at least be found for those elements of a response on which there is broad agreement. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Lori Schulman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:06 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear All, We have had some side line conversations regarding the proposal below. I informed Zak separately and wish to conveny that this is where the IPC currently stands: 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH. – IPC agrees. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. – The IPC disagrees as this would undermine the purpose of registering with the TMCH to begin with. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. – The IPC is willing to discuss this proposal. We agree in principle that language that is not well understood or could frighten an unsophisticated applicant should be revised. However, the notice should not be providing legal advice or any advice about effects of certain types of trademark registrations. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. – The IPC does not agree as this outcome is contrary to trademark law. In general, it appears that Greg’s proposal addresses 3 and 5. To what degree to people object? We see the proposal as creating a solution for a small problem with significant, unintended consequences. There are objections procedures for domains registered during Sunrise period and we believe that these procedures should be highlighted as remedy for the concerns that registrant’s have regarding this issue. Thank you for opening the dialog and we look forward to more discussion where we can find compromise. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* Tuesday, September 10, 2019 1:36 PM *To:* Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* [GNSO-RPM-WG] Re; Updated Proposal re TMCH/Design Marks Dear Co-chairs, Staff and WG members, please see below a revised proposal regarding Question #7 (TMCH/Design Marks): 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>all<< words, it *does not* enter TMCH. 1. As per Greg’s proposal, where a design mark with words disclaims >>some but not all words<< it *does *enters the TMCH. 1. Where a design mark with words is permitted into the TMCH, it entitles the mark holder to a Claims Notice, but not a Sunrise priority. 1. The Claims Notice would have to specify inter alia, that it is notifying prospective registrants of someone claiming to have rights corresponding to the domain name, but that not in all cases does having a design mark confer rights over the words inside, or something to that effect. 1. Design marks consisting of a single letter, e.g. a stylized or graphical “i”, whether disclaimed or not, do not go into the TMCH. This proposal has been circulated amongst some stakeholders for feedback (with mixed results), however I am now sharing it with the entire Working Group. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> *From:* GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Zak Muscovitch *Sent:* September-04-19 1:07 PM *To:* Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; Corwin, Philip < pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Attached is the redline version. Apologies for only sending it now. Zak Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> *From:* Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> *Sent:* September-04-19 12:48 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com>; Zak Muscovitch < zak(a)muscovitch.com>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Support Phil’s suggestion and a post call redline per my earlier message. Thank you. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy *International Trademark Association (INTA)* +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman *From:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin(a)verisign.com> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:39 PM *To:* zak(a)muscovitch.com; Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; julie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org *Subject:* RE: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Zak: As we reviewed all the proposals last week, I would suggest that you focus in your presentation on what changes you and Kathy have made to the original and the rationale for doing so. Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 12:36 PM To: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Lori, I'm trying to get one together, not sure I will be able to unfortunately. Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> From: Lori Schulman <lschulman(a)inta.org> Sent: September-04-19 12:08 PM To: Zak Muscovitch <zak(a)muscovitch.com>; Julie Hedlund < julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Hi, Thank you for this. As this is so close to the call, do you have a redline so we can compare the changes quickly? It would be most helpful to be prepared on a quick notice. Lori S. Schulman Senior Director, Internet Policy International Trademark Association (INTA) +1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2019 11:45 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund(a)icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear Co-Chairs, Working Group Members, and Staff, Further to the call last week and further to the below Agenda for today's call, please see the attached updated proposal re: Question #7, from Kathy Kleiman and myself. You will note therein, that the revised proposal contains some revised language, some revised rationale, and a potential alternative to the existing rule for discussion purposes. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, ICA Muscovitch Law P.C. zak(a)muscovitch.com 1-866-654-7129 416-924-5084 http://www.trademarks-canada.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.trademarks-2Dcanada…> https://www.muscovitch.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.muscovitch.com_&d=…> https://dnattorney.com/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dnattorney.com_&d=DwMF…> From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: September-03-19 1:02 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPM Meeting on 04 September 17:00-18:30 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the agenda and materials for the WG meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, 04 September at 17:00-18:30 UTC. Please note the following actions captured from last week's meeting and sent to the list last week: Actions: 1. Revision of Existing Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members who had previously submitted proposals relating to the Open TMCH Questions (see attached) may offer revised proposals that take into consideration the work completed by the WG since the proposals were originally submitted. 2. New Proposals: For consideration at the meeting on Wednesday, 04 September, RPM PDP WG members may submit new proposals relating to Charter questions 7, 8, and 10. Please send suggested revisions or new proposals by COB today, 03 September, if at all possible. Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Proposals relating to Open TMCH Charter Questions (see attached Summary document. It is the same as the May 2017 version but with formatting for readability and text from relevant TMCH and AGB references): * Question 7 - Proposals from Kathy Kleiman and Greg Shatan * Question 8 - Proposals from Paul McGrady, Kathy Kleiman, Jonathan Agmon, and Claudio di Gangi * If Time Permits: Question 10 - Proposal from Michael Graham 3. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <ATT00001.txt> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

FINAL DRAFT: Sunrise Sub Team Status Check Document/Report to Full WG
by Julie Hedlund July 2, 2019

July 2, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, please see the attached Final Draft Status Check document in which staff has incorporated all of the revisions resulting from the meetings at ICANN65. The document will be the Sub Team’s report for the full WG to consider at its meeting on Wednesday, 10 July. In order to ensure that staff has accurately captured the revisions to the Status Check document agreed to by the Sub Team, staff has reviewed the transcripts from the meetings. However, please respond to the Sub Team list by Friday, 05 July at 1600 UTC, if you note any revisions we may have missed, indicating the specific text that should be revised, including the proposed edits. Staff plans to send the report from the Sub Team to the full WG by Monday, 08 July. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie on behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs

1 0

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

June 27, 2019

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

1 0

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

June 24, 2019

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

1 0

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

June 24, 2019

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

1 0

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

June 24, 2019

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

2 1

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

June 24, 2019

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

2 1

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

June 21, 2019

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

1 0

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

June 19, 2019

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

1 0

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

June 12, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 12 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/8Y_jBg Audio Recording: https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/policy/2019/audio/audio-rpm-sunr… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/g4sJIDQSWy7ioORMvNXkFCW5zT8OONcFmSYowm… Chat Transcript: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/hZVr2Uk-Dq2avdZ5yJsxzBnn9Lz9XcQM2_… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

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

June 12, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 9, including Proposal #13. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “proposed answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 22 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 36-40) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 9 (Page 36) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 9 on 08 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q9 In light of the evidence gathered above, should the scope of Sunrise Registrations be limited to the categories of goods and services for which? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposal The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #13 on 08 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #13: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

10 39

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

June 12, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework The Sunrise Sub Team is tasked to review the updated Status Check document (see details in “Resource”) by focusing on the draft text for: * Q6 * Q7 * Q8 * Q9 * Q10 * Q11 * Q12 * Q5(b) * Preamble Q 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 12 June at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for the remaining agreed charter questions (tackle as many as possible): 1. Q6 (finish discussing proposed ideas for preliminary recommendations) 2. Q7 3. Q8 4. Q9 5. Q10 6. Q11 7. Q12 8. Preamble Q 9. Q5(b) 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 07 June 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sta… Compared to the 24 May 2019 version, this updated version has the following changes: * Added a new Table 1 that provides a snapshot of the Sub Team’s deliberations on all questions, highlighting “open items” based on staff’s preliminary assessment * In Table 2, included draft text for Preamble Q, Q5(b), Q8, Q9, Q10, Q11, and Q12 based on transcripts, chats, discussion thread comments, and Q8/Q12 google doc * Updated text for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), and Q6, incorporating Sub Team’s input provided during meetings on 29 May and 5 June and from discussion threads * Added a new column for proposed question for community input (if any) * Per Sub Team’s suggestion, removed all discussions/debates/deliberations, particularly for questions that the Sub Team has diverging opinions * To facilitate discussions of Q8 and Q12, posted Sub Team members’ proposed questions for community input from the Google Doc * Updated color coding: Grey text – discussions during meetings; green text – excerpts from discussion threads; blue text – excerpts from Q8/Q12 Google Doc; red text – staff notes. All colored text are deliberations, which will NOT be included in the “status check” document when it is finalized * Updated Table 3 that provides a snapshot of Sub Team’s review of individual proposals, based on Co-Chairs’ preliminary assessment Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Google Doc for Sunrise Q8/Q12 (created by Kristine D and Maxim A as of 22 May 2019): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y-ld2R-JNL1Ra9KPKpTjLGjaZvjrIFDscsuMMic… Two Sub Team members created this Google Doc to facilitate the discussion for Q8/Q12 and review of preliminary recommendations and proposed questions for community input. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

4 4

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

June 10, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 29-32) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30) The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created? Proposed Answer: TBD Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposals The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide. Link to the individual proposal is included below. Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

9 17

Actions: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 05 June 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 7, 2019

June 7, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 05 June 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-06-05+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: 1. Homework – By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 12 June at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: review the updated Status Check document (see details in “Resource”) by focusing on the draft text for: * Q6 * Q7 * Q8 * Q9 * Q10 * Q11 * Q12 * Q5(b) * Preamble Q See the details in the email at: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-June/000375.html.

1 0

Sunrise Discussion Threads Closed
by Ariel Liang June 6, 2019

June 6, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are informing you that all Sunrise discussion threads are now closed. However, the closing of discussion threads does not necessarily mean that all discussion on each of the agreed Sunrise charter questions (and associated individual proposals) is closed. The Sub Team Co-Chairs will review all the Sub Team discussion about the agreed Sunrise charter questions to date, and publish a list, based on their designation, of closed discussion and discussion that should remain open. Sub Team members will have the opportunity provide input/comment on the ST Co-Chairs’ designation. Going forward, for the discussion that will remain open, staff will distribute a Google Doc for Sub Team members to enter their input. The draft proposed answers and preliminary recommendations will be inserted into the Google Doc, accompanied by individual rows/spaces for each member to enter his/her comments. We hope this method will help you provide input and track the discussion in the future. Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

Recordings, attendance & Zoom chat / RPMs Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call / Wednesday, 05 June 2019 18:00 UTC
by Julie Bisland June 5, 2019

June 5, 2019

Dear all, Please find the attendance attached to this email, and links to the audio recording, zoom recording (audio, visual, rough transcript) and chat below for the Review of all Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) Sunrise Data Review Sub Team call held Wednesday, 05 June 2019 at 18:00 UTC. Attendance and recording of the call is also posted on agenda wiki page: https://community.icann.org/x/4YijBg Audio Recording: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/nOF8MfoXZXDmtQ4_1yEmHJAFHFZIxSy9CEwlQj… Zoom Recording (includes visual and rough transcript. To access the rough transcript, select the Audio Transcript tab): https://icann.zoom.us/recording/play/j3UG76hc537JkN-31wZ9rp8GGE6lnDp0h7RGrg… Chat: https://icann.zoom.us/recording/download/zP2Yv4b3eKYqls1btlYqL5Xwoq7UOmjPcH… The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: https://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_grou…> ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ Main wiki page for the working group: https://community.icann.org/x/KhGsAw Thank you. Kind Regards, Julie

1 0

Actions: RPM Sunrise Sub Team Meeting 29 May 1800 UTC
by Julie Hedlund June 3, 2019

June 3, 2019

Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM Sunrise Sub Team meeting held on 29 May 2019 (18:00-19:30 UTC). Staff will post them to the wiki space. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2019-05-29+Sub+Team+for+Su…. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == ACTION ITEMS: 1. Discussion Threads -- Staff will extend discussion threads for the following agreed Sunrise charter questions to remain open until 23:59 UTC on Wednesday, 5 June 2019 to facilitate further discussions about the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals. * Preamble Q (& Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (& Proposals #10 & #11) - extended * Q4 - extended * Q5(a) - extended * Q5(b) (& Proposal #7) * Q6 (& Proposals #2 & #4) - extended * Q8/Q12 * Q9 (& Proposal #13) – extended * Q10 * Q11 To check the communications in the discussion threads, see the mailing list archive here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ 2. Homework – By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 05 June at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Continue providing input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise [ NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed at 23:59 UTC on 5 June 2019 – see the mailing list archive here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ ] * Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11) * Q4 * Q5(a) * Q5(b) (including Proposal #7) * Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4) * Q8/Q12 (combined) * Q9 (including Proposal #13) * Q10 * Q11 2. Review the draft proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table. Please use the Status Check document as your primary reference. See details at http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000369.html)

1 0

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

May 31, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework By the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 5 June at 18:00 UTC, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Continue providing input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise [ NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed at 23:59 UTC on 5 June 2019 – see the mailing list archive here: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/ ] * Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8) * Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11) * Q4 * Q5(a) * Q5(b) (including Proposal #7) * Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4) * Q8/Q12 (combined) * Q9 (including Proposal #13) * Q10 * Q11 2. Review the draft proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). Please use the Status Check document as your primary reference. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 5 June at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: 1. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 2. Q4 3. Q5(a) 4. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 5. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0

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

May 31, 2019

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

4 5

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

May 31, 2019

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

2 1

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

May 29, 2019

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

1 0

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

May 29, 2019

I have a start here. I tried to stay with the principles I outlined for the Claims subteam: Short and sweet, unemotional, and with direct asks. I think we might need to flesh this out as we review proposals, but it’s a start for people to throw darts at. Best, Kristine Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose? Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period is serving its intended purpose. There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis). 1. The Sunrise period assumes that a TM holder’s rights are more valuable than another customer’s and extends trademark rights beyond those granted by relevant laws – it should be discontinued, or, at a minimum, optional. 2. The Sunrise period was part of a balanced system designed to offset the disproportionate cost of cybersquatting that the new gTLD program would create and, while it’s imperfect, it does appear to be serving its intended purpose. Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects? Proposed Answer: The WG disagrees on whether the Sunrise Period has had unintended effects. We generally agree it’s imperfect, but for different reasons. There are primarily two schools of thought on this and we invite community feedback on both (not only support or lack of support but, particularly, any analysis). 1. Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: perceived “price gouging” by registries and registrars, confusion about why some TMCH marks were unavailable during sunrise, confusion related to tracking multiple sunrise periods for many launching TLDs and inadequate protections because of “exact match” requirements. 2. Some imperfections or pain points from Sunrise include: the TMCH contains some marks of dubious authenticity and several words with both TM and dictionary meanings – the TMCH is a string comparison tool and cannot consider potential non-infringing uses. The instrument is too blunt. An additional question relates to the balanced system. Is the fact that “both sides are dissatisfied” indicative of a successful outcome? Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)? Proposed Answer: The WG generally found the TMCH was properly validating “use” according to the rules. Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. We found evidence that a few TMCH entries, though they complied with the rules, appeared to have been registered solely for the purpose of entering the TMCH and getting first access to valuable dictionary words. Question for the community: The TMCH rules are fairly straightforward. How much “gaming” of the system is tolerable? Have you seen evidence of such “gaming” that is so egregious as to warrant complex rule changes? Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. Registrants are trademark owners during Sunrise, so see above. Arguably, the issue pointed out above is actually an abuse by “registrants” since the purpose is to obtain a mark simply to enter the field sooner, not to enforce trademark rights. We invite the community’s comment on this, particularly related to the magnitude of the problem. Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars? Proposed Answer: We interpret this question to refer to abuses BY the named type of party. Some members point to sunrise pricing and opaque reserved name lists as “gaming” of sunrise and believe some RY/RR practices circumvented the Sunrise period. Keeping in mind the “picket fence”**, what suggestions do you have for preserving not just the letter, but the spirit of the Sunrise Period? **Contractual restrictions regarding what aspects of registry operations ICANN can and cannot regulate. From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 5:10 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Preamble Q Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Preamble Charter Question, including Proposals #1, #3, #8. We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “proposed answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal: a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment? b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed? c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question? Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input. Summary Table (Pages 3-8) The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Sum…. Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Preamble Charter Question on 22 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Preamble Q(a): Is the Sunrise Period serving its intended purpose? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(b): Is it having unintended effects? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(c): Is the TMCH Provider requiring appropriate forms of “use” (if not, how can this corrected)? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(d): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by trademark owners? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(e): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registrants? Proposed Answer: TBD Preamble Q(f): Have abuses of the Sunrise Period been documented by Registries and Registrars? Proposed Answer: TBD Individual Proposal The Sub Team just discussed the Proposal #1, #3, and #8 on 22 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update. Links to the individual proposals are included below. Proposal #1: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… Proposal #3: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… Proposal #8: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… Where to Find All Discussion Threads Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

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

May 29, 2019

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

2 1

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

May 28, 2019

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework (by the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC) Pending any further suggestions from the Sub Team Co-Chairs, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8), Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11), Q4, Q5(a), Q5(b) (including Proposal #7), Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4), Q8/Q12 (combined), Q9 (including Proposal #13), Q10, and Q11 -- NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed on 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019 2. Review the staff drafts of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). NOTE: * Please primarily reference the Status Check document when comment/suggest edits on staff drafts of proposed answers and preliminary recommendations. * Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ suggestion, instead of directly redlining staff’s document, please insert your suggested revisions/text via the Discussion Thread in the body of an email, or in a clean format that does not involve redlining staff’s draft text. This is to avoid any potential version confusion and keep the suggested edits easy to review/incorporate. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: 1. Q1 & Proposal #9 2. Q2 3. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 4. Q4 5. Q5(a) 6. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 7. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

2 1

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

May 25, 2019

So I’m probably doing this wrong because I responded to the preamble and now I’m looking at the Proposals separately, but if I don’t do it this way, it’s going to be a mess. So – Proposal #1 I strongly oppose eliminating Sunrise. It was part of the tradeoff associated with the new gTLD program. Brand owners would be exposed to exponentially more risk with hundreds of new gTLDs and in return, they’d get a first right of refusal for names that matched their marks. We can see that this is not being overwhelmingly abused because the data the proponent cites shows that the TMCH is not full of hundreds of thousands of terms, and most TLDs saw a couple hundred TM terms registered, at best. This shows not that the period is ineffective, but that brand owners are generally using these tools judiciously. This information, combined with evidence that UDRP filings are up again, indicates that brand owners continue to face growing levels of abuse despite these protections. Therefore preventative and curative mechanisms are best deployed jointly, to allow brand owners to choose the strategy that’s most effective for their marks. Furthermore, most “reputable” registries would likely offer some form of sunrise anyway – fragmenting that by letting everyone do their own thing would impose significantly higher costs on brand owners that standardization has mitigated so far. I also want to rebut a couple of incorrect assertions in the proposal. “Just as one would not buy a $500,000 security system to protect a painting worth $100, ICANN should not require mandatory RPMs that are disproportionate to the actual risks…” --> While a domain itself may be worth less than $100, the brand value often ranges into the millions of dollars. Sunrise protects the BRAND, not a domain name. “Furthermore, sunrise represents an expansion of "rights" for TM holders, relative to their actual rights in trademark law. As such, sunrise should never have existed in the first place.” --> Sunrise doesn’t expand a *legal* right. No one is saying a TM holder has a *legal* right to a domain name. The community, in balancing costs, determined that it was *equitable* to grant brand owners that already had certain rights and were willing to jump through certain hoops with a slight advantage that offsets the harm they were about to experience. This is a community decision about fairness and balance, not the law. These are my initial thoughts and now I’m going to put a pin in this and try to start my long weekend. Thanks, Kristine From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces(a)icann.org> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 2:07 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise(a)icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [HOMEWORK] Due Wednesday, 29 May 18:00 UTC & Proposal Agenda Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, 1. Homework (by the beginning of the Sunrise Sub Team meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC) Pending any further suggestions from the Sub Team Co-Chairs, the Sub Team is tasked to: 1. Provide input to Discussion Threads for Agreed Sunrise Preamble Charter Question (including Proposals #1, #3, #8), Q3 (including Proposals #10 & #11), Q4, Q5(a), Q5(b) (including Proposal #7), Q6 (including Proposals #2 & #4), Q8/Q12 (combined), Q9 (including Proposal #13), Q10, and Q11 -- NOTE: Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, all these discussion threads will be closed on 23:59 UTC on 29 May 2019 2. Review the staff drafts of the proposed answers and preliminary recommendations for Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, Q5(a), Q6, and Q7 in the Status Check document, in conjunction with the latest Summary Table (see details in the “Resource” section below). NOTE: * Please primarily reference the Status Check document when comment/suggest edits on staff drafts of proposed answers and preliminary recommendations. * Per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ suggestion, instead of directly redlining staff’s document, please insert your suggested revisions/text via the Discussion Thread in the body of an email, or in a clean format that does not involve redlining staff’s draft text. This is to avoid any potential version confusion and keep the suggested edits easy to review/incorporate. 2. Proposed Agenda for Next Meeting Here is a proposed agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, 29 May at 18:00 UTC: 1. Review agenda/updates to Statements of Interest (SOIs) 2. Review workplan/timeline 3. Discuss proposed answers and preliminary recommendations and conclude the review of related individual proposals: a. Q1 & Proposal #9 b. Q2 c. Q3 & Proposals #10 and #11 d. Q4 e. Q5(a) f. Q6 & Proposals #2 and #4 g. Q7 1. AOB 3. Resource Status Check (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * Staff developed this document based on transcripts, chats, and notes of Sub Team meetings by 15 May 2019 and comments on the discussion threads. * It consolidates the Sub Team’s draft proposed answers to the agreed Sunrise charter questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(a), 6, and 7 . * It also consolidates draft preliminary recommendations in relation to these agreed charter questions and reflects how they correspond to the proposed answers. * Text in orange are “tentative”. They are either potential amendment to draft preliminary recommendations as a possible result of the Sub Team review of Individual Proposals or initial ideas/concepts/proposals the Sub Team discussed/considered. * It includes a snapshot of the Sub Team’s review of all individual proposals. * Staff provided comments on the side to indicate either the overall status of each agreed charter question or additional staff note. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Summary Table (as of 24 May 2019): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/ST%20Copy%20-%20… * This document is complementary to the Status Check document by providing details on data and additional context. * The current version contains the same proposed answers and preliminary recommendations as those in the Status Check document. * It also includes more details with respect to the Sub Team’s review of individual proposals related to those agreed charter questions. * Staff will continue updating this document to reflect Sub Team’s deliberation on the proposed answers, preliminary recommendations, and individual proposals in relation to the agreed charter questions. Individual Proposals: Relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions, multiple individual proposals were submitted. Staff analysis concluded the following Individual Proposals are more relevant to the Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions being reviewed by the Sub Team in the homework assignment: * Proposal #1 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%231.pdf… * Proposal #2 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf… * Proposal #3 (Preamble Q): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%233.pdf… * Proposal #4 (Q6): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf… * Proposal #7 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%237.pdf… * Proposal #8 (Q5b): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%238.pdf… * Proposal #9 (Q1): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%239.pdf… * Proposals #10 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2310.pd… * Proposal #11 (Q3): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2311.pd… * Proposal #13 (Q9): https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%2313.pd… 4. Documents Wiki Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of all discussion threads, all versions of the summary table, and other working documents of the Sub Team: https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel

1 0