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

Thu May 25 16:01:18 UTC 2017

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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:40 AM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at 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/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<mailto: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

_______________________________________________

Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list

Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20170525/6dae8ffd/attachment-0001.html>