Hi Maxim, Thanks for your email. Yes, you did state that in the TM Claims document comment (that's why I put an asterisk next to it, to make it clear it wasn't actually from a sub team member). It wasn't meant as any criticism at all (if anything, it's a compliment!). Your input on the Google docs was valuable. You raise a point indirectly, whether it's even best to have the 2 separate sub teams, if we don't have that expertise covered in both of them. We do have overlapping members (12 on both sub teams). But, that means 9 of the 21 TM Claims people are only on that sub team, and 8 of 20 the Sunrise people are only on Sunrise. In other words, we have 12+9+8 = 29 people participating in at least one sub team, with 12 of those 29 on both. There are overlapping source documents too, shared by both sub teams. My guess is that it's best to stick with the 2 separate sub teams, but perhaps find ways to better utilize all these human resources that we have (29 people have stepped up and volunteered to do more work, relative to those not participating on the sub teams at present). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 9:16 AM Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello George,
I am not a member for the TMCH subteam, and I think I reflected that in the comments.
If at this stage my comments are not to be taken into account, most probably I will add it at later stages.
One of the issues is that we do not have other folks with active participation, who can cover issues of GEOs (I reached out to geoTLDs ExCom about QLP, ALP, Reserved names, Limited periods, Claims, so what I wrote about those periods is not just my opinion), and I believe that we need to avoid situations when lack of clarity in understanding of some of the items relevant to that cause confusion.
Sincerely Yours,
Maxim Alzoba Special projects manager, International Relations Department, FAITID
m. +7 916 6761580(+whatsapp) skype oldfrogger
Current UTC offset: +3.00 (.Moscow)
On 30 Jan 2019, at 17:08, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi folks,
I took a few minutes this morning to analyze the two sub teams, and here's what I found:
TM Claims: 18 members + 3 co-chairs = 21 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members+and+email+archives+... )
Sunrise: 17 members + 3 co-chairs = 20 individuals (source: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/Members%2C+email+archives+-... )
People in both sub-teams: 12
Claudio DiGangi George Kirikos Greg Shatan Griffin Barnett Kristine Dorrain Paul McGrady Scott Austin Susan Payne Zak Muscovitch Brian Beckham (co-chair) Kathy Kleiman (co-chair) Phil Corwin (co-chair)
Prior "homework assignments" (excluding today's): names of *anyone* filling out Google docs (binary metric, regardless of *quantity* of input into those docs):
TM Claims: 5 docs (each linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000161.html)
George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Rebecca Tushnet Kathy Kleiman Maxim Alzoba*** (not actually a member of TM Claims sub team!)
Sunrise: 14 docs (linked to via https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000158.html)
George Kirikos Kristine Dorrain Griffin Barnett Maxim Alzoba Kathy Kleiman Susan Payne Scott Austin John McElwaine Michael Karanicolas
Note: I'm not trying to criticize anyone who's not on the above lists, nor aggrandize anyone on it. Folks are participating in different ways. But, as we'll see on today's calls, if those Google Docs are empty, then we're not making much progress. As Griffin rightly said, it can lead to paralysis if the assigned tasks are unreasonably time consuming relative to expectations.
Looking at it from 40,000 feet, I think a fair question is: How much "assigned homework" (between calls) is reasonable for sub team members? There's also obviously 1 hour for the call itself, and maybe 30 minutes to an hour of prep immediately before each call (to review the input into the Google docs by others). I've already given my own thoughts on this previously (as has Kristine), but hope to understand how others feel. Simply showing up for the calls isn't going to be enough to get through all the work.
I look forward to today's calls.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:37 PM Dorrain, Kristine <dorraink@amazon.com> wrote:
+1 to George and Griffin.
I also support more manageable assignments. Staff has done an extraordinary amount of work in reviewing the additional material and providing an initial summary and may be in a good position to suggest how long each review took them (so we can know this ahead of time). I'm personally willing to commit 1-2 hours of homework time per subteam call, but more than that isn't feasible.
As a starting point, so I'm not just casting stones, in preparation for this week's call, might I suggest we all focus on a deep dive on the first two or three sources (since George said it took four hours to review the first four sources) and then look for information for ALL of the charter questions (if you're on both sub teams, you would cross reference the sources against both tabs in the spreadsheet). That will hopefully be a more manageable start.
Best,
Kristine
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 2:09 PM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"
I would support George's suggestion of breaking up current HW assignments into smaller, more manageable bits. I know we are attempting to keep to an aggressive work plan timeline, but overwhelming members with HW to the point where we cannot possibly complete it all in a timely manner results in paralysis (even among the most active of us) that is counterproductive.
Sincerely,
Griffin
Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group
-----Original Message----- From: Gnso-rpm-trademark [mailto:gnso-rpm-trademark-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 5:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org; gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-rpm-trademark] RPM sub team homework assignments need to be "bite-sized"
(cross-posting to both sub team lists)
Hi folks,
I spent about 4 hours today attempting the sub team homework assignments for this week (tomorrow), and have only gone through the first four (of the twelve) source documents, to try to cross-reference relevant data against the charter questions. I spoke with a couple of other very active sub team members who are also concerned about the workload for this week.
Perhaps different members have different expectations on the amount of outside time expected to be devoted between calls, but for myself, 4 hours is already pushing things (it typically took me around that much time for the past homework assignments too).
I think we need to discuss breaking the tasks down into more bite-sized pieces, as there was just too much to review for this week. I know staff has already attempted to pick out relevant data for each charter question, but it wouldn't be a "review" if we as sub team members didn't read the source documents ourselves independently, and simply relied on what staff provided.
Also, it might have been easier to do the review if staff input was in the (currently) blank Google docs, rather than in the spreadsheet tabs, as even on a 27" monitor, it was difficult to compare their input with my own as I was reading the various source documents, and tried to switch multiple tabs/documents.
If others share these concerns, please do take a moment to comment or provide suggestions on ideal expected duration of assignments (in hours), technical impediments, etc.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark _______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-trademark mailing list Gnso-rpm-trademark@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-trademark
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-sunrise mailing list Gnso-rpm-sunrise@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-sunrise