I trust that Paul will not mind my sharing this response with all Council members. From: Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:27 AM To: 'icannlists'; Austin, Donna; Mary Wong Subject: RE: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Paul is correct. While the RPM review and SubPro WGs are supposed to (and have been) keep each other informed of their work, they are independent PDPs and each will send a separate Final Report to Council. Neither RPM Review nor SubPro is subordinate to the other. I will provide a more detailed description of any “dependency” between the two WGs prior to today’s Council call. 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: icannlists [mailto:icannlists@winston.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:03 AM To: Austin, Donna; Phil Corwin; Mary Wong Subject: RE: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Hi Donna, I note your question is addressed to Phil, but I thought I would jump in. It is my understanding that the two PDPs, while sharing interrelated content, are independent. The RPM PDP WG will send its results to the Council and so will the SubPro PDP WG. The RPM WG doesn’t feed directly into SubPro nor vice versa. Best, Paul From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Austin, Donna via council Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 12:45 AM To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Hi Phil I understand there is a dependency between the RPM PDP WG and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and this is addressed to some extent in the summary document. What’s not clear to me is whether the RPM PDP WG recommendations will be provided to the Council for consideration and subsequently the Board; or whether the recommendations will be provided to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG for consideration and incorporation into that effort. Could you please outline the process please? Thanks Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:25 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Thanks for that feedback, Mary. The bottom line here is that we didn’t want to come in with a misleading or lowball budget estimate and then have to subsequently come back to Council; can’t be fully sure of the funding requirements until WG members and staff interact with an expert contractor; and will have to agree on a specific appropriation for this data collection with ICANN financial. I hope that background is useful. If there are further questions in advance of tomorrow’s call please let us know. Best to all, 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> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:11 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Dear Wolf-Ulrich and everyone, The initial minimum estimate of US$50,000 was made based on input staff received about the minimum amount that it was likely to cost to engage a professional survey designer. The final amount will depend in part on a detailed analysis to be conducted if the Council approves the Working Group’s request – for example, whether there are existing sources that can be tapped for information to develop the survey questions, and the outcome of initial discussions with potential contractors over what they think is needed to design, launch and implement such a survey. The full scope of work for the contractor, as opposed to work that can be taken on by the Working Group and/or staff, will also depend on the amount that ICANN Organization is able to make available during this financial year for this one project, and whether the Council approves the entire request or just parts of it. Staff notes that, even if a professional survey designer is approved and contracted, there will still need to be additional work on the part of the Working Group and support staff to collaborate with the selected contractor to scope out the details, especially in designing the final survey questions and identifying and reaching the target groups of respondents. I hope this is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary From: <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de>> Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 02:40 To: "council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>" <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Thanks Phil, I have just one question regarding the request which you may answer at the council call. The budget requested is "at minimum 50 k$US". What are the uncertainties , and is there an estimation to what extent it could affect the budget required? Thanks and regards Wolf-Ulrich Am 19.09.2017 um 06:23 schrieb Phil Corwin: No, Mary sent the attachment on Friday. I was just adding a short comment. 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 Sent from my iPad On Sep 19, 2017, at 12:19 AM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin@team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin@team.neustar>> wrote: Hi Phil Was there supposed to be an attachment with your email? Donna From: council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 3:26 AM To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com<mailto:jsevans@adobe.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Fellow Councilors: With able staff assistance, the WG Co-Chairs prepared this summary in the hope that it anticipates and answers many of the questions that may arise in regard to our DMPM request and related Motion, and therefore expedite the Council’s discussion of this matter when it comes up during our call this coming Wednesday. Best 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> [mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 7:20 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> Cc: J. Scott Evans; Kathy Kleiman Subject: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs Dear Councilors, As you know, the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group has submitted a request for Council approval in relation to resources needed to conduct an extensive data gathering exercise, in accordance with the principles developed by the GNSO’s Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group. The motion and request is on the Council’s meeting agenda for its upcoming 20 September call. To facilitate the Council’s review of the data request, the RPM Working Group co-chairs have prepared the attached summary. We hope you will find it useful. The motion and full data request can be found on the Council’s wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/yiIhB<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_yiIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=DOaenBi9xiQeIgg1dRUwyhqYMJ0-WO069gs8tYSMPDE&s=iPugvegzl5kbfwsVOfMNPUSEAbhrU9QLaQz8gUD1GFg&e=> (motion) and https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_rpm-2Dsunrise-2Dtrademark-2Dclaims-2D07sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=DOaenBi9xiQeIgg1dRUwyhqYMJ0-WO069gs8tYSMPDE&s=xqJzkMSdcV_EExEuIy3FXc8QKeFA894cnTRxUjZFnaI&e=> (request). Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ council mailing list council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=2cu2DqgIdlum9bSDP1OCA1upOecj3ybFehpojMgqK3Y&s=Z0oWA2atXGpKSt7FVK18m73kfbSegAtSZGGWmldFoIA&e=> ________________________________ The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.