[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Wed Jul 12 14:48:16 UTC 2017

Hi Lori,

Thanks for the direction on this, despite the tight timeframe. Attached are the two documents we will use on today’s call. One contains the updated report of the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team (updated since the last version circulated to the WG mailing list on 11 July). This does include the updates from the Johannesburg face-to-face meeting in track changes and comments.

Another document, as indicated in my original email below, has the list of data requirements identified by the Sub Team, with additional input provided during the 21 June full WG call. These are also included in the full Sub Team document.

Thanks again.

Amr

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 4:28 PM
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Dear Amr,

Please use the old chart for today’s discussion.  I believe that J Scott mentioned in the F2F that we would revert to the old chart for the RPM regulars.  I think that updating the new version of the chart with all of the notes is the best solution.  However, we don’t seem to have time for that before the call.   Can we endeavor to do this after the call?  I would like for the sunrise team to check the notes for accuracy once they are copied into the new format.

Also, as an agenda item, I think it would be a good idea as part of today’s call to seek permission from the entire RPM group to move forward with the proposed rewritten questions and archive the old questions.  I think that the assumption that we should not rewrite the questions is becoming moot.  They have been essentially rewritten based on the team’s observations and input. We just need the blessing of the working group.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:18 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com>; Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Understood, Lori, with both thanks and apologies. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Amr

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 2:14 AM
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

I will do what I can but I may not respond until early Wednesday morning.  As I explained I have a very full schedule tomorrow and I am in the middle of doing another task at the moment and cannot revert to this.  I have to say that I am disappointed with the short notice and how this chart issue was handled in Johannesburg.  Mary explained and apologized which I accepted. Nonetheless, this switching around at the last minute is not fair to the subteam and I want to note that.

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:09 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: Re: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Hi Lori,

Thanks for the quick response, and apologies for the short notice. Since we hope to finalize the refinements to the Charter questions during the call on Wednesday, 12 July at 16:00 UTC, time is a little tight. Between now and then, if you feel you have a personal preference for which document would be more suitable for use on that call only, please do let us know.

If you have any questions, or would like any clarifications, please don’t hesitate to reach out to Mary and me.

Thanks again.

Amr

From: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:59 AM
To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org>>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: [Ext] RE: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Dear Amr,

Thank you but this is not enough notice for me.  I am still digging out and have a full schedule tomorrow.  May I have an extra week so I may make a decision and confer with the subteam?

Lori

Lori S. Schulman
Senior Director, Internet Policy
International Trademark Association (INTA)
+1-202-704-0408, Skype: lsschulman

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:amr.elsadr at icann.org]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 7:52 PM
To: Lori Schulman <lschulman at inta.org<mailto:lschulman at inta.org>>
Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>; Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: Formatting of Document for Review by the RPMs Review WG - Sunrise Registrations

Hi Lori,

You might have noticed that a proposed agenda has been circulated to the WG mailing list. The plan is to try to finalize the refinement of the questions that the WG will be answering as part of the Sunrise Registrations and Trademark Claims reviews during Wednesday’s (12 July) call.

After consulting the WG Co-Chairs, it was thought best to ask for your input on what document would be best to use during this final refinement effort. One option would be to use the document produced by the Sub Team, including additional refinements made to-date. This has just been circulated to the WG mailing list, and is attached to this email again. Another option would be to update and use the document displayed in the AC room during the face-to-face meeting at ICANN 59 (also attached).

As you will likely be called upon to address questions/comments in whichever document we use (or you may simply wish to weigh in during the discussion), it was felt important that you are comfortable with the decision made, so please let us know if you have any preference.

Also noteworthy is that during our planning for future calls, it was decided that the document/questions will not be required in their entirety for presentation during the substantive review/answering of the questions. When we get to that point, it is the plan of the WG leadership team to have slides ready for display in the AC room, which only cover the questions being answered on any given call, as well as any relevant information on data requirements. It is also our intent to give you an opportunity to review these slides before they are used on a week-by-week basis. I hope you find this agreeable.

One final note; staff was asked to prepare a separate document to be used to display the data requirements identified by the Sunrise Registrations Sub Team. There was some concern raised that these might be missed after having been moved to the bottom of the Sub Team report. They will, of course, remain in the original Sub Team document, but an additional document will be dedicated to the data requirements, only to ensure that they are not inadvertently missed.

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170712/a209cc49/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PROPOSED DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS CHARTER QUESTIONS.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 126972 bytes
Desc: PROPOSED DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR SUNRISE REGISTRATIONS CHARTER QUESTIONS.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170712/a209cc49/PROPOSEDDATAREQUIREMENTSFORSUNRISEREGISTRATIONSCHARTERQUESTIONS-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Sunrise Sub Team report - updated 22 June and after 29 June F2F plus additional notes.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 189405 bytes
Desc: Sunrise Sub Team report - updated 22 June and after 29 June F2F plus additional notes.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170712/a209cc49/SunriseSubTeamreport-updated22Juneandafter29JuneF2Fplusadditionalnotes-0001.docx>