[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team

[Jeremy Malcolm]

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/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9dBE4/edit>.
>
>  
>
> 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 at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170524/563be5f7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170524/563be5f7/signature-0001.asc>