Hi Cyntia,
Question 7 deserves the same treatment as other questions and the public comments should be reviewed. We were side tracked at the end of the call last week and didn’t get to the merits.
There's a documented problem of abuse and the ONLY opposition is based on the concern that cybersquatters will themselves abuse the open TMCH. No one said they don't want oversight of the TMCH -- at least not openly.
Moreover, if you review your notes and the comments there’s support and room for a compromise. Others have seemed to indicate a willingness to solve the problem.
Jason
From: cking@modernip.com <cking@modernip.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:01 PM
To: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com>; 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Hi All,
Respectfully, I believe this would be a waste of our remaining time.
The Proposal had significant opposition (at least as much opposition as support). As well, consensus has never been reached in discussions by the full working group or (2) subgroups.
As consensus is needed to change an RPM that is itself the result of consensus discussions; and
As we haven’t been close to consensus in the working group, sub-groups or public comments; then
I suggest we complete our review concentrating on Proposals where consensus may still be possible.
Cyntia King
O: +1 816.633.7647
C: +1 818.209.6088
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 11:18 AM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>;
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Hi all,
In advance of tomorrow’s call, I am requesting that we continue discussion on the
merits of TMCH Question #7. Upon reflection, at the end of the last WG call, we neither discussed the public comments nor debated the underlying merits of the positions regarding opening of the TMCH.
As we are all aware, we are not debating whether or not there has been abuse of the TMCH. The only question is how much abuse has occurred.
Further, those opposed to opening the TMCH DB to oversight appear to object on the basis that cybersquatters and wrongdoers will abuse the newly opened DB. It does not appear that
anyone rejects having oversight of the TMCH or an ability to ensure that it is operating correctly (without abuse). Moreover, Deliotte itself commented that the TMCH should transition from a closed to open and searchable DB with the understanding
that it is up to the ICANN Community to make the determination. I recall we had discussed some compromise positions that were being considered as a way to bring oversight while protecting against cybersquatters.
Accordingly, I request that we be prepared to continue the discussion on the merits of TMCH Question 7 and find a workable position as a WG to review the TMCH and avoid abuse.
Regards,
Jason
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:20 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Dear RPM WG members,
As a reminder, please find the
updated proposed agenda and materials below for the
full WG meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:10 PM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC
Dear RPM WG members,
Please find the updated
proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting
Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
Draft Proposed Agenda:
- Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest
- Revisit Discussion of TMCH Proposals
#4 [docs.google.com] and
#5 [docs.google.com], see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_-aKO7fI/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and the table of contents on the first tab; see also the message on the email distribution list at:
[GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals Paul Tattersfield
- Review of Overarching Questions #1 and #3 (skipping #2) and Additional Overarching Questions #1, #2, and #3, see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and the table of contents on the first tab
- Review of General Content Questions #1 and #2 (time permitting), see the Public Comment Review Tool at:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzScCtj01fw/edit?usp=sharing [docs.google.com] and the table of contents on the first tab
- AOB
Best Regards,
Mary, Julie, Ariel
