[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Where we have come from; Where we are going

Thu May 25 21:03:05 UTC 2017

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 at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 12:03 PM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at 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

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

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 at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org><mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13
To: "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org> <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at 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/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/20170525/87cad4e7/attachment-0001.html>