Dear all, It does not appear that Paul’s response got through to the mailing list, so I’m forwarding it and the original staff email (addressed to the two current Sub Teams) below. Cheers Mary From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady@winston.com> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 23:15 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] QUESTION FOR YOUR RESPONSE: Additional Charter questions for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims? Thanks Mary. I’m copying in the entire PDP list as I think this is not a question just for these two subgroups. I have no issue moving bullet point three around since it is a Phase 1 question. I do, however, have issues with moving bullet points 1 and 2 out of Phase 2 and into Phase 1. When the questions were developed, they were read with Phase 2 (UDRP) in mind. The questions are heavily weighted towards certain outcomes as it is, but in my opinion, were more tolerable as read against the backdrop of thousands of decided UDRP cases. Moving them to the Phase 1 landscape, and thus out of their initial context, makes them too weighted to presumed outcomes. If the goal is to examine these concepts in Phase 1, we would need to rewrite these questions to be far more neutral than they appear in order for the Phase 1 review to be meaningful. I also think they even if we do rewrite and move them to Phase 1 ex post facto, they should remain in Phase 2 as well. Thanks! Best, Paul From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 12:50 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] QUESTION FOR YOUR RESPONSE: Additional Charter questions for Sunrise and/or Trademark Claims? Dear all, Based on directions from the Sub Team on Trademark Claims, staff went back to review all our PDP Charter questions, to make sure that all questions relevant to that particular RPM are captured for the Sub Team (even if they were categorized previously under a different RPM). As a result, we wanted to ask you if you think the following two questions (listed under the UDRP section) should instead be moved to and addressed as part of the Sunrise and/or Claims review, or if you think they should be more appropriately addressed elsewhere: · Are generic dictionary words being adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws and international treaties? E.g. sun, windows. · Are last names and geographic places adequately protected so that they are available for all to use as allowed under their national laws, e.g, Smith, McDonald, Capitol Hill Cafe, Old Town Deli? In addition, for the Trademark Claims Sub Team, there was this other question in the TMCH section: · Should notices to the trademark owner be sent before the domain is registered? Finally, for the Sunrise Sub Team, the Trademark Claims Sub Team suggests that all Sub Teams take a look at the General Questions from the Charter, to see which (if any) may be applicable to that particular RPM. To that end, staff will be adding all the General Questions from the Charter to the Google Document that we are preparing for both Sub Teams, for your reference and consideration. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> Date: Friday, April 14, 2017 at 13:15 To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] IMPORTANT: Action Items and Notes from the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team Call - 14 April 2017 Hi, Please find below the Action Items and Notes from today’s Sub Team call. Note that all Sub Team calls will be recorded and transcribed, so that Sub Team members who miss a call have an opportunity to listen to and/or read the details of the discussion. Thanks. Amr Action Items: 1. Staff to compile information on context/origin of each question by the next Sub Team call (e.g. how much support for a particular question in the past, or was it one suggestion) 2. Sub Team agreed to "bunch" similar questions together (but not necessarily redrafting - see notes on adding footnotes to facilitate clarity) 3. Staff/Sub Team Leadership to set up a Google Doc for first pass of consolidation of questions - second pass for refinement of questions 4. Sub Team members have 5 days (Wednesday, 19 April) to send suggestions to the mailing list, to be captured by staff in the Google Doc, and circulated to the Sub Team by Friday, 21 April. Notes: 1. Lori Schulman selected as Sub Team Chair 2. Discussion on Charter questions for Sunrise Registrations · What questions can be consolidated/refined? · Are premium names relevant to this Sub Team or even the Working Group? Premium names not considered RPMs o From AC Chat: I think the issue for premium names is around setting of pricing which effectively circumvents the sunrise and how do you address that as a brand owner if you have no route of objection o If pricing of premium names is interfering with the ability to use RPMs (such as trademark holders registrations during sunrise), might be within scope of the working group to discuss o Pricing during sunrise makes the benefits of sunrise economically difficult for trademark holders to take advantage of o Sub Team can go through questions - refine so that they make sense - use liaisons to new gTLD sub pro PDP to coordinate how they are addressed o Instead of redrafting questions, bucket questions together including those that may be similar or identical o Investigate instances when premium names interfere with sunrise registrations to determine the extent to which it may actually be problematic · From AC Chat: Brand owners are not the only party with "special rights" in accordance to Sunrise, GEO TLDs need to deliver domains for public services/streets/monuments e.t.c. to the Municipal Entity of the City... for example · Adding context to questions may be helpful in addressing them (suggestion by staff - staff can investigate origins of questions being considered) - contextual information could be to determine/clarify if questions address longstanding problems identified by the community vs a question that came up once, and was included o From AC Chat: I'm not sure it makes sense to research where a Charter question came from. What's more relevant is the level of interest it merits within the WG o Add notes/footnotes to questions that may be redundant or where meaning is not clear for clarification - as alternative to redrafting · ACTION ITEM: Sub Team members to review questions for redundancy, and make suggestions on-list (use Google Docs) 3. Preference expressed to hold next Sub Team call next Friday at UTC 14:00 (60 minutes with ability to extend to 90 minutes) to give Sub Team enough time to consolidate/refine questions - ACTION ITEM: Confirm next call day/time on-list ACTION ITEM: Aim for Wednesday for initial comments on question, so that staff can prepare and circulate document before Friday ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.