April 2016 - GNSO-RPM-WG - lists.icann.org

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Joint Message from Three RPM WG Leadership Candidates
by Sara Bockey April 19, 2016

April 19, 2016

I support this leadership structure. Sara From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Phil Corwin <psc(a)vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 7:03 AM To: "gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Joint Message from Three RPM WG Leadership Candidates Dear Members of the Rights Protection Measures Review Working Group: As the three candidates for WG leadership positions who have received substantial support from WG members, we wish to collectively thank all of you for committing to the very challenging and lengthy journey that lies before us, and for voicing support for us as potential WG Chairs. Each of us believes that our task is extremely important, and that whatever consensus recommendations this WG makes for post-review alterations in the new gTLD RPMs, and subsequently the UDRP, will if adopted likely be the “rules of the road” for ICANN trademark protection measures for many years to come. We have the collective opportunity to establish improved arbitration procedures and other safeguards that are more predictable and consistent for all parties, and that minimize the burden on trademark holders while recognizing the importance of domains as platforms for speech and commerce and as valuable intangible assets. We also believe that the odds of success will be substantially improved if this WG operates from its inception in a collegial and cooperative manner that, while maximally efficient, is committed to a balanced and fair hearing for all viewpoints, and is based upon empirical data and sound legal and policy analysis. It was in that spirit of mutual respect that we three engaged in a joint conference call on Friday, April 15th to discuss how to best facilitate a constructive path forward. As a result of that discussion, we wish to propose for your consideration the adoption of a leadership structure in which each of us serves as a co-equal Co-Chair. We collectively urge you to support that approach to leadership structure when we hold our first WG meeting on April 21st. We believe that in most instances we shall be able to reach consensus agreement regarding recommendations to you on the management of our work. In those (hopefully rare) instances where we fail to reach such agreement, we shall inform the membership of our different viewpoints and proceed in whatever manner garners consensus support. We are also in general agreement that portions of the task before us can best be facilitated by the creation of focused subgroups that will provide additional leadership opportunities for other members of this WG, with each of the Co-Chairs acting as an Ex Officio member of all subgroups in order to monitor their efforts and assist in coordination with our overall work plan. If selected as co-equal Co-Chairs, we shall immediately set to develop an initial work plan for your consideration so that we can begin engaging in substantive RPM review by the early part of May. It is our collective goal to develop final reports and recommendations that are consistent with the responsibilities established by this WG’s Charter – and that every member of this WG can be proud of having a role in shaping. Again, we thank you for your support and look forward to joining with you on our initial WG call this coming Thursday. With best regards, Philip Corwin J. Scott Evans Kathy Kleiman 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

2 1

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 26 April 2016 at 19:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | April 26 2016 | 19:00 UTC Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 April 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on April 26, 2016 at 19:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 April 2016.

1 0

Reply to all mailing list issues fixes
by Nathalie Peregrine April 18, 2016

April 18, 2016

Dear all, As per exchanges with IT at the end of last week, it appears that the issues with the Reply to All feature on the PRM mailing list which affected several Working Group members have been ironed out. As per IT: "I have tested the reply and reply-all behavior on the following email clients: * Outlook PC * Outlook Mac * Gmail * Yahoo The mailing lists should behave as follows: * When a member of a list clicks on "Reply" the email should go to the sender only. * When a member of a list clicks on "Reply-all" the email should go to the sender and the list. The reply-all behavior works as expected unless the sender is from Yahoo, or any sender that has a DMARC policy set to reject or quarantine." IT have reset all GNSO Working Group mailing lists after extensive tests. Please therefore reach out to us on: gnso-secs(a)icann.org raising any further issues you might notice. Kindest regards, Nathalie

1 0

Suggestion for Leadership Team
by Volker Greimann April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Hi all, with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates. With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs. Best regards, Volker

19 27

The topics for our WG
by Petter Rindforth April 13, 2016

April 13, 2016

Dear Working Group members, Following the discussion, I felt it may be the right time to just quickly remind us all of our topics and timelines: What This Team Will Do 1. Conduct the PDP in two phases This PDP Working Group is being chartered to conduct a review of all RPMs in all gTLDs in two phases as defined in theapproved charter <http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/whois-ng-gtld-rds-charter-07oct15-en.pdf>[PDF, 524 KB]: Phase Onewill focus on a review of all the RPMs that were developed for the New gTLD Program, i.e.: - the Trademark Clearinghouse and associated notification and sunrise mechanisms, - the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, and - the Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedures Phase Twowill focus on a review of the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). At a minimum, in each Phase of this PDP, the Working Group will be expected to first assess the effectiveness of the relevant RPM(s), for which it should seek the input of experienced online dispute resolution providers and other subject matter experts, as appropriate. The Working Group is also expected to look at the interplay between and complementary roles of each RPM in seeking to more fully understand their overall functioning and effectiveness. Ultimately, the goal is for the Working Group to consider the overarching issue as to whether or not all the RPMs collectively fulfill the purposes for which they were created, or whether additional policy recommendations are needed, including to clarify and unify the policy goals. In public comments to the UDRP Final Issue Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/udrp/udrp-final-issue-report-03oct11-en.pdf> [PDF, 2.69 MB], the RPM Staff Paper <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/reviews/rpm/rpm-review-11sep15-en.pdf> [PDF 2.5 MB], and the Preliminary Issue Report <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/rpm-prelim-issue-2015-10-09-en> for this PDP, various community groups and participants had identified a number of issues that they considered appropriate for review in a PDP. As such, the Working Group is expected to consider these community suggestions, which have been listed in the Working Group Charter, with further modifications, additions and deletions to be determined by consensus of the Working Group. 2. Coordinate its work with other parallel efforts The Working Group will monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or otherwise provide useful input to this PDP. These other efforts include: - the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team, - the Trademark Clearinghouse Independent Review and - the GNSO's PDP Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. In this regard, the GNSO Council directed that a GNSO community liaison be appointed by the two GNSO PDP Working Groups. Further, as the manager of the policy development process, the GNSO Council is to be kept informed about the various coordination efforts so that in case of conflict between these groups, the Council may take the appropriate action to align the different work processes. At the conclusion of Phase One of its work, the Working Group is expected to assess the need for modification to its Charter and, if appropriate, submit a request to the GNSO Council accordingly for the subsequent phase(s) of its work. All the best, Petter -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth(a)fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

1 0

Fwd: Suggestion for Leadership Team
by Greg Shatan April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Forwarding the email below to the list as requested. (No endorsement implied.) Greg ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Reg Levy* <reg(a)mindsandmachines.com> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> Greg—I can't reply to the group from my phone, can you please forward this? All— I'd like to underscore the fact that Kathy represents users. Volker's suggestion of three co-chairs—representing IP rights holders, domain name rights holders, and end-users rights—strikes what I see as an appropriate balance. I'm often concerned that the only "rights" discussed when discussing "rights protection mechanisms" are IP rights (this is a registry perspective based on TMCH, Sunrise, URS, &., and I joined this group in the hopes of being convinced that this is not the state of affairs). Kathy's presence as a co-chair—even one of three—helps give me confidence that end users will have a voice in this conversation. P.S. I'd also like to third Kathy's nomination. Reg Levy (310) 963-7135 Sent from my iPhone. On Apr 12, 2016, at 09:30, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org');>> wrote: George, First, while domain names are almost certainly "intangible property," I don't see them considered as intellectual property, except to the extent they are an expression of a trademark or trade name, one letter from 1999 notwithstanding. But that's neither here nor there, and beyond the scope of the conversation. After all, trademark owners are also domain name owners (and, after domain investors, probably the most prolific domain name owners). Second, I don't think anything I've said has marginalized or delegitimized anyone, and I've gone to pains to say otherwise, if you look at my emails. Greg On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, George Kirikos via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org');>> wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg < > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org');>> wrote: > >> On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at >> least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant >> asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of >> domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom >> IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are >> far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance >> to which I refer. >> > > Domain names have been recognized, in law, as a new form of intellectual > property since the 1990's, e.g. see: > > Umbro International, Inc., Judgment Creditor v. 3263851 Canada, Inc > Judgment Debtor, and Network Solutions, Inc, Garnishee, At Law No. 174388. > > > https://web.archive.org/web/19991009052951/http://www.alston.com/docs/Artic… > > "Until Umbro's effort, domain names apparently have not been subjected to > garnishment, but that is no reason to conclude that this ****new form of > intellectual property**** is therefore immune." (emphasis added) > > I think instead of "IP" you meant "trademarks", a different form of > intellectual property (which sometimes might overlap with, interact with, > and/or conflict with domain names). > > Certainly for my own company's domain names, and for many other owners of > domain names, it would not be correct to say that these are "not a > significant asset." Many domain names are worth thousands, hundreds of > thousands, or even millions of dollars, and are significant assets to their > owners. > > I think participants in the working group should be more cautious before > trying to marginalize or delegitimize others who are volunteering their > valuable time and expertise to improve ICANN policymaking. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > http://www.leap.com/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org');> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org');> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

2 1

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
by Kevin Kreuser April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

+1. As a contracted party, we're not concerned with the representation issues noted in other emails. Cheers, Kevin M. Kreuser Assistant General Counsel GoDaddy This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments. -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 6:24 AM To: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team Hi all, with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates. With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs. Best regards, Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
by Phil Corwin April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Kiran: My response to Greg was in no way meant to stifle him. Indeed, having worked with Greg for years it would never even occur to me, even if I were so inclined, that there is any effective means of preventing him from expressing his viewpoint. Further, if I am selected as part of this WG's leadership team, my objective will be to help manage a process that, while efficient, assures each and every member a full and fair opportunity to contribute and to express their views on any procedural and substantive matter we address. 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 Sent from my iPad > On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Kiran Malancharuvil <Kiran.Malancharuvil(a)markmonitor.com> wrote: > > Phil, > > I think it's WELL within a group members right to express their opinions and/or concerns about the candidates for leadership. I am disappointed and very concerned at any attempt to stifle opinions that you may not agree with. > > Thanks, > > Kiran > > Kiran Malancharuvil > Policy Counselor > MarkMonitor > 415-419-9138 (m) > > Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. > > On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:23 AM, Phil Corwin via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: > > Greg: > > I must say that I am disappointed that you have intervened for the purpose of suggesting that I should not be part of the leadership team. > > I am attending an all-day Cryptocurrency conference in DC and will respond fully late in the day after it concludes. > > For now all I will say is that after toiling in the subgroup that worked out remaining concerns on the Charter, and then successfully proposing the Charter for GNSO Council approval in Marrakech, I accepted the dual roles of Interim Chair and GNSO Liaison as a place holding courtesy, pending the decision of WG members on permanent leadership. So to imply that I am somehow misusing the Liaison role to secure a leadership position is indeed reading way too much into things. > > 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 > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: > > I think the balance issue cuts rather differently, and a vice-chair from the Contracted Parties House might actually exacerbate the issue. > > If we are talking about "formal" representation, both J. Scott and Phil are members of the Business Constituency, so it's not fair to say that Phil, but not J. Scott, represents "business interests." On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer. > > My suggested configuration was intended to find a role for all 3 volunteers, while maintaining some sort of balance. If Phil's not interested in the GNSO Liaison role, in spite of the fact that it's the role he volunteered for at Council, that's fine. However, that does make it appear that this was done as a steppingstone to the Chair and not out of interest in the role on its own merits. Of course, I may be reading too much into things. > > I'd like to stress that I have the highest respect, and even affection, for all 3 volunteers, and for their contributions to ICANN over the years. But the configuration of our leadership team has to take other things into account. > > Greg > > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: > I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none. > > I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation. > > Jonathan > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM > To: Statton Hammock <statton(a)rightside.rocks<mailto:statton@rightside.rocks>> > Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team > > I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed). > > Greg Shatan > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: > Also agree with Volker's suggestion. > > Statton > > > Statton Hammock > > Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs > > [Rightside] > > Office | 425-298-2367<tel:425-298-2367> > > Mobile | 425-891-9297<tel:425-891-9297> > statton(a)rightside.rocks<mailto:statton@rightside.rocks> > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: > + 1 to Volker. > > > Gabriela Szlak > > > > Skype: gabrielaszlak > > Twitter: @GabiSzlak > > > > La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. > The information in this e-mail is confidential. > > > 2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>: > Hi all, > > with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates. > > With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs. > > Best regards, > > Volker > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rpm-wg mailing list > gnso-rpm-wg(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

1 0

Mark Your Calendars: First organizational call for RPM WG set for April 21
by Phil Corwin April 12, 2016

April 12, 2016

Dear Members of the RPM Review WG: As Interim Chair, I am pleased to announce that our initial WG organizational call has been scheduled for 1500-1600 UTC on Thursday, April 21st. You will be receiving a calendar invitation as the date draws closer, along with Adobe Chat and dial-in information. Please note that this date and time is not indicative of the scheduling of future WG calls. So far, 113 individuals have signed up to be Members of this WG, and their domiciles are broadly distributed around the globe. Therefore, it is likely that the WG will adopt a staggered, rotating meeting schedule to more evenly distribute the inconvenience of calls scheduled outside of normal working hours. In preparation for the initial call, I invite you to review background materials that are being posted to the WG's wiki space, which can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/4SWAAw. A proposed agenda for the meeting will be posted in closer proximity to April 21. Given the size of the WG, the complexity of the issues it will address, and the divergent views and interests raised by some of those issues, it is possible that the administrative task of managing its workflow will be performed by a Chair and several Vice-Chairs, or by several coequal Co-chairs. In this regard -- and while I hope to have your support to serve in one of those leadership positions going forward -- other WG members should start to consider whether they also wish to serve in a management leader role. Chairs (of whatever title) should expect to be involved in discussions of WG issue management among themselves and with Policy support staff that are in addition to the regularly scheduled WG calls, so there is an extra time commitment involved. While Chairs may step out of their official roles and advocate specific positions, their management of the WG's effort must be neutral and even-handed. Finally, and again given the large number of volunteers who are willing to contribute to this effort, I request that all WG members refrain from posting substantive comments and materials to the email list at this time and confine their postings between now and April 21 to questions and comments regarding our initial organizational efforts. Thank you and best regards, Philip S. Corwin Interim Chair 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

14 17

Update on Chair nominations and selection process
by Mary Wong April 11, 2016

April 11, 2016

Dear Working Group members, In light of the email list traffic and the number of candidates for a leadership position in this WG, we thought you might find it helpful to have a summary of where things are, and what to expect at the first WG meeting on 21 April. 1. Candidates for chair/co-chair (in alphabetical order): * Phil Corwin (nominated by Susan Kawaguchi on 8 April; has received support from several WG members) * J. Scott Evans (nominated by Kiran Malancharuvil on 8 April; has received support from several WG members) * Danny Glix (self-nominated on 7 April; has not yet received clear support) * Kathy Kleiman (self-nominated on 10 April; has received support from several WG members) Note that a number of WG members expressed their support for a co-chair arrangement, with several favoring Phil and J. Scott as co-chairs, and a few in favor of Kathy, Phil and J. Scott co-chairing. 2. The selection process and the first WG meeting: It’s important to note that each WG is responsible for selecting its own chair(s) and leadership team; the GNSO’s rules do not specify a single way, number or arrangement as being applicable for all groups. This Policy Development Process is the third of three major PDPs that were launched in the last few months by the GNSO Council. Although each of these three PDP WGs has over 100 members (not including observers), it may be helpful to note that the other two WGs do not have the same leadership arrangement. The PDP WG on a Next-Generation gTLD Registration Directory Service to Replace WHOIS agreed on a leadership team that comprises one Chair and three Vice-Chairs. The PDP WG for New gTLD Subsequent Procedures agreed on a leadership team that comprises three equal Co-Chairs. Previous WGs have used either Chair/Vice-Chair or Co-Chair leadership teams, depending on the consensus of each WG as to what it thought would suit its group and work methods best. One unifying characteristic amongst the various leadership arrangements amongst GNSO WGs and that contributes significantly to the success of the group in achieving consensus is the collaborative spirit and cohesiveness of the leadership team and the neutrality it is able to demonstrate. It is therefore important to select chair(s) who can work well and effectively together, and who can collectively provide clear guidance for the rest of the WG, especially if it is a PDP that could involve some contentious issues. As noted previously, the selection of a WG chair/leadership team will be one of the agenda items for our first meeting on 21 April. In the period between now and then, you may therefore wish to consider whether you believe a co-chair or a chair/vice-chair arrangement is the preferable approach for our WG. If it is helpful, you may also wish to note that given the complexity of the issues we have been tasked to consider and the two phases of this PDP contemplated by our Charter, it is likely that some of our work will be undertaken by sub-teams and in sub-phases, with additional opportunities for leadership positions accordingly. The call for nominations for chair/co-chair/vice-chair will remain open until at least our first WG meeting, following the customary practice in the GNSO. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong(a)icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

2 1