[GNSO-RPM-WG] Suggested Language from Small Team re: Sunrise Recommendation #2

[Corwin, Philip]

Thanks to the members of Small Team 2.



I will be chairing tomorrow. This proposed language will be discussed in the context of agenda item 2—

Sunrise Recommendation #2 and Small Team 2 Suggested Language



As Sunrise Rec2 has not yet been closed out, my intent is to first discuss the text of the recommendation and the existing implementation guidance in the draft Final Report. Once that discussion has been concluded we will move on to discuss your proposal for adding to that guidance.



Members of the small team should be prepared to explain the proposal and why it would be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance.



In order to expedite the discussion on the call – I would note and ask the following:

*       The current text of Sunrise 2 reads: The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs include a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.
*       The current draft Final Report implementation guidance language consists primarily of a non-exhaustive list of, and references to additional resources regarding, registry operation practices that may circumvent  the Sunrise Registration RPM.
*       The most recent version of ICANN’s “Implementation Review Team (IRT) Principles & Guidelines” is found at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/irt-principles-guidelines-23aug16-en.pdf (if there is a more recent version I would ask staff to identify it). Section III reads—

III. IRT Role

A. As provided in the PDP Manual, the IRT is convened to assist staff in developing the implementation details for the policy to ensure that the implementation conforms to the intent of the policy recommendations.

B. The IRT is not a forum for opening or revisiting policy discussions. Where issues emerge that may require possible policy discussion, these will be escalated using the designated procedure as outlined in section V.E (see hereunder). (Emphasis added)

*       With that as background, I would ask the following clarifying questions and express the hope that members of the small team will respond in advance of our discussion in order to better inform it—

   *    Why would the proposed additional implementation guidance language be a beneficial addition to the existing implementation guidance?
   *    Does the phrase “explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism” encompass and authorize the IRT’s adoption and implementation of such a mechanism if it is found to be possible?
   *    Would the challenge mechanism be operative against ICANN, a registry alleged to have circumvented a RPM, or both?



   Thank you in advance for any background information you can provide. I look forward to the discussion.



   Best, Philip





   Philip S. Corwin

   Policy Counsel

   VeriSign, Inc.

   12061 Bluemont Way
   Reston, VA 20190

   703-948-4648/Direct

   571-342-7489/Cell



   "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey



   From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
   Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 10:11 AM
   To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
   Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Suggested Language from Small Team re: Sunrise Recommendation #2



   Dear WG members,



   Please see below for your consideration suggested language from Small Team 2 for Implementation Guidance related to Sunrise Recommendation #2.  This item will be on the agenda for discussion during the WG meeting tomorrow, Thursday, 16 September at 17:00 UTC.



   Suggestion Language from Small Team 2: “Implementation Guidance to Sunrise Recommendation 2:  The IRT should explore the possibility of a third party challenge mechanism as one of the possible means, among others (for example, direct enforcement by ICANN Compliance) to implement  this Recommendation to enforce the implementation of this recommended new RA provision.  Any such third party challenge mechanism should include appropriate safeguards for registries.”



   For reference, see Sunrise Recommendation #2 at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12w5W2bQcviAqLwoDVB0vVK0n7SKj3fzP48NQyEW-1Q4/edit?usp=sharing.



   Kind regards,

   Mary, Ariel, and Julie



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200916/150022a8/attachment-0001.html>