<div dir="ltr">Thanks, Ariel.<div><br></div><div>Based on this sentence, "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">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.", </span>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. </div><div><br></div><div>My comments on two statements within this summary are below:</div><div><br></div><div>(1) "<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing </span><i style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><u>not</u> </i><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team." </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">(2) "</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">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."</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">On (1): Please correct me if I am mistaken (which may be the case), but </span>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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?</div><div><br></div><div>On (2): <font color="#000000">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</font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> (a)</span><font color="#000000"><i style="text-decoration-line:underline"> a</i></font><font color="#000000" style=""><i style="text-decoration-line:underline"> lack of wide support on the sub team when the proposal was initially presented;</i> and<i style=""> (b)</i></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><i> </i>the nature of the questions/concerns provided on this proposal.</span><br></div><div><br></div><div>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. <br></div><div><div><br></div><div>In following this methodology, I received feedback <u>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</u>. 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. <i>not</i> as a policy recommendation.</div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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."</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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". </div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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'.</div><div><br></div><div>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)."</div><div><br></div><div>Just for confirmation, can the co-chairs kindly confirm my interpretation of where things stand is correct? </div><div><br></div><div>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)? </div><div><br></div><div>Depending on the answers to these questions, I may need to post a revised Spanning the Dot proposal for Sub team or plenary consideration.</div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">I hope this is helpful feedback, and please do not </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">hesitate</span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> to let me know of any questions/comments.</span><br></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><font color="#000000">Thanks!</font></div><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Best regards,</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Claudio</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 3:12 PM Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-6860938586347829996WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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):</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;vertical-align:baseline">
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.<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;vertical-align:baseline">
Proposal #9 is similar to the SubPro referral, but it did not garner the “wide support” necessary to become a Sub Team preliminary recommendation.<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black;vertical-align:baseline">
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.<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">To clarify, regarding #2, the Sub Team Co-Chairs are proposing
<i><u>not</u> </i>including Proposal #9 in the Initial Report for public comment due to its lack of wide support within the Sub Team.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Thank you,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, May 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p>Tx Claudio for posting. I support Greg's suggestion of getting input from the subteam on this proposal.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>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).<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Best, Kathy (in my personal capacity)<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 5/17/2019 3:34 PM, claudio di gangi wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks very much for this Ariel. <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David, Greg,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">In reading #2 below, I’m a little confused on status.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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? <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<br>
<br>
On Friday, May 17, 2019, Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:
<u></u><u></u></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal">
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.
<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">
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.
<u></u><u></u></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="color:black">
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.
<u></u><u></u></li></ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Mary, Julie, Ariel
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12pt;color:black">claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, May 15, 2019 at 8:04 PM<br>
<b>To: </b>"McAuley, David" <<a href="mailto:dmcauley@verisign.com" target="_blank">dmcauley@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Ariel Liang <<a href="mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org" target="_blank">ariel.liang@icann.org</a>>, "<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Ext] Re: [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear David, Greg, all,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:40 PM claudio di gangi <<a href="mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com" target="_blank">ipcdigangi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David, all,
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for kindly sending this around.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">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!<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Claudio <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:59 AM McAuley, David via Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-top:none;border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:1pt solid rgb(204,204,204);padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin:5pt 0in 5pt 4.8pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hello fellow Sunrise sub team members and staff,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I am submitting this entry to the thread on
<b>Sunrise Agreed Charter Question 6</b> in my <b>personal capacity</b>, not in my sub-team co-chair capacity.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Here are the Charter Question 6 questions, as per Ariel’s thread email below:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black"> </span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span style="color:black">Q</span>6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?</i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Q6(b)
<span style="color:black">Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
</span></i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
</i></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">My
<u>suggested answers</u>: <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I suggest we answer the questions in this manner, and invite comment here on the thread:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Suggested answer to Q6(a):
</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As to the ‘<u>what are SDRPs</u>’ 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, </span><a href="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=" target="_blank">Trademark
Clearinghouse [newgtlds.icann.org]</a><span style="color:black">, Section 6 (Mandatory Rights Protections Mechanisms), with SDRP as part of the Sunrise registration process (at 6.2.2 and at 6.2.4).
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As to the ‘<u>are any changes needed</u>’ part of the question, it depends on how we wrap this issue up after
</span>our<span style="color:black"> discussions. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have several proposals:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black">First, we have </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">proposal #2</a><span style="color:black"> from George Kirikos which says, in part:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i> </i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i>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).</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black">Second, we have a related ‘operational fix’ proposal related to George’s from Kathy Kleiman in her
</span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-May/000288.html" target="_blank">email</a><span style="color:black"> of May 8<sup>th</sup>. It says, in part:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i><span style="color:black"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i><span style="color:black">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.</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i><span style="color:black"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black">Third, we have </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">proposal #4</a><span style="color:black"> from George which says, in part:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i>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:
</i><a href="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=" target="_blank"><i>https://www.uniregistry.link/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SEPRP.pdf
[uniregistry.link]</i></a><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<i><span style="color:black"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black">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
</span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-gtld-subsequent-procedures-initial-03jul18/2018q3/000058.html" target="_blank">email</a><span style="color:black"> comment from Google Registry that the Sub-Pro leadership has turned over to the RPM PDP.
In part it says:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1in">
<b><i><span style="color:black">Suggestion to adjust the terms of the Sunrise Dispute Resolution Mechanism:
</span></i></b><i><span style="color:black">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).<sup>3</sup> 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.<sup>4</sup> 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. </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">
<i>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.
</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.5in">
<i>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.</i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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’?
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Is there a desire to revisit the ‘span the dot’ issue that Claudio raised in light of the Google Registry comment?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Suggested answer to Q6(b):
</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b> </b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Suggested answer to Q6(c):
</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So far, in my opinion, an answer would not be required based on the suggestion about Q6(b).
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For now, best regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">David<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">David McAuley<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Verisign Inc.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">703-948-4154<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Gnso-rpm-sunrise <<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise-bounces@icann.org</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Ariel Liang<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, May 03, 2019 10:49 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [EXTERNAL] [Gnso-rpm-sunrise] [Discussion Thread] Sunrise Q6<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Dear Sunrise Sub Team members,
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:black">As announced, this thread is being opened for final mailing list discussions related to
<b>Sunrise Agreed Charter Question</b></span><b> 6</b>, including <b>Proposals #2 and #4</b><span style="color:black">.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">We ask that you review the <b>Summary Table</b> <b>(as of 16 April 2019) </b>and provide any additional input you may have to the “<b>tentative answers
& preliminary recommendations</b>” in relation to the Agreed Charter Question, and consider <b>draft answers </b>to the following questions regarding the individual proposal:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline">
<span style="color:black">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?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline">
<span style="color:black">b. In light of the Individual Proposal, are any modifications to the current “tentative answers & preliminary recommendations” needed?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="vertical-align:baseline">
<span style="color:black">c. Should any additional Sub Team recommendations be made in relation to the agreed Sunrise charter question?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:black">Unless the Sub Team Co-Chairs determine otherwise, this discussion thread will remain open until
<b>23:59 UTC on 15 May 2019</b>. 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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><b><span style="background:yellow">Summary Table</span> (Pages 29-32)</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><span style="color:black">The draft answers, preliminary recommendations, and links to the relevant individual proposals are in the latest Summary Table (as of 16 April 2019):</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(17,85,204)">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102138618/%5BSunrise%20Summary%20Table%5D%20%2816%20April%202019%29.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1555515624235&api=v2</span></a><span style="color:black">.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow">Agreed Sunrise Charter Question
</span><span style="background:yellow">6</span><span style="color:black"> (Pages 2</span>9-30)</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">The Sub Team</span> just<span style="color:black"> discussed Agreed Charter Question
</span>6<span style="color:black"> on </span>02 May <span style="color:black">2019, hence the proposed answers are “TBD”. Based on the Sub Team’s discussions, the transcript and notes, staff will provide</span> update<span style="color:black">.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
Q</span>6(a) What are Sunrise Dispute Resolution Policies (SDRPs), and are any changes needed?
<span style="color:black"> </span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer</span></u><span style="color:black">:
</span></b><span style="color:black">TBD</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="color:black"><br>
</span>Q6(b) <span style="color:black">Are SDRPs serving the purpose(s) for which they were created?
</span></i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span style="color:black">Proposed Answer</span></u><span style="color:black">:
</span></b><span style="color:black">TBD</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i> </i><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>Q6(c) If not, should they be better publicized, better used or changed?
</i><span style="color:black"><br>
<b><u>Proposed Answer</u>: </b>TBD</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"><b><span style="color:black;background:yellow">Individual Proposals</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:black">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.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:black">Link to the individual proposal is included below. </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<b><span style="color:black">Proposal #2</span></b><span style="color:black">: </span>
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%232.pdf?api=v2</a><span style="color:black">
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="color:black">Proposal #4:</span></b><span style="color:black"> </span><a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/102146375/Proposal%234.pdf?api=v2</a><span style="color:black">
</span> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="background:yellow">Where to Find All Discussion Threads</span>
</b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Access the Documents wiki page and find the opening messages of the all discussion threads in the table (highlighted in green):
<a href="https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/x/_oIWBg</a>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Best Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Mary, Julie, Ariel</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin:0in 0in 0.0001pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre>Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
<pre><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a><u></u><u></u></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise</a></blockquote></div>