<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi All,<br>
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 <i><b>"clarify
charter questions by adding footnotes, as opposed to making changes to the questions without consensus of the full WG." </b></i>
<br>
<br>
See 5/2 table:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Registrations?preview=/64947279/64948827/UPDATEDDraftSunriseQuestions-FORDISCUSSION-2May.pdf">https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-05-05+Sub+Team+for+Sunrise+Registrations?preview=/64947279/64948827/UPDATEDDraftSunriseQuestions-FORDISCUSSION-2May.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
But in latter part of the discussion, Staff noted a different action
item: that they would "<b>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." <br>
<br>
</b>Staff created the 5/12 table:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="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">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</a>
<br>
<br>
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?<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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! <br>
<br>
<b>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,
</b><b><span>Susan Payne, </span></b><b>Mary Wong(staff). </b><b>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.</b><br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Best, Kathy</b><b><br>
</b><br>
On 5/25/2017 1:03 AM, Mary Wong wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C2403667-62D4-4095-8129-3EA996A55716@icann.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New";
panose-1:2 7 3 9 2 2 5 2 4 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:DengXian;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New",serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier",serif;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Hello Jeremy
and all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Thanks and
cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Mary<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="color:black"><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org></a>
on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><jmalcolm@eff.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 21:13<br>
<b>To: </b><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org">"gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org"><gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] Summary of
Progress on the Sunrise Registration Sub Team<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 24/5/17 11:41 am, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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
<a
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w1eAYmIBOZbhHRpN4mCVKgp97ycoadlxvE6Joa9dBE4/edit"
moz-do-not-send="true">
most recent version of the table/google doc</a>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">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
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/DxHfAw"
moz-do-not-send="true">19 May Sub Team meeting wiki page</a>
(last week’s Sub Team call).
<b>Please refer to these Sub Team action items at your
earliest convenience</b>.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"><br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.</span><span
style="font-family:"PMingLiU",serif"><br>
<br>
</span><span style="font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Jeremy Malcolm<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Senior Global Policy Analyst<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Electronic Frontier Foundation<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="https://eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eff.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" moz-do-not-send="true">jmalcolm@eff.org</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><o:p> </o:p></pre>
<pre>Public key: <a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122<o:p></o:p></pre>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>