Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Hello Phil and everyone, As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG. In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP. In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing. The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG. I hope this helps. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs James: Thanks for the update. In regard to this— Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. -- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion. Thanks in advance, 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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Colleagues - Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report. Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting. Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) WHEREAS: 1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program; 2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months; 3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015; 4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly; 1. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf); The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks for that explanation, Mary. 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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Hello Phil and everyone, As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG. In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP. In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing. The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG. I hope this helps. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs James: Thanks for the update. In regard to this— Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. -- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion. Thanks in advance, 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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Colleagues - Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report. Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting. Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB. Thank you, J. ________________________________ Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) WHEREAS: 1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program; 2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months; 3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015; 4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly; 1. The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf); The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO. RESOLVED: The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures. The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Phil and all, The NCSG had some concerns that have already been addressed as described by Mary here:
(2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of the RPM PDP “at a glance”.
We still do have one other concern that we are hopeful can be discussed and resolved by the Council. In the preliminary issues report for this PDP, staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP. The NCSG, in its comment on the preliminary issues report (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/pdfGdJzoAaH1h...), suggested a fourth alternative beginning with a review of the UDRP in phase 1 followed by a review of the RPMs in phase 2. For easier reference, this was also captured in the staff report of the public comments (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue...) in row 68 of the table. At this time, the NCSG is not asking that the 2-phase approach described in the charter be changed. However, since the NCSG alternative on this has not been subject to public consultation, I would like to see language in the charter (possibly amending that found under “mission & scope” as well as “timeframes & deliverables”) to instruct the working group members to consider the NCSG input while developing its work plan, and decide for themselves whether or not they believe a change in the 2-phased approach is desirable. This may also be a topic worth consulting the broader community on during the early SO/AC outreach done by every GNSO WG. We are still actively discussing this issue within the NCSG, and will continue to do so until our monthly policy call next Tuesday. I thought, however, that it may be helpful to answer your question now, and give you some insights on our thoughts in preparation for the discussion on this topic during the next Council call. Thanks. Amr
On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Thanks for that explanation, Mary.
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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Hello Phil and everyone,
As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG.
In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP.
In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing.
The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG.
I hope this helps.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51 To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
James:
Thanks for the update.
In regard to this— Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. -- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion.
Thanks in advance, 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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Colleagues -
Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report.
Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting.
Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB.
Thank you,
J.
Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs)
WHEREAS:
1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program;
2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;
4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
• The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January 2016 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.pdf);
The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for any future review of RPMs; and
The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.
RESOLVED:
The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Amr: Thanks for the feedback. Let me share my personal views, as I have not yet consulted with BC members on your suggestion. As you state, " ...staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP." So, as you recount, the RPM WG approach that received the most public support in the comments was a 2-phased review, addressing the new gTLD RPMs first and then the UDRP. You now propose that Council, rather than approving a Charter that adopts that approach, kick the can down the road and leave it to the WG to decide how to proceed. I have several concerns about approving such an open-ended Charter on such a critical question: · Are we abdicating our responsibility as Councilors by not taking a position on how the WG should proceed? · Does this undermine the utility of the public comment process if we fail to adopt the approach that received the most support in it? · Would this encourage certain groups to try to “pack” the WG in order the reverse the approach that won the most public support? · Would this start the WG off on the wrong foot by guaranteeing a potentially divisive debate as it commences its work? I raise these questions not just as the representative of the BC, which favored the approach that is now in the draft Charter. I also am the ICA’s representative on the BC, and ICA would have preferred a UDRP review commencing in 2011, and is not enthused by the idea that the Charter approach would defer its initiation until at least next year, if not later. Nonetheless, after weighing all considerations, ICA submitted a public comment that favored the draft Charter approach because that is the only one we thought would really work given where we are. I discussed this matter at some length with Kathy Kleiman during the NCPH meeting in LA last week, and I fully understand and respect the views of those who believe that the UDRP review should come prior to that for the new gTLD RPMs. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced. However, the question before Council is not substantive but procedural – Should Council take responsibility to decide this question and instruct the WG to proceed in the manner that received the most public support? Or do we want to pass the responsibility on to the WG and abide by whatever decision it comes to after yet more debate? 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:46 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mary Wong; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Hi Phil and all, The NCSG had some concerns that have already been addressed as described by Mary here:
(2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of the RPM PDP “at a glance”.
We still do have one other concern that we are hopeful can be discussed and resolved by the Council. In the preliminary issues report for this PDP, staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP. The NCSG, in its comment on the preliminary issues report (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/pdfGdJzoAaH1h...), suggested a fourth alternative beginning with a review of the UDRP in phase 1 followed by a review of the RPMs in phase 2. For easier reference, this was also captured in the staff report of the public comments (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue...) in row 68 of the table. At this time, the NCSG is not asking that the 2-phase approach described in the charter be changed. However, since the NCSG alternative on this has not been subject to public consultation, I would like to see language in the charter (possibly amending that found under “mission & scope” as well as “timeframes & deliverables”) to instruct the working group members to consider the NCSG input while developing its work plan, and decide for themselves whether or not they believe a change in the 2-phased approach is desirable. This may also be a topic worth consulting the broader community on during the early SO/AC outreach done by every GNSO WG. We are still actively discussing this issue within the NCSG, and will continue to do so until our monthly policy call next Tuesday. I thought, however, that it may be helpful to answer your question now, and give you some insights on our thoughts in preparation for the discussion on this topic during the next Council call. Thanks. Amr
On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Thanks for that explanation, Mary.
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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Hello Phil and everyone,
As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG.
In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP.
In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing.
The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG.
I hope this helps.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin
<psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List
<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
James:
Thanks for the update.
In regard to this—
Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding.
-- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion.
Thanks in advance,
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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Colleagues -
Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report.
Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting.
Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB.
Thank you,
J.
Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of
All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level
Domains (gTLDs)
WHEREAS:
1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program;
2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;
4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
• The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review
All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January
2016 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.p
df);
The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council
proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will
first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program,
followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with
the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for
any future review of RPMs; and
The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.
RESOLVED:
The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date:
01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date:
01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Correcting the record: My discussion with Kathy Kleiman on this subject took place a few weeks ago at the State of the Net conference in Washington, and not at the NCPH meeting in LA. After a while all these meetings start to merge together in the fog of memory ;-) 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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2016 11:51 AM To: Amr Elsadr Cc: Mary Wong; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Amr: Thanks for the feedback. Let me share my personal views, as I have not yet consulted with BC members on your suggestion. As you state, " ...staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP." So, as you recount, the RPM WG approach that received the most public support in the comments was a 2-phased review, addressing the new gTLD RPMs first and then the UDRP. You now propose that Council, rather than approving a Charter that adopts that approach, kick the can down the road and leave it to the WG to decide how to proceed. I have several concerns about approving such an open-ended Charter on such a critical question: · Are we abdicating our responsibility as Councilors by not taking a position on how the WG should proceed? · Does this undermine the utility of the public comment process if we fail to adopt the approach that received the most support in it? · Would this encourage certain groups to try to “pack” the WG in order the reverse the approach that won the most public support? · Would this start the WG off on the wrong foot by guaranteeing a potentially divisive debate as it commences its work? I raise these questions not just as the representative of the BC, which favored the approach that is now in the draft Charter. I also am the ICA’s representative on the BC, and ICA would have preferred a UDRP review commencing in 2011, and is not enthused by the idea that the Charter approach would defer its initiation until at least next year, if not later. Nonetheless, after weighing all considerations, ICA submitted a public comment that favored the draft Charter approach because that is the only one we thought would really work given where we are. I discussed this matter at some length with Kathy Kleiman during the NCPH meeting in LA last week, and I fully understand and respect the views of those who believe that the UDRP review should come prior to that for the new gTLD RPMs. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced. However, the question before Council is not substantive but procedural – Should Council take responsibility to decide this question and instruct the WG to proceed in the manner that received the most public support? Or do we want to pass the responsibility on to the WG and abide by whatever decision it comes to after yet more debate? 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 -----Original Message----- From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 10:46 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mary Wong; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs Hi Phil and all, The NCSG had some concerns that have already been addressed as described by Mary here:
(2) There is now an Attachment to the Charter that comprises a list of the community-identified issues that were raised in various public comment forums regarding RPM review. The Attachment is based on the list originally included in the Final Issue Report as Annex B, updated to include additional issues noted by various community groups in the public comment forum. We thought also that specifically creating this attachment to be part of the Charter would make it easier for the WG, Council and community to see the scope of the RPM PDP “at a glance”.
We still do have one other concern that we are hopeful can be discussed and resolved by the Council. In the preliminary issues report for this PDP, staff had suggested three possible approaches to tackling this PDP. The one that received the most support during the public comment period has found its way in to the final report and draft charter. This is why we have the 2-phased approach beginning with a review of the RPMs set up for the new gTLDs, followed by a review of the UDRP. The NCSG, in its comment on the preliminary issues report (http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-rpm-prelim-issue-09oct15/pdfGdJzoAaH1h...), suggested a fourth alternative beginning with a review of the UDRP in phase 1 followed by a review of the RPMs in phase 2. For easier reference, this was also captured in the staff report of the public comments (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-rpm-prelim-issue...) in row 68 of the table. At this time, the NCSG is not asking that the 2-phase approach described in the charter be changed. However, since the NCSG alternative on this has not been subject to public consultation, I would like to see language in the charter (possibly amending that found under “mission & scope” as well as “timeframes & deliverables”) to instruct the working group members to consider the NCSG input while developing its work plan, and decide for themselves whether or not they believe a change in the 2-phased approach is desirable. This may also be a topic worth consulting the broader community on during the early SO/AC outreach done by every GNSO WG. We are still actively discussing this issue within the NCSG, and will continue to do so until our monthly policy call next Tuesday. I thought, however, that it may be helpful to answer your question now, and give you some insights on our thoughts in preparation for the discussion on this topic during the next Council call. Thanks. Amr
On Feb 11, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Thanks for that explanation, Mary.
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: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@icann.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 12:50 PM
To: Phil Corwin; James M. Bladel; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Hello Phil and everyone,
As noted in the email I sent to the Council following James’ proposing of this motion, this draft Charter tries to address (among other things) two specific topics – minimizing overlap with the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures and ensuring that the full list of issues identified by the community is considered by the WG.
In respect of the first, this arose from the Council’s discussion of the New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures charter at both the December and January meetings. The updated draft RPM charter tries to reflect that discussion, and what was agreed as to scope of this versus the RPM PDP.
In respect of the second, staff had included a list of issues as an Annex to the Final Issue Report. This had not been intended to be an exhaustive list of all the issues that had been identified by the community, as the intention was to have the WG go through all the issues at the appropriate time. As such, the Annex that was provided was to be a starting point and thus a non-exhaustive list. We thought this necessary since the public comment invitation had not specifically requested that the community come forward with all the issues it thought needed addressing.
The intention – of not “boxing in” the WG by limiting the number of issues for their eventual consideration – has not changed. However, the updated draft Charter now includes all the issues that have been identified to date as an express attachment, to make it easier to use as a reference tool both in regard to the scope of the PDP and the task of the WG.
I hope this helps.
Thanks and cheers
Mary
Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>
Telephone: +1-603-5744889
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin
<psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>
Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 22:51
To: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List
<council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] RE: Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
James:
Thanks for the update.
In regard to this—
Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding.
-- can you provide further information regarding which SG/C’s have raised concerns and what they are? Even if we are not seeking to adopt the Charter next week, we should at least be informed of specific concerns before we vote on the Motion.
Thanks in advance,
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: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2016 4:24 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] Motion to initiate PDP to review RPMs
Colleagues -
Attached and below, please find a Motion to initiate a PDP to review Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs. According to the rules set out in the PDP Manual / GNSO Operating Procedures, we are expected to discuss and consider the initiation of a PDP at the next Council meeting following publication of the Initial Issues Report.
Furthermore, the second part of this process—adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter—is not bound by this requirement and still requires discussion amongst the Council. Some Councilors have raised concerns with one or more aspects of the Draft Charter on behalf of their SG/C, and we need to make sure these are comprehensively addressed before proceeding. For this reason, I am not advancing the second motion (Adoption of the PDP WG Charter) at this time, but it can be a point of discussion during our meeting.
Finally, please take a few moments to review the updated Draft Charter (also attached), and be ready to discuss during our call on 18 FEB.
Thank you,
J.
Motion to Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) on a Review of
All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in All Generic Top-Level
Domains (gTLDs)
WHEREAS:
1. In December 2011 the GNSO Council had requested that an Issue Report on the current state of all rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) implemented for both existing and new gTLDs, including but not limited to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), be delivered to the GNSO Council no later than eighteen (18) months following the delegation of the first gTLD in ICANN’s New gTLD Program;
2. In January 2014 the GNSO Councilagreed to extend the timeline for delivery of the Issue Report by six (6) months;
3. ICANN staff published the Preliminary Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review All RPMs in All gTLDs for public comment on 9 October 2015, with the public comment forum closing on 30 November 2015;
4. ICANN staff have reviewed the public comments received, published a Report of Public Comments on 10 December 2015 and updated the Issue Report accordingly;
• The Final Issue Report on a Policy Development Process to Review
All RPMs in All gTLDs was delivered to the GNSO Council on 11 January
2016 (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/rpm-final-issue-11jan16-en.p
df);
The Final Issue Report includes a recommendation that the GNSO Council
proceed with a two-phased Policy Development Process (PDP) that will
first review the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program,
followed by a subsequent second phase that will review the UDRP, with
the overall goal of developing a uniform and consistent framework for
any future review of RPMs; and
The General Counsel of ICANN has indicated that the topics recommended for review are properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and the GNSO.
RESOLVED:
The GNSO Council hereby initiates a two-phased PDP to review all RPMs in all gTLDs, to review and determine whether modifications to the existing RPMs (including but not limited to the UDRP) are needed and, if so, what they should be. The outcome of the PDP may lead to (i) amendments or replacement of existing policies, principles or procedures; (ii) the development of new or additional policy recommendations; and/or (iii) the creation of new implementation guidance to supplement existing policies or procedures.
The GNSO Council requests that the PDP Working Group be convened as soon as possible after the adoption of the PDP Working Group Charter in order to fulfill the requirements of this PDP.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date:
01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date:
01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
participants (3)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Mary Wong -
Phil Corwin