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

[claudio di gangi]

Julie,

This is extremely helpful - thanks so much. If you have an opportunity,
please pass along my sincere appreciation to our hard working co-chairs for
taking the time to put this together (and also to staff as well).

I have a few comments on these three inter-related statements from the
co-chairs (see comments directly below the quoted text):

(a)  "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.*" (emphasis added).

(b) "“*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”. (emphasis added)

(c) "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." (emphasis added)


------

On (a): Yes to confirm, I am hoping to have a potential change in status,
based on the modifications and feedback that I can provide in response to
sub team members' questions/concerns UNLESS the public comment process can
be used for non-policy adoption purposes and/or if we are able to reanalyze
things at the plenary level.

But in terms of the modifications, my response can include elements of the
Sub Pro WG recommendation (on this same topic - Spanning the Dot), which
the Sub team did not have in possession until after I made the
presentation. So it helps to have the Sub Pro recommendation in hand for
this purpose. More importantly, the only reason I held off on the
fine-tuning is because of the open question regarding the manner in which
Public Comment can be used for consensus-building purposes and the role of
the plenary. With that said, I will do my best to follow the guidance of
the co-chairs.

To expand further, I am reading an implicit condition into the Sub team
standard described in 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>,*
 that "wide support" is necessary for Sub team endorsement to the plenary
for (1) the purposes of seeking public comment on (2) Initial Policy
Recommendations.

I was asking a different question, namely what is the standard for public
comment at the Sub team level, and at the plenary level, when something is
proposed for public comment that is NOT a policy recommendation, but public
comment is sought as a way of fleshing out issues on a particular proposal.
(1) Is this approach of public comment permitted by the GNSO WG Guidelines?
(2) Does the "wide support" standard still apply at the Sub team level when
this is the purpose of public comment?, and (3) do the GNSO WG Guidelines
apply (Consensus, Divergence, etc.) at the plenary?

I presume the plenary needs to reach Consensus to do this, correct? Its
seems the Sub team Process document is silent on this question (about
dealing with non-policy recommendations), and that the GNSO WG Guidelines
will govern the determination of what goes into the Initial Report. (as per
below).

Can you kindly ask the co-chairs to confirm their views on this so I'm
clear on where things stand? This question has not yet been directly
answered. Moreover, I believe there is still confusion on the overall Sub
team process as reflected in the analysis below, i.e. what role does the
plenary function in deciding what goes out for public comment?

--------

On (b) and (c): 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>*,
states:

(under *Section 8. Review of All Proposals, *1st bullet point): "All Sub
Team recommendations will be shared with the larger WG and *a final
decision on any proposal’s inclusion in the Initial Report for the purpose
of soliciting public comment will be made by the entire WG."* (emphasis
 added)

(Under Section 8. Review of All Proposals, 4th bullet point): "*The full WG
may also designate certain Sub Team recommendations as requiring further
consideration and refinement by the Sub Teams prior to inclusion in the
Initial Report*, and the Sub Team will be accorded a short period in which
to reconvene and consider such matters further""

(Under *Section 4. Reporting, *1st bullet point), states: "Per GNSO Working
Group Guidelines, *Sub Teams are expected to report their findings and
recommendations to the full WG for review and approval; no decisions or
recommendations are final until the full WG has reviewed and approved
them"; *(emphasis added)

(Under *Section **6. Sub Team Recommendations) *states: "If a Sub Team
member wishes to file a statement in relation to any proposal that has not
received wide support within the Sub Team,* such statement shall be
included in the Sub Team report submitted for review by the full WG*." (
emphasis added)

(Under *Introductory/summary text*) states: "*To facilitate the Working
Group (WG) process* of developing recommendations relating to the
Sunrise..."  (emphasis added)

I am interpreting these provisions and the full Process document as a whole
to signify that any recommendation(s) arising from the Sub teams are
basically that, recommendations for the plenary to consider - but may be
overridden, and that all Sub Team recommendations must go to the plenary
for making final decision-making on what is included in the Initial Report
for public comment.

Moreover, I do not see a provision in the Sub team Process document that
states that a proponent is barred from introducing a proposal to the
plenary with modifications (in part, which may derive from Sub team
discussions). On this last point, can you point out again where this
prohibition is being derived from?

The rationale provided by the co-chairs is: "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." but this statement doesn't appear to reference a
prohibition against introducing a proposal to the plenary with
modifications, rather it simply states that the 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. In
other words, its applicability is limited to Sub Team recommendations, not
whether something can be reintroduced to the plenary.

On the other message from the co-chairs, which states: "...*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*...",
and "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.*" (emphasis added)

This statement doesn't appear to take into consideration the other
relevant provisions in the Sub team process document, i.e. the summary
text, the first bullet point under Section 8, and first bullet point under
Section 4., among others (as cited above), and it is simply a cut and dry
statement that the Sub teams make the final determination on what is
included in public comment, and for what purpose.

With respect, this is inconsistent with my recollection of why we formed
the Sub teams (which have a small number of participants compared to the
plenary), and which is reflected in the various provisions I pulled
directly from the Sub team Process document regarding the role of the
plenary as the final arbiter on what goes into the initial report.

We may be having a divergence in interpretation of sorts because I believe
the provision cited by the co-chairs can not really be read in isolation
and untethered from the other provisions in the Sub team Process document.

For example, the statement cited by the co-chairs appears in the Sub team
Process document in "Section 8. Review of All Proposals" as the third
bullet point, directly below its 'sister provision' (the second bullet
point), i.e. the provision that states that proposals *with* Wide Support *will
be included* in the Initial Report. However, this sister clause includes
the important qualifier "*unless the full WG overrides such recommendation*",
which is absent from the sister clause below cited by the co-chairs.

In other words, these two provisions are meant to read together in unison,
so the fact that the second provision does not include the important
qualifier "unless the full WG overrides such recommendation", does not
signify that the qualifier doesn't apply to the clause (which would be
inconsistent with the related clause above), and is likely just a result of
short-hand, informal drafting, and as a result of the drafter's intent that
these two provisions would be read together. Moreover, the statement "*unless
the full WG overrides such recommendation*", might imply the possibility of
reintroducing a proposal to the plenary with modifications, because the
plenary inherently has the ability to override where the Sub team landed on
a particular recommendation.

Sorry for the long note, but I wanted to do my best to clarify, which I
believe will help us save time over the long term. I am VERY happy to stand
corrected so we can put this to rest if my analysis went astray in any
direction.

I'm looking forward to hearing back from the co-chairs with their thoughts.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Claudio


On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 12:59 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
wrote:

> 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> 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> on behalf
> of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> *Date: *Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM
> *To: *"gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <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> 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>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM
> *To: *"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at verisign.com>
> *Cc: *Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org" <
> 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>
> 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> 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://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2>
> 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://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html> 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://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2>
> 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://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000058.html>
> 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> *On Behalf
> Of *Ariel Liang
> *Sent:* Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM
> *To:* 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.
>
>
>
>
> *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
>
> *Proposal #4:*
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2
>
>
>
>
> *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
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Mary, Julie, Ariel
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
>
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
> 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/20190522/13ed18fe/attachment-0001.html>