Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team
Dear Sub Team Members, Following up on an action item from last week’s call, staff were asked to clarify the changes made across the different iterations of the Charter questions/google doc tables concerning batching and refinements made to the original Charter questions. The purpose of this is to provide a summary of the work done by the Sub Team to-date, which staff hopes will be helpful in providing clarity on how the Sub Team is where it now is in terms of progress. This summary will cover 6 weeks of Sub Team deliberation and agreement. The initial list of questions are posted on the Sub Team’s meeting wiki page from 14 April<https://community.icann.org/x/dM7RAw>, and can be downloaded directly here<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64081524/Sunrise%20Claims%2...>. On the Sub Team call on 21 April, the Sub Team instructed staff to batch and reorder questions 2, 3, 8 and 15, as well as 4, 5 and 6, and finally questions 7 and 9. This was done, and the questions were renumbered as 2A, 2B, 2D and 2C, then 3A, 3B and 3C, and finally 4A and 4B, all in respective order. These changes were listed in the column on the far left of this google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NMlQRUyoMD271Xxu3_GqwkSeTGs2huW_5DqzgX1m...>. Also, please refer to the action items on the Sub Team’s meeting wiki page from 21 April<https://community.icann.org/x/pNPRAw>. Further to those action items being completed, Sub Team members began to submit a number of comments and propose refinements/rewording of the original questions. These are all available in the same table, including a proposal to consolidate some of the batched questions. These proposals were subsequently discussed on the Sub Team call on 28 April. Agreements on consolidation of questions, as well as reordering them to follow the logic of the Sunrise process resulted in an updated table being set up. This table can be viewed here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nm91bUcbX-PhA1imkKdOujWWRXsbyORq5a78Aqc-...>, and the Sub Team members were asked to review this table, and provide comments to be discussed during the Sub Team’s 5 May call. On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. We hope this summary is helpful. Please also note that all action items, notes, meeting materials and documents, recordings and transcripts from Sub Team calls are posted regularly on dedicated pages for each call<https://community.icann.org/x/oMrRAw>. It is our (staff’s) hope that these wiki pages provide a reference for the ongoing progress of the Sub Team, which is helpful to both the Sub Team and the broader Working Group. Thanks. Amr
On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote:
On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>.
This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). *Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience*.
Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
Hello Jeremy and all, Just to clarify that the reworded questions are not staff edits to the original Charter questions but, rather, the result of the weekly Sub Team discussions on batching, intent and scope, and reflect edits and comments made by Sub Team members in previous versions of the current Google Docs table. In view of the request to complete our work by 31 May, we hope that Sub Team members who do not agree with the current language are able to suggest alternative text for the questions for review by the Sub Team (per the Action Items from last week). If possible, please send these via email to this list ahead of the Friday call. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
Hi All, Amr and I sat down for awhile and reviewed past Notes, Action Items and Tables from 4/28, 5/5, 5/12 etc. The disconnect dates back to 5/5 (two subteam meetings ago). At the start of the discussion, there was concern expressed about the distance of "Updated Draft Sunrise Questions & Comments" from the Original Charter Questions. The Chair Summarizing this discussion with a conclusion that many thought was an Action Item: that the Subteam would /*"clarify charter questions by adding footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the questions without consensus of the full WG." */ See 5/2 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sun... But in latter part of the discussion, Staff noted a different action item: that they would "*prepare a new document with the original charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column." *Staff created the 5/12 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-12+Sub+Team+for+Sun... In preparing the 5/12 Table, there was a mismatch of expectations. Some (expecting the original charter questions with footnotes) were surprised; others were not. It's that legitimate difference of expectations that we are seeing being expressing in the Subteam now: which version of the questions did you expect to see in the current version of the Table? Also, Maxim has been patient and diligent in explaining to us (and noting in many versions of the table) that revised questions bypass legitimate registry business concerns (e.g., POLICE for .LONDON) and, last week, how some of the questions impose obligations no registry could meet (e.,g because registries do not know the TMCH entries). One thing we did discuss last week is that the Charter Questions, as consolidated and revised, do need to fairly consider the needs and considerations of all relevant stakeholders, e.g., Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrants. No one seemed to disagree! *Would it make sense to take a week off, study the current table, and resume next week? The TM Claims Subteam took a week of last week. We already have apologies from Lori Schulman, Maxim Alzoba, **Susan Payne, **Mary Wong(staff). **If you are a) not able to attend the subteam tomorrow, please let the Subteam know. b) if you are planning to attend, should we hold the meeting or postpone until next week? Tx for letting the Subteam know.* * **Best, Kathy** * On 5/25/2017 1:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote:
Hello Jeremy and all,
Just to clarify that the reworded questions are not staff edits to the original Charter questions but, rather, the result of the weekly Sub Team discussions on batching, intent and scope, and reflect edits and comments made by Sub Team members in previous versions of the current Google Docs table.
In view of the request to complete our work by 31 May, we hope that Sub Team members who do not agree with the current language are able to suggest alternative text for the questions for review by the Sub Team (per the Action Items from last week). If possible, please send these via email to this list ahead of the Friday call.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
*From: *<gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> *Date: *Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13 *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team
On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote:
On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>.
This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). *Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience*.
Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions.
Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression.
Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question.
My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them.
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Hi, Thanks to Kathy, Jeremy and Kristine for picking up this discussion. I would like to clarify something that perhaps, in retrospect, might have been helpful to clarify sooner. As Mary noted, the edits made were not done by staff, but rather by Sub Team members directly in the previous versions of the google doc. This was in response to Action Items agreed upon during Sub Team calls over the past 6 weeks. What will likely benefit from clarity here is that as staff takes down Notes and Action Items during calls, these are done in different contexts, and meant to serve different purposes. The Notes are meant to assist Sub Team members navigate through the content of each call, but are not meant to provide any authoritative record of the call. The accurate references to Sub Team calls are the recordings and transcripts provided each week, and posted on each meeting wiki page. On the other hand, Action Items are captured when there is agreement by Sub Team members on each call for instructions either to staff, or the Sub Team members themselves. I hope this clarification will be helpful moving forward. Having said that, I would also like to note that the suggestion to clarify Charter questions using footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the Charter questions themselves was indeed suggested during the Sub Team call on 5 May. This was captured in the notes posted here (first bullet under notes): https://community.icann.org/x/TwTfAw. Staff’s understanding at that point was that, although this was suggested as a possible path forward, the Sub Team agreement was to follow up on the refinements/rewording made by Sub Team members to the questions. Building on this, staff was instructed on 5 May to consolidate all the questions (original Charter questions and refined/reworded questions) in one table. This was Action Item 2 from the 5 May Sub Team call, also found on the same meeting wiki page linked to above. Since refinement of these Charter questions began, the intent was to provide a breakdown of each original question in a way that would identify and clarify the key elements that need to be addressed within each of the questions, and to also avoid a phrasing that might be biased or suggestive of a specific answer. Additionally, it was always important to ensure that what the original questions were actually asking the PDP Working Group to consider would not be lost during the refinement process. However, if Sub Team members believe that the intent of the original questions has indeed been lost, then this concern should certainly be addressed. I hope this helps. Thanks again. Amr From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 7:02 PM To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Where we have come from; Where we are going Hi All, Amr and I sat down for awhile and reviewed past Notes, Action Items and Tables from 4/28, 5/5, 5/12 etc. The disconnect dates back to 5/5 (two subteam meetings ago). At the start of the discussion, there was concern expressed about the distance of "Updated Draft Sunrise Questions & Comments" from the Original Charter Questions. The Chair Summarizing this discussion with a conclusion that many thought was an Action Item: that the Subteam would "clarify charter questions by adding footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the questions without consensus of the full WG." See 5/2 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Registrations?preview=/64947279/64948827/UPDATEDDraftSunriseQuestions-FORDISCUSSION-2May.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2017-2D05-2D05-2BSub-2BTeam-2Bfor-2BSunrise-2BRegistrations-3Fpreview-3D_64947279_64948827_UPDATEDDraftSunriseQuestions-2DFORDISCUSSION-2D2May.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=BDzKNykEh4AD9p1g-xGOnWocfGD0KmDB-P9KTp35ryE&s=R4s8B4AcSlozxGyYWt_0Xxrw9MO4h8eQ6J_gjr2INjs&e=> But in latter part of the discussion, Staff noted a different action item: that they would "prepare a new document with the original charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column." Staff created the 5/12 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-12+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Registrations?preview=/64949563/64950758/Final%20Updated%20Charter%20Questions%20%2B%20Suggested%20Data.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_RARPMRIAGPWG_2017-2D05-2D12-2BSub-2BTeam-2Bfor-2BSunrise-2BRegistrations-3Fpreview-3D_64949563_64950758_Final-2520Updated-2520Charter-2520Questions-2520-252B-2520Suggested-2520Data.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=BDzKNykEh4AD9p1g-xGOnWocfGD0KmDB-P9KTp35ryE&s=mG7p7U3s7VyXuU9TEwG8SInJNvkUC3v0xJ38ckoFS0w&e=> In preparing the 5/12 Table, there was a mismatch of expectations. Some (expecting the original charter questions with footnotes) were surprised; others were not. It's that legitimate difference of expectations that we are seeing being expressing in the Subteam now: which version of the questions did you expect to see in the current version of the Table? Also, Maxim has been patient and diligent in explaining to us (and noting in many versions of the table) that revised questions bypass legitimate registry business concerns (e.g., POLICE for .LONDON) and, last week, how some of the questions impose obligations no registry could meet (e.,g because registries do not know the TMCH entries). One thing we did discuss last week is that the Charter Questions, as consolidated and revised, do need to fairly consider the needs and considerations of all relevant stakeholders, e.g., Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrants. No one seemed to disagree! Would it make sense to take a week off, study the current table, and resume next week? The TM Claims Subteam took a week of last week. We already have apologies from Lori Schulman, Maxim Alzoba, Susan Payne, Mary Wong(staff). If you are a) not able to attend the subteam tomorrow, please let the Subteam know. b) if you are planning to attend, should we hold the meeting or postpone until next week? Tx for letting the Subteam know. Best, Kathy On 5/25/2017 1:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello Jeremy and all, Just to clarify that the reworded questions are not staff edits to the original Charter questions but, rather, the result of the weekly Sub Team discussions on batching, intent and scope, and reflect edits and comments made by Sub Team members in previous versions of the current Google Docs table. In view of the request to complete our work by 31 May, we hope that Sub Team members who do not agree with the current language are able to suggest alternative text for the questions for review by the Sub Team (per the Action Items from last week). If possible, please send these via email to this list ahead of the Friday call. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc[docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_D...> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org[eff.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eff.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=BDzKNykEh4AD9p1g-xGOnWocfGD0KmDB-P9KTp35ryE&s=K8PKvux2LMUg7woU-IlyKjH3gN56lLWQkKfbeOc2Krg&e=> jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt[eff.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.eff.org_files_2016_11_27_key-5Fjmalcolm.txt&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=DZVUAuc1juldSXNq8YmDoadUOY0MfYdjlopAUQyOxRQ&m=BDzKNykEh4AD9p1g-xGOnWocfGD0KmDB-P9KTp35ryE&s=Dk-ar00h0MtxuZe-Lv8EPmhqA66Hlu5K3Opcg1_dhFo&e=> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
I can only attend the first half of a call tomorrow if we end up having one. I am not opposed to postponing the call until the majority of the sub team can attend if the purpose is to discuss something as broad as what the overall format of the questions should be (original w/ footnotes versus reworded). Thanks, Matt From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:03 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Where we have come from; Where we are going Hi All, Amr and I sat down for awhile and reviewed past Notes, Action Items and Tables from 4/28, 5/5, 5/12 etc. The disconnect dates back to 5/5 (two subteam meetings ago). At the start of the discussion, there was concern expressed about the distance of "Updated Draft Sunrise Questions & Comments" from the Original Charter Questions. The Chair Summarizing this discussion with a conclusion that many thought was an Action Item: that the Subteam would "clarify charter questions by adding footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the questions without consensus of the full WG." See 5/2 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sun... But in latter part of the discussion, Staff noted a different action item: that they would "prepare a new document with the original charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column." Staff created the 5/12 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-12+Sub+Team+for+Sun... In preparing the 5/12 Table, there was a mismatch of expectations. Some (expecting the original charter questions with footnotes) were surprised; others were not. It's that legitimate difference of expectations that we are seeing being expressing in the Subteam now: which version of the questions did you expect to see in the current version of the Table? Also, Maxim has been patient and diligent in explaining to us (and noting in many versions of the table) that revised questions bypass legitimate registry business concerns (e.g., POLICE for .LONDON) and, last week, how some of the questions impose obligations no registry could meet (e.,g because registries do not know the TMCH entries). One thing we did discuss last week is that the Charter Questions, as consolidated and revised, do need to fairly consider the needs and considerations of all relevant stakeholders, e.g., Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrants. No one seemed to disagree! Would it make sense to take a week off, study the current table, and resume next week? The TM Claims Subteam took a week of last week. We already have apologies from Lori Schulman, Maxim Alzoba, Susan Payne, Mary Wong(staff). If you are a) not able to attend the subteam tomorrow, please let the Subteam know. b) if you are planning to attend, should we hold the meeting or postpone until next week? Tx for letting the Subteam know. Best, Kathy On 5/25/2017 1:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello Jeremy and all, Just to clarify that the reworded questions are not staff edits to the original Charter questions but, rather, the result of the weekly Sub Team discussions on batching, intent and scope, and reflect edits and comments made by Sub Team members in previous versions of the current Google Docs table. In view of the request to complete our work by 31 May, we hope that Sub Team members who do not agree with the current language are able to suggest alternative text for the questions for review by the Sub Team (per the Action Items from last week). If possible, please send these via email to this list ahead of the Friday call. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Good Morning, Sorry for the late reply, just getting back online. I think it would be a good idea to postpone until next week and allow further examination. Thanks Roger From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:03 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Where we have come from; Where we are going Hi All, Amr and I sat down for awhile and reviewed past Notes, Action Items and Tables from 4/28, 5/5, 5/12 etc. The disconnect dates back to 5/5 (two subteam meetings ago). At the start of the discussion, there was concern expressed about the distance of "Updated Draft Sunrise Questions & Comments" from the Original Charter Questions. The Chair Summarizing this discussion with a conclusion that many thought was an Action Item: that the Subteam would "clarify charter questions by adding footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the questions without consensus of the full WG." See 5/2 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sun... But in latter part of the discussion, Staff noted a different action item: that they would "prepare a new document with the original charter questions in one column, and the proposed final updates/refinements made by the Sub Team in a second column." Staff created the 5/12 table: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-12+Sub+Team+for+Sun... In preparing the 5/12 Table, there was a mismatch of expectations. Some (expecting the original charter questions with footnotes) were surprised; others were not. It's that legitimate difference of expectations that we are seeing being expressing in the Subteam now: which version of the questions did you expect to see in the current version of the Table? Also, Maxim has been patient and diligent in explaining to us (and noting in many versions of the table) that revised questions bypass legitimate registry business concerns (e.g., POLICE for .LONDON) and, last week, how some of the questions impose obligations no registry could meet (e.,g because registries do not know the TMCH entries). One thing we did discuss last week is that the Charter Questions, as consolidated and revised, do need to fairly consider the needs and considerations of all relevant stakeholders, e.g., Trademark Owners, Registries and Registrants. No one seemed to disagree! Would it make sense to take a week off, study the current table, and resume next week? The TM Claims Subteam took a week of last week. We already have apologies from Lori Schulman, Maxim Alzoba, Susan Payne, Mary Wong(staff). If you are a) not able to attend the subteam tomorrow, please let the Subteam know. b) if you are planning to attend, should we hold the meeting or postpone until next week? Tx for letting the Subteam know. Best, Kathy On 5/25/2017 1:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote: Hello Jeremy and all, Just to clarify that the reworded questions are not staff edits to the original Charter questions but, rather, the result of the weekly Sub Team discussions on batching, intent and scope, and reflect edits and comments made by Sub Team members in previous versions of the current Google Docs table. In view of the request to complete our work by 31 May, we hope that Sub Team members who do not agree with the current language are able to suggest alternative text for the questions for review by the Sub Team (per the Action Items from last week). If possible, please send these via email to this list ahead of the Friday call. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Hi Jeremy, Because Lori is on the road, I'll take the liberty of responding. You raise some important points and clearly something has been lost in translation. I'll be posting more about this shortly. But overall, the Subteam's job is not to replace charter questions but to consolidate and clarify them. To the extent this is not happening, we must revisit and revise them. Also, the questions must reflect any concerns and interests that might exist among Registries, Registrars, Trademark owners and Registrants, to the extent that they exist. That was definitely an agreement of last week! Best, Kathy On 5/24/2017 3:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote:
On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>.
This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week’s Sub Team call). *Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience*.
Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions.
Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator’s pricing scheme (either “regular” sunrise pricing or use of “premium” pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner’s access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression.
Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question.
My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them.
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
Hi all, I want to respond specifically to the suggestion that the point of the questions is changing. "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" became "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" It may be that we lost the "therefore" here, but to revisit the discussion a bit: Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory is a question calling for an opinion. No data, no suggestion of an issue, no idea of what the team is to REVIEW. The point was to try to guess at the underlying question that would lead to this outcome question. So when you drill down, you ask, "well, why would they be mandatory or not"? Answer: Because they're either doing their job or not. Ok, so let's ask if they're doing their job. If they are, then possibly they should be mandatory. If not, maybe they should not be mandatory. So you get to: Are they having their intended effect? --If yes, are there some issues we can address? If yes, what are they - do they involve making sunrise not mandatory for some or all registries? If not, great. -- If no, then what should we do differently? Does it include keeping sunrise mandatory for all registries? So it's not a total bastardization of the question. It's trying to get at the root. I hope that helps. Best, Kristine From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:40 AM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team Hi Jeremy, Because Lori is on the road, I'll take the liberty of responding. You raise some important points and clearly something has been lost in translation. I'll be posting more about this shortly. But overall, the Subteam's job is not to replace charter questions but to consolidate and clarify them. To the extent this is not happening, we must revisit and revise them. Also, the questions must reflect any concerns and interests that might exist among Registries, Registrars, Trademark owners and Registrants, to the extent that they exist. That was definitely an agreement of last week! Best, Kathy On 5/24/2017 3:13 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote: On 5 May, staff were tasked with drawing up a third table taking into consideration the comments submitted and discussed by the Sub Team. The table was also to include the original Charter questions, and match them against the updated/refined versions in order to have the ability to demonstrate the changes made in a single table, keeping reporting the output of the Sub Team to the full Working Group in mind. Staff were also tasked with adding additional columns; one explaining the decisions made by the Sub Team resulting in the updates/refinements made, as well as a column in which available data and data required could be placed. The Sub Team also agreed to use color-codes to more clearly indicate which original Charter questions were batched and refined into which consolidated and refined/updated questions. This has resulted in the most recent version of the table/google doc<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9d...>. This is the working version of the table that the Sub Team is currently considering, and there are a number of agreed upon action items for Sub Team members to go through listed on the 19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page<https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw> (last week's Sub Team call). Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your earliest convenience. Sorry for not making the last couple of calls due to travel, but I've taken a look at the reworded questions now and some of the staff edits have resulted in questions that are quite unrecognizable when compared to the original versions. Maybe the new wording was extensively discussed in the calls that I missed (though the notes don't make it seem so), but I find a few of them particularly strange. In particular "Does a registry operator's pricing scheme (either "regular" sunrise pricing or use of "premium" pricing tiers) have a chilling effect on a brand owner's access to Sunrise?" This is a weird co-option of the concept of a "chilling effect" which is a U.S. legal term of art that refers to restraints on free expression. Also, the "rewording" of "Should Sunrise Periods continue to be mandatory?" into the form "Are the Sunrise Periods as typically implemented having their intended effect?" which is absolutely not just a rewording, but a subversion of the meaning of the original question. My fault for not participating in the last calls, but I think there needs to be a reversion to the original form of these questions, or a least a deeper discussion of the reworded versions. Perhaps the batching, at least in the first instance, could just involve putting all of the related questions, in their original wording, into a single table cell, but without rewording them. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122 _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
participants (7)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Dorrain, Kristine -
Jeremy Malcolm -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
Mlsna, Matthew -
Roger D Carney