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

Wed May 22 16:59:49 UTC 2019

Dear Claudio,

On behalf of Greg and David, the Sub Team Co-Chairs, we thank you for your thoughtful and detailed comments on this discussion thread.  We would like to clarify a few points with respect to a couple of statements/questions in your message below.

First, with respect to your statement, “However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement” we point to the following excerpt from the Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/Proposed%20Process%20for%20TMCH%20Sunrise%20%20TM%20Claims%20Sub%20Teams%20%288%20Feb%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1553628167000&api=v2>:

“While proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment, the Initial Report will include a reference (e.g. via an Appendix) linking to any objections received and documented on the WG wiki”

With respect to this provision, and as noted previously, the Sub Team Co-Chairs determined that as Proposal #9 was deemed to not have wide support thus far, i.e., it has been “lacking the requisite support” and, barring a change in that status as we wrap up the work of the Sub Team, it will “not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment”.  Thus, without wide support, the proposal will not be included in the Initial Report.

With respect to your question, “If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)?”

For proposals that do not receive wide support from the Sub Team the procedures do not allow an individual to resubmit that proposal (either in original or revised form) to the plenary/full WG for consideration as to whether it should be included in the Initial Report. Per the Proposed Process, the Sub Team’s Summary Table and report to the WG will note which individual proposals constitute Sub Team recommendations for inclusion in the Initial Report and which do not.

We hope that this clarification is helpful.

Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie

From: Gnso-rpm-sunrise <gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 at 7:54 PM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>
Cc: "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6

Thanks, Ariel.

Based on this sentence, "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio.", I believe this summary is missing a critical component, which is that I withheld making revisions because of an open question regarding following another approach which would not require me to post a revised proposal at this moment in time.

My comments on two statements within this summary are below:

(1) "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."

(2) "By the closing date of 17 May, the thread did not receive further comments from the Sub Team regarding Proposal #9, or a revised proposal from Claudio."

On (1): Please correct me if I am mistaken (which may be the case), but I thought the role of the Sub team was to facilitate the adoption of Policy Recommendations for consideration by the plenary, by identifying Proposals which garner "wide support" on the Sub team level.

However, a lack of "wide support" does not create a presumption against the proponent at the plenary level. After all, a proposal can obtain the "support" of the Sub team, but not obtain the broader level of "wide support" necessary for Sub team endorsement.

I am only expressing this because the statement above seems to go beyond this conclusion by stating that a specific proposal not be included in the Initial Report due to a lack of "wide support" on the Sub team.

Question: are you saying this because (a) the Initial Report will be published before the plenary has time to consider proposals? and/or (b) because the answer to my question below on Public Comment is in the negative?

On (2): The reason I didn't post a revised proposal was because there was an open question on whether we could follow a different approach based on the feedback I received in the consensus-building process, i.e. utilizing Public Comment as a means to help reach consensus due to (a) a lack of wide support on the sub team when the proposal was initially presented; and (b) the nature of the questions/concerns provided on this proposal.

To summarize, after presenting the Spanning the Dot proposal to the Sub team on the 24 April call, and receiving helpful input from Sub team members, I began the process of addressing feedback, as per the ICANN consensus-building process.

In following this methodology, I received feedback that instead of making revisions to the proposal at this moment in time, to ask if we can post the proposal for public comment along with a series of issues and questions that require resolution. Since this input resonated with me as a logical way of proceeding, I attempted to ask question to the co-chairs via email on 13 May, to see if it was possible to post the proposal for public comment in the initial report accordingly, i.e. not as a policy recommendation.

The co-chairs may have provided some form of a response on our Sub team call of 15 May, but it wasn't clear to me if they were answering a different question. So I made an intervention in an effort to clarify, and was directed to post my request for clarification to the list.

So I proceeded to do so on 15 May, when I sought clarification by posting a note on this thread (although it appears the discussion thread for Sunrise Q1 was the better place), when I stated "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 apologize if the nature or the wording of my prior questions/posts weren't clear to you, because I believe the co-chairs are doing their best to provide an answer.

To rephrase what I was seeking to have answered is: "Instead of posting a revised Spanning the Dot proposal at this moment in time for sub team consideration, can we post the proposal for public comment in the initial report and include a list of policy and implementation questions for resolution which can be considered by the plenary".

Moreover, I thought this approach would also help because I had some level of hesitation about holding the pen on changes when it impacted essentially the same proposal from came in for consideration from the Sub Pro PDP; as a result, I thought changes might be better considered by the team as a whole, instead of me personally making them.

I am just reading Kathy's email from earlier today, and I think she is answering my question, by saying in effect 'the answer is no, it is not possible to use the Public Comment process in this manner'.

Kathy's email states: "This is a policy recommendation -- and would be going out to the Community for public comment as such in our Initial Report....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)."

Just for confirmation, can the co-chairs kindly confirm my interpretation of where things stand is correct?

If that is the case, I would like clarification on #1 above, can this proposal be presented to the plenary for consideration (and therefore be potentially included in the initial report if the plenary supports)?

Depending on the answers to these questions, I may need to post a revised Spanning the Dot proposal for Sub team or plenary consideration.

I hope this is helpful feedback, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any questions/comments.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Claudio

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:12 PM 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: