[Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

[John McElwaine]

Sunrise Team,

With respect to the standing requirement set forth below and in the Status Check document, I would point out that since a Sunrise registration can only be used to claim a domain name that is an exact match to the mark in the TMCH, the standing requirement for a third-party to challenge such a Sunrise domain name registration should require that challenger be the owner of trademark that is also an exact match.  I would not support an expansion to “similar”.

Thanks,

John

From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 11:49 AM
To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

◄External Email► - From: gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org>

Hi all,

Appreciate the extensive discussion of this issue. Building on the conversation started by David McAuley and drawing extensively from text and summaries in our new "status check" document (the entry points are pasted below), here is a proposed answer to question 6 on SDRPs, which should hopefully be helpful in charting a path forward.

Best,

Michael

---------------

Q6(a): What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?
Proposed Answer: According to the Section 6.2.2 and 6.2.4 of Module 5 of the Applicant Guidebook, “Trademark Clearinghouse” section, SDRP is a mechanism that a Registry Operator must provide to resolve disputes regarding its registration of Sunrise Registrations. It allows challenges to Sunrise Registrations related to Registry Operator’s Allocation and registration policies, if:

(i)                  at time the challenged domain name was registered, the registrant did not hold a trademark registration of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty;

(ii)                the domain name is not identical to the mark on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration;

(iii)               the trademark registration on which the registrant based its Sunrise registration is not of national effect (or regional effect) or the trademark had not been court-validated or protected by statute or treaty; or

(iv)              the trademark registration on which the domain name registrant based its Sunrise registration did not issue on or before the effective date of the Registry Agreement and was not applied for on or before ICANN announced the applications received.
Also, Registry Operators must provide prompt notice of the outcome of an SDRP proceeding to the affected parties. To the extent applicable, ICANN must use commercially reasonable efforts to ensure that the TMCH Sunrise and Claims Operator cooperates with Registry Operator in effectuating Registry Operator’s SDRP.
Should the ICANN Community and/or Registry Operators choose to tie Sunrise registrations to the categories of goods or services of the gTLD (as Registry Operators may do) or should the RPM WG recommend other expansions of Sunrise (see e.g., dot-span issues), this list of bases for SDRP challenge may grow.
However, in its research, the Subteam found that virtually no SDRPs have been filed, including with some of the largest portfolio gTLD applicants. One problem pointed out was the lack of openness of the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) database and the inability to check information about a trademark recorded in the TMCH – information needed by a legitimate third party to file a SDRP challenge.
The Subteam had numerous proposals to improve the SDRP and they are discussed in response to (b) and (c) below.

Q6(b): Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
Proposed Answer:  The SDRPs could be much better serving the purposes for which they were created.

Q6(c): If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
Proposed Answer: The Subteam devoted considerable discussion to “fixes” of the SDRP, and received a number of proposals. We submit the following recommendations for Community review:

1)      - Registry Operators should publish the information of trademarks recorded in the TMCH for all domain names registered during their Sunrise Period at the end of the period. This will assist challengers to identify/search trademarks registered during the Sunrise period and inform their decision on whether to bring an SDRP challenge.

2)      - Registry Operators should be required to publish all SDRP decisions, which will then be aggregated in a central location to facilitate search/analysis.

3)      - The TMCH should allow a legitimate challenger, one with standing to file an SDRP (e.g., a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or a similar name to the domain name; an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include business, organizations or individuals with the same or a similar name; or a party with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations) to have “single-shot access” to a trademark recorded in the TMCH for the purpose of determining whether an SDRP challenge would be well-grounded.  The TMCH shall provide information including: country of registration, registration number, registration date, TM owner, description of goods and services, or basis of the mark(s) being protected by statute or treaty/country within a short period of time (e.g., 3 business days) to allow the filer to proceed forward with a Sunrise Challenge if warranted (as this is a tight timeline).

4)      - ICANN should adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDRP determinations.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:49 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>> wrote:
Maxim,

These are excellent points, and from my perspective - they can be easily incorporated into my proposal (obviously, I can't speak for the Sub Pro WG recommendation on Spanning the Dot). Thank you for your support on this.

Best regards,
Claudio

On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 8:21 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com<mailto:m.alzoba at gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Ariel,

I think , it might be a good idea to add here, that even if the suggestion to use TL.D method for MTCH entries as allowed one,
we need to ensure that policies of the particular TLD is not violated in the process
(for example , some highly regulated and protected TLD, such as .bank allow only real banks, with the strict verification procedures
to be the registrants in that TLD,  and blindly allowing spit_by_dot_TM might be undermining the policies of the TLD
 by a hypothetical 'SomethingBANK' TM demanding registration in .bank)

short version 'please add if the latter does not cause violation of RA (example of EXAMPLE.TLD being prohibited in the Registry Agreement), ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names)  , local laws (cases where some names could be violate local
legislation, for example prohibition of profanity language e.t.c.), or policies of the Registry (example - TLD with eligibility requirements), or does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet ( examples of TM consisting of names such relevant to tech part of the Internet WPADTLD, RDAPTLD where TLD is some TLD )'

or more short version of it (without the examples - they were provided for clarity only).

.
if the latter does not cause violation of RA, ICANN policies (list of ICANN reserved names), local laws, or policies of the Registry, does not cause danger to security or stability of the internet.
.

Sincerely Yours,

Maxim Alzoba
Special projects manager,
International Relations Department,
FAITID

m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp)
skype oldfrogger

Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)


On 20 May 2019, at 22:12, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
Staff would like to remind the Sub Team that Claudio’s Individual Proposal #9 has been discussed by the Sub Team according to the process and the detailed work plan. It was first reviewed during the Sub Team’s call on 24 April when Sunrise Q1 was discussed. Then the discussion moved to the Discussion Thread for Sunrise Q1. By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team with regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.
As Individual Proposal #9 is being discussed again in the context of Sunrise Q6 due to the SubPro PDP referral, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing the following way forward (these points are intended to be included in the Sub Team report to the full WG):

  1.  The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work.
  2.  Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation.
  3.  The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.

To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing not including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.

Sub Team members are welcome to comment on whether you support/oppose the Sub Team Co-Chairs’ proposal with regard to Individual Proposal #9, as well as Claudio’s suggestion. Please provide further comment, if any, via this Discussion Thread.

Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel


From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM
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] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

Tx Claudio for posting.  I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal.
This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report.  Claudio, as you have shared below, key questions have been raised -- including definitional and structural ones.  They have not been answered or addressed. Unfortunately, I don't think this proposal is ready for primetime, and would benefit from the process we have set out for review of individual proposals (and incorporation of some of the feedback already received).
Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)
On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:
Thanks very much for this Ariel.

David, Greg,

In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.

After presenting the proposal, I started making changes to address the input received on that call. I wasn’t on the chat that day, but I was under the impression that a number of sub team members supported the proposal in principle, but another segment (Kathy, Kristine, Maxim, and Zak) expressed questions or concerns, some related to policy and some related to implementation. This is the reason why I thought it might be worth the effort to make modifications.

However, in the process of consulting with stakeholders, I received several recommendations that it would be helpful to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report - not as a Policy Recommendation, but to help flesh out the issues in greater detail and to obtain more perspective on community views (since a similar recommendation was submitted to us from another PDP).

Is it appropriately under the sub team’s remit to consider proceeding in this direction, i.e. to consider recommending to the plenary that we post the proposal for public comment?

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Best regards,
Claudio

On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,

On behalf of the Sub Team Co-Chairs, staff are sending this message following up on the discussion about Proposal #9 in the context of the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6. Please note that Proposal #9 is closely related to the agreed Sunrise Charter Question 1. Its relevant aspect has been picked up in this discussion thread due to connection with the SubPro PDP Working Group’s referral.

The Sub Team Co-Chairs propose to include the following in the Sub Team’s report to the full Working Group at the end of its deliberation:

  1.  The SubPro PDP Working Group referred a question about “dot-span trademarks” to the RPM Working Group with a request that it be considered as part of the RPM work.
  2.  Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation. This has been noted in the Discussion Thread Q1, which is now closed.
  3.  The Sub Team Co-Chairs suggest that the RPM & Sunrise Sub Team chairs respond to the SubPro referral, thanking them for the referral and confirming that the issue was discussed.

The discussion thread for Q6 will remain open pending additional comments. In the absence of further discussions, it will be closed shortly per Sub Team Co-Chairs’ determination.

Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel

From: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM
To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley at verisign.com<mailto:dmcauley at verisign.com>>
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org>>, "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: [Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

Dear David, Greg, all,

In light of today's discussion during our sub team meeting, I would like to request that we: (1) withhold further consideration of the Spanning the Dot Sunrise topic for the time being, (2) post the issue for Public Comment in the initial report, and (3) then consider the input received at the plenary level.

More specifically, we can include a set of questions designed to solicit public feedback on the policy and operational issues that may arise with the implementation of a Spanning the Dot Sunrise. I am happy to assist in developing those questions with other interested sub team members, which we can base on the transcript from the Sub team meeting when we discussed this topic last month.

On a personal level, I do not feel comfortable making material changes that will necessarily impact the proposal that we just received on this same topic from the Sub Pro WG.

Thank you.

Best regards,
Claudio


On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi at gmail.com>> wrote:
David, all,

Thank you for kindly sending this around.

On the Spanning the Dot proposal, after our Subteam discussion last month and some further consultation, my recommendation is to include the proposal for public comment, as part of the Phase I initial report. In other words, not as a formal WG Recommendation, but as a proposal that the Working Group will consider based on the public comments received.

If you and Greg would like to add this topic as a discussion item on our agenda for Wednesday, or I can mention under AOB, I am happy to discuss in more detail during our next team meeting on Wednesday. Thanks!

Best regards,
Claudio

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>> wrote:
Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,

I am submitting this entry to the thread on Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6 in my personal capacity, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.

Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:

Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?
Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?

My suggested answers:

I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:

Suggested answer to Q6(a):

As to the ‘what are SDRPs’ part of the question, I don’t see any usefulness in us trying to answer other than by referring to existing documents – e.g. to the Applicant Guidebook, Module 5, Trademark Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__newgtlds.icann.org_en_applicants_agb_trademark-2Dclearinghouse-2D04jun12-2Den.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=I0zLyhOjEMBO6guajQkKd4h4bbZA-sYR1_oXIWXkUUI&s=qsndaGGOZVwypH_jSYo45tfTwMFGsx5wjfgWEuIIo1s&e=>, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).

As to the ‘are any changes needed’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after our discussions.

We have several proposals:

First, we have proposal #2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25232.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=CC7uGanykryCTWwzAaGnXQA4WV5PhZnoDWaK0WE7cQ8&e=> from George Kirikos which says, in part:

If the sunrise procedures are retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then all details of any trademark relied upon to secure a sunrise registration shall be made public, in order to permit utilization of the SDRP. Details should include all information provided to the TMCH (e.g. country, registration number, TM registration date, TM owner, goods and services, etc.). Without limiting an implementation review team, such publication might be implemented by making it public at the source (the TMCH) or via the WHOIS (which had been done in the past).

Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise_2019-2DMay_000288.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=8Tb-95yOhzuHCXe4IAcSGXPo4gnCpZFZzkZb2cECCDU&e=> of May 8th. It says, in part:

Accordingly, a surgical change seems warranted. Allow a party associated with a business, organization or individual having the same or similar name to the domain name registered during the Sunrise Period [or an association or organization representing its members or affiliates which include that business, organization or individual with the same or similar name], or someone with strong proof of inaccuracy during Sunrise registrations, to bring to the Trademark Clearinghouse a request for data of a single, specific mark.

Third, we have proposal #4<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25234.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=SBpLGvbA3rB23MsjDO7tr29Hza59GocvYSBJDmmiK_s&e=> from George which says, in part:

If the sunrise procedure is retained (a separate proposal calls for its elimination), then the Uniregistry "Substantive Ineligibility" clause be included as a minimum standard for SDRP disputes, as per clause 2.1.2. of: https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf [uniregistry.link]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.uniregistry.link_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2015_07_SEPRP.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=dRzB-YypMqj9AZjlP_sZHORJtVF4M6AI0vip1lbQy10&m=I0zLyhOjEMBO6guajQkKd4h4bbZA-sYR1_oXIWXkUUI&s=fz5yNHH0aMpcqqg4LUYRn-VLMrfuYar4Mt_xSxDbmaw&e=>

And fourth, we have a proposal that Jeff Neuman forwarded to the RPM group in his role as a co-chair of the Subsequent Procedures for New gTLDs PDP. This proposal is an attachment to this email<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_pipermail_comments-2Dgtld-2Dsubsequent-2Dprocedures-2Dinitial-2D03jul18_2018q3_000058.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=7L--5LYY8w7avksOvJ7NyfTEua2ArC78Pn7rTqxuz_A&e=> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP. In part it says:

Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism: We believe that the rights protection mechanisms designed for the 2012 round have generally struck the right balance. However, we encountered minor issues related to the inability to consider “dot-span trademarks” in applying the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Process (SDRP).3 We would recommend that ICANN adjust the terms of the SDRP such that a registry could treat dot-span trademarks as exact-matches when making SDPR determinations. The Working Group could also explore extending Sunrise and Claims services to domains that are exact matches of dot-span trademarks registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse.4 This recommendation would not otherwise affect the requirement that Sunrise participants demonstrate use of the underlying trademark in commerce, nor the ability of registries to reserve names or designate them as premium.
3.  We use the term dot-span trademarks to refer to instances where the entire domain name, including the TLD, is an exact match of a registered trademark.
4. For instance, for a TMCH entry for WALMART the brand owner would be permitted to register both walm.art and walmart.art during the Sunrise period for .art, and would receive claims notifications for either registration.

My opinion is that we have not heard the ‘wide support’ needed for sending these along as sub-team recommendations. Does anything think otherwise – or want to endeavor again on list to establish wide support? Is there promise for such support in the ‘operational fix’?

Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?

Suggested answer to Q6(b):

Despite apparent low usage rates, it seems to me that our discussions have shown that SDRPs are generally serving the purpose(s) for which they were created.

Suggested answer to Q6(c):

So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).

For now, best regards,
David

David McAuley
Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org>> On Behalf Of Ariel Liang
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM
To: gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,

As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6, including Proposals #2 and #4.

We ask that you review the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019) and provide any additional input you may have to the “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider draft answers to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:
a. Should the Sub Team recommend that the full WG consider including this Individual Proposal in the Initial Report for the solicitation of public comment?
b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?
c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?

Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019. Comments/input provided past the closing date or outside this discussion thread will not be taken into account when compiling the final Sub Team member input.

Summary Table (Pages 29-32)
The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102138618_-255BSunrise-2520Summary-2520Table-255D-2520-252816-2520April-25202019-2529.pdf-3Fversion-3D1-26modificationDate-3D1555515624235-26api-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=WuDfC3QVya7CPKbh4O4EnrX8vpzCxiUHPW244TipOi8&e=>.

Agreed Sunrise Charter Question 6 (Pages 29-30)
The Sub Team just discussed Agreed Charter Question 6 on 02 May 2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide update.

Q6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q6(b) Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
Proposed Answer: TBD

Individual Proposals
The Sub Team just discussed the Proposals #2 and #4 on 02 May 2019, hence there is no draft answer currently on the Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019). Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide.

Link to the individual proposal is included below.
Proposal #2: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25232.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=CC7uGanykryCTWwzAaGnXQA4WV5PhZnoDWaK0WE7cQ8&e=>
Proposal #4: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_102146375_Proposal-25234.pdf-3Fapi-3Dv2&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=SBpLGvbA3rB23MsjDO7tr29Hza59GocvYSBJDmmiK_s&e=>

Where to Find All Discussion Threads
Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green): https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_-5FoIWBg&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=8Wu86pgO1lBUxoPqK0aaYca6f8_JxUEWHB_oS1PZT8c&e=>


Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel


_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=>


_______________________________________________

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=>
_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=>
_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dsunrise&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=y6GGIaQuEZpyGjSI3JuseIel0stCyd996mwEoRolr9E&e=>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_policy&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=jVHSlxOBdf_FmLyB8NpgaP0jexp0aUhqfqQr0djthEk&e=>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_tos&d=DwMFaQ&c=qmi9WrYRGQEDDOxOwKrAjW7mWovpzN_EKyRbeK_zbP0&r=Kepk-9GEB6JgOj0vUGl8c0hdrRM7FW-8Is-VAQU1VAk&m=gikmeg6My4f7r6z0466FdSM8l36fHbqA-wCyElK0bzY&s=SPdPnxak255x64Uet-zwknKSdpLKch-VIv6-_DOW1yg&e=>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.


Confidentiality Notice

This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and delete all copies of this message.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/attachments/20190610/9c331fbc/attachment-0001.html>