Hello all, Below please find the Action Items and Discussion Notes from the Sunrise Sub Team meeting that just ended. Please note that one information point was added to the Discussion Notes on data regarding Sunrise use and periods (following up on Susan’s suggestion made on the call); this was to add the link to the ICANN page that lists all Sunrise and Claims periods per registry operator. Link to Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1m... Next meeting: Friday 5 May 1400 UTC, for 60 minutes (staff will send calendar invitation) Action Items: · Sub Team to continue discussion of Google Doc questions on the mailing list (for further discussion next Friday) · Lori & Mary/staff to hold call early next week to work on organizing and presenting proposals for the Sub Team (especially on the Work Plan), to facilitate completion of our task · Sub Team to consider whether reordering of the questions may be necessary (especially given the batching), to follow the logic of the Sunrise Process Discussion Notes: Which questions do we need more information on? #1 - none #2C - do we need to put out a call for more examples? (There may be some data from the INTA Survey, which will be released following initial presentation by Lori to the CCT-RT on 10 May). More data may also be needed more generally. #3A – it is not clear that Kristine’s proposed rephrasing will be possible to answer because there is no way to get this data. Question on #3 (overall) - Is there a need to investigate how well Sunrise is working? #4A - no new data needed, Sub Team can compare and review existing data available on Sunrise (e.g. there is already some data on dates and Start Date and End Date Sunrise: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods) How long will it take for the WG to discuss each question/batch of questions? #1 - 45 minutes (add footnote when sending to full Working Group that there may be ancillary questions that can take additional time, e.g. what criteria for anything other than an exact match)? #2A-D: 90 minutes? 180 (2 full calls)? (Note: some work may need to be taken offline e.g. done by sub teams, and some discussion needs to take place on the mailing list to supplement the main calls) #3A-C: 90 minutes (on the understanding again that some work may be taken offline/to the mailing list) #4A-B: 90 minutes Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 08:41 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Hi all, just to note that staff has slightly updated the overall Work Plan, to take into account recent meeting agendas and the cancellation of the full WG meeting on 10 May as that is when the GDD Summit will take place and several WG members had requested that a full WG meeting not take place that week. The updated Work Plan is attached to this email and can also be accessed on the WG wiki space here: https://community.icann.org/x/wBeOAw We hope the updated draft Work Plan is helpful to the Sub Team as you finalize the Charter questions and begin to formulate a proposed “mini work plan” for them. Thanks and cheers Mary From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Monday, April 24, 2017 at 19:45 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: FOR REVIEW/DISCUSSION: Updated Google Doc for Sunrise Sub Team Dear Sunrise Sub Team members, Staff has updated the Google Doc that this Sub Team has been using: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1m.... As requested, we have batched some questions together and used color-coding to indicate those that were batched (as well as renumbered the questions accordingly). We’ve also added some agreed points and observations from the previous Sub Team call into the Comments column in the hope that they will be helpful. Finally, we’ve circulated information and documents on what SMD files are and how they are created and used to the full Working Group mailing list. Please insert your comments and suggestions into the Google Doc by Wednesday 26 April at the latest, so that the group can discuss new comments and edits on its next call this coming Friday. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Date: Friday, April 21, 2017 at 15:36 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Action Items and Notes from Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 21 April 2017 Hi, Below are the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. Regarding the discussion on the bulleted note on the Trademark Claims Charter Question 4 “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?”, it is noteworthy to mention that following the Sunrise Sub Team Call the Trademark Claims Sub Team also discussed this question, and is likely to propose considering this question along with overarching TMCH Charter Questions. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to batch questions 2, 3, 15 and possibly 8 2. Staff to batch questions 4, 5 and 6 3. Staff to batch questions 7 and 9 4. Staff to color-code different batches of questions 5. Staff to add definition for Limited Registration Period (LRP) in footnote 2 6. Clarify distinction between Registry Operator Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) minimum requirements and the TMCH dispute process in the chart; should look at overlaps between the two 7. Staff will share existing documents on SMD files with full WG; propose tutorial for full WG if needed 8. Sub Team to park Q14 for now given ongoing WG list discussion 9. Google Doc to be updated by staff, and remain open until Tuesday 25 April for further input, review any new comments and remaining questions next Friday April 28 (where Work Plan will also be discussed) 10. Lori to report back to full WG on Weds with progress to date Notes: Review of Questions: · Batching of questions 2, 3, 15 possibly 8 · Batching of questions 4, 5 and 6 · Batching of questions 7 and 9 · Moving charter Q4 from Trademark Claims to Sunrise “Is the TMCH and the Sunrise Period allowing key domain names to be cherry-picked and removed from New gTLDs unrelated to those of the categories of goods and services of the trademark owner (e.g., allowing “Windows” to be removed from a future .CLEANING by Microsoft)?” · Adding a question on Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policy (SDRP) - This is present in the RPM Requirements to challenge a TM registration in the TMCH that should not be included · Distinction needed between the SDRP minimum requirements from the AGB and ithe TMCH dispute process - note where overlaps may exist · Will the scope of SDRP need to be expanded in the context of TMs included in the TMCH due to statutes/treaties? · Suggestion to eliminate Q10 on compromised SMD files, and recommend including them in the TMCH questions · Possibly hold a capacity building exercise explaining what and SMD file is, how it is validated/used · Should Q10 be reworded and evaluated on where it belongs (in Sunrise or TMCH review)? · Possible to park Q14 "gaming" - Keep the question, but observer how/if it is resolved on the full Working Group list