Fwd: Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council
Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues, Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting. Best wishes, Heather Forrest
Dear Heather, The motion has been posted on the motion wiki page and the links will be updated shortly. Thank you, Nathalie From: <gnso-secs-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> Date: Friday, September 8, 2017 at 7:40 AM To: "gnso-secs@icann.org" <gnso-secs@icann.org>, "council@gnso.icann.org" <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>, "J. Scott Evans" <jsevans@adobe.com>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com" <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, "psc@vlaw-dc.com" <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-secs] Fwd: Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues, Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting. Best wishes, Heather Forrest
Heather, RPM PDP co-chairs, GNSO Councillors; I would like to propose an amendment based on feedback from our SG. I tried redlining the changes to ease up understanding of what is being suggested. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group, with conditionings from the clauses below. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. If the data gathering effort conflicts with either the PDP WG timeline, the funds allocated by ICANN Organization to the effort or the actual cost of the services, that priority would be given to quantitative data instead of anecdotal evidence, and to RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy. But If time and funds are available to do all of the data gathering, the approved amount and allowed time could be used to the whole effort. The GNSO Council requests diligent management of the PDP WG timeline in order to harmonize with other going policy efforts; the Council also requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. Talk to you all in a few minutes. Rubens Kuhl RySG
Em 8 de set de 2017, à(s) 02:34:000, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com> escreveu:
Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues,
Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting.
Best wishes,
Heather Forrest <Draft DMPM Motion for RPMs - 7 Sept 2017.docx><RPM Sunrise & Trademark Claims Metrics Request Form - DRAFT - 7 Sept 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language: 1. The draft Motion was filed more than ten days ago yet this highly substantive amendment was filed 46 minutes prior to the start of the Council call, leaving no time for any consultation among the co-chairs or within the WG (noting that our regular weekly call was held at 1700 UTC today, and we could have discussed this matter within the WG if it had been filed in a timely manner); 2. The amendment assumes that there is some fixed deadline for completion of our work, whereas our timeline (like that of every other PDP WG I have ever participated in) is flexible and is readjusted at regular intervals depending on progress and newly identified needs or challenges; 3. If the concern is how much time the data gathering takes then it makes no sense to prioritize quantitative data over anecdotal evidence, as the former likely takes more time to gather and analyze; 4. There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and 5. The co-chairs are already diligently managing the timeline to harmonize with the Subsequent Procedures WG to the maximum extent feasible, yet this language seems to assume the contrary. Given my concerns about the meaning and intent of this proposed amendment, and its very late arrival, I am in no position to agree to it or negotiate concerning it. Further, I just learned a few minutes ago that one of my co-chairs will be unable to join the Council call. Regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:14 PM To: Heather Forrest Cc: J. Scott Evans; gnso-secs@icann.org; Kathy Kleiman; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council Heather, RPM PDP co-chairs, GNSO Councillors; I would like to propose an amendment based on feedback from our SG. I tried redlining the changes to ease up understanding of what is being suggested. RESOLVED: 1. The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group, with conditionings from the clauses below. 2. The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable. 3. If the data gathering effort conflicts with either the PDP WG timeline, the funds allocated by ICANN Organization to the effort or the actual cost of the services, that priority would be given to quantitative data instead of anecdotal evidence, and to RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy. But If time and funds are available to do all of the data gathering, the approved amount and allowed time could be used to the whole effort. 4. The GNSO Council requests diligent management of the PDP WG timeline in order to harmonize with other going policy efforts; the Council also requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61. Talk to you all in a few minutes. Rubens Kuhl RySG Em 8 de set de 2017, à(s) 02:34:000, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq@gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq@gmail.com>> escreveu: Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues, Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting. Best wishes, Heather Forrest <Draft DMPM Motion for RPMs - 7 Sept 2017.docx><RPM Sunrise & Trademark Claims Metrics Request Form - DRAFT - 7 Sept 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
On Sep 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language:
Hi Phil While most other topics were discussed during our call today, there is one topic left about deviation from policy:
4. There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and
Not all implementations of the new gTLD program are fully adherent to policy; actually, a good number of them are not. In RPMs specifically, the approved policy included a Clearing-house, Pre-Launch Trademark Claims, Sunrise registrations and a GPML (Globally Protected Marks Lists). The actual implementation kept the clearinghouse concept, changed claims to be a period after launch instead of pre-launch, kept sunrise registration, didn't implement a GPML; if the 2012-round staff implementation is to become policy, then policy needs to be updated to reflect that. The status quo is not approved GNSO policy. Rubens Rubens
Rubens: Thanks for this further feedback. I am aware that the new gTLDs went through multiple permutations and am not personally familiar with all the twists and turns from the IRT to STI to Applicant Guidebook to implementation decisions. My co-chairs may have more intimate knowledge and I invite them, as well as support staff, to chime in regarding your assertion. Whether the RPMs as implemented are policy or just implementation details can be debated, but they are clearly not Consensus Policy as our Charter requires to consider and recommend whether one or more of them should become so. As for determining which if any deviate the most from approved policy, I suppose we could consider that as a factor if we have to perform survey triage due to budget constraints , if we can agree on how to measure that. On the other hand, our Charter does require us to evaluate them all, and we can only collect data on the RPMs as actually implemented. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Rubens Kuhl [mailto:rubensk@nic.br] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:42 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Heather Forrest; J. Scott Evans; gnso-secs@icann.org; Kathy Kleiman; GNSO Council List; Mary Wong; Amr Elsadr (amr.elsadr@icann.org) Subject: Re: [council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council Importance: High On Sep 20, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language: Hi Phil While most other topics were discussed during our call today, there is one topic left about deviation from policy: 4. There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and Not all implementations of the new gTLD program are fully adherent to policy; actually, a good number of them are not. In RPMs specifically, the approved policy included a Clearing-house, Pre-Launch Trademark Claims, Sunrise registrations and a GPML (Globally Protected Marks Lists). The actual implementation kept the clearinghouse concept, changed claims to be a period after launch instead of pre-launch, kept sunrise registration, didn't implement a GPML; if the 2012-round staff implementation is to become policy, then policy needs to be updated to reflect that. The status quo is not approved GNSO policy. Rubens Rubens
On Sep 21, 2017, at 12:16 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Rubens:
Thanks for this further feedback.
I am aware that the new gTLDs went through multiple permutations and am not personally familiar with all the twists and turns from the IRT to STI to Applicant Guidebook to implementation decisions. My co-chairs may have more intimate knowledge and I invite them, as well as support staff, to chime in regarding your assertion.
And as I mentioned to Paul in the chat during the meeting, that analysis is up to WG, not to Council... I mentioned the differences I see between approved policy and implemented RPMs, other people might see them differently, although it looks to me as most people looking into matter end up reaching consensus that they differ. For instance, I now remembered TM+50 as one other difference... as more people look into this, more discrepancies will be noticed.
Whether the RPMs as implemented are policy or just implementation details can be debated, but they are clearly not Consensus Policy as our Charter requires to consider and recommend whether one or more of them should become so.
One of the main outcomes of the policy implementation framework was exactly to reckon that the line between policy and implementation is difficult to draw, but even changing for a neutral like "output", the currently implemented RPMs are not consistent of GNSO output. And while one or more RPMs might become Consensus Policy, that's more due to the possibility of applying it to all gTLDs, which requires the Consensus Policy framework in order to be enforced with ICANN agreements with contracted parties. But the RPMs guiding subsequent gTLD procedures, the focus of phase 1, can and will become GNSO policy even though not being Consensus Policy (the two can be different in implementation phase since they don't apply to existing contracts).
As for determining which if any deviate the most from approved policy, I suppose we could consider that as a factor if we have to perform survey triage due to budget constraints , if we can agree on how to measure that.
Since there are not that many surveys to choose from, even a gross measure criteria would be enough to make decisions. If there were 200 options, a selection criteria would need to be much more precise...
On the other hand, our Charter does require us to evaluate them all, and we can only collect data on the RPMs as actually implemented.
That's a good point that goes both ways: data only exists on the RPMs as they were implemented, and data does not exist on the originally envisioned RPMs, since they were not implemented. So even the available data might not be able to answer some questions like which mechanism should be used. Rubens
participants (4)
-
Heather Forrest -
Nathalie Peregrine -
Phil Corwin -
Rubens Kuhl