Susan, I am but one of three co-chairs of this WG and therefore cannot issue a unilateral decision on where the scope question should be addressed.

I will consult with my two co-chair colleagues, and with our policy support staff, and we shall get back to you and the entire WG as soon as feasible on this matter.

Best, Philip

From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:22 PM
To: Phil Corwin; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Cc: Jon Nevett
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

Thanks Phil, but I don’t think it’s a job for the sub-team to decide on scope. Or to be more specific, I don’t think it is the role of the sub-team to be deciding whether or not to exceed the scope laid down for the WG in the PDP charter. That would be something that the WG as a whole would have to decide was appropriate, and then to seek approval from the Council, wouldn’t it?

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]
Sent: 05 June 2017 17:57
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>
Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

Thanks for your input, Susan.

As I stated in my June 4^th response to Jon:

On Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general agreement that further development of the draft questions prepared by us should fall to the Subteam charged with reviewing and refining them and then sending them back to the full WG for additional work. Hopefully the subteam members will reach consensus on the scope of our inquiry and their consistency with our Charter.

Therefore, I expect that the substantive discussion on the draft document to occur within the subteam and not on our call this Wednesday.

So far as the draft being treated as a “strawperson”, if that means being the starting point for subteam discussion and with the subteam having discretion to revise, delete, and amend it, then that is the intent in my view.

Best, Philip

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:00 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Cc: Jon Nevett
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started.

I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves.

I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call.

Many thanks

Susan

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37
To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>
Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

I support Jon's edits and share his concerns regarding the scope and charge of this group.

I also think the spirit of bottom-up policy development supports taking changes to the document, rather than hanging on to the chairs' draft, which should be considered a strawman.

Greg

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:33 PM Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Jon:

I can’t speak for the other two co-chairs, but so far the task of our subteams has been largely confined to refining and filling gaps in the draft questions, and identifying the data needed to provide answers and the feasibility of finding such data. I would think that would be the same for the subteam doing scout work on these non-mandated, market-supplied RPMs.

I guess we may have some further discussion of what we are seeking this subteam to do during Wednesday’s call, but once we hand it off to them the subteam members will get into the details and decide how to proceed.

I welcome further thoughts from the other co-chairs, or from any WG members.

Best, Philip

From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.co]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Phil Corwin
Cc: Jon Nevett; Scott Austin; Susan Payne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

Thanks Phil. I'd like the co-chairs agreement that the sub-group's charge is limited to such information gathering. Otherwise, we do have an issue for the full committee and I would object to the sub-group starting work without knowing the scope of its work.

Best,

Jon

On Jun 4, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:

Thanks for your feedback, Jon, and for your proposed edit of the draft Subteam questions.

I appreciate your agreement “that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review”, as that is consistent with the Co-Chairs’ view that we have to understand the full scope of and interplay between available RPMs – ICANN-mandated plus additional services provided by the TMCH and registries – to comprehend the entire ecosystem and make informed decisions going forward.

On Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general agreement that further development of the draft questions prepared by us should fall to the Subteam charged with reviewing and refining them and then sending them back to the full WG for additional work. Hopefully the subteam members will reach consensus on the scope of our inquiry and their consistency with our Charter.

As the discussion on Wednesday’s call of this subject should be largely confined to our decision to delegate further refinement you shouldn’t miss much and in any event will be able to review the mp3 and transcript. I believe that you have volunteered to be a subteam member so you can are assured that your views will be fully considered as it engages.

Best regards, Philip

From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 6:26 PM
To: Scott Austin
Cc: Susan Payne; Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

WG Members:

I would like to remind folks that our Phase 1 charter defines the RPMs for us to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We are not chartered to evaluate Commercial Online Protection Services; Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry Protections; Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary Registry RPMs; or even Private RPMs.

With that said, I have long agreed that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review. With that context in mind, I offer the suggested changes to the proposed draft questions in the attached. I deleted certain references/questions about how/whether ICANN approves such additional private protections; whether they are consistent with policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that wasn't approved and how it may relate to some additional protections currently offered. Some of those questions and commentary are superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand and would just lead us down a proverbial rabbit hole.

What I hope we want from the sub-group is information about additional protections in the marketplace to help inform our task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an attempt at an extra-charter review of individual registries services. I am supportive of the former and happy to provide information as such, but am definitely opposed to the latter.

Unfortunately, I am taking a red-eye flight on Wednesday and will not be available for our next call. I would appreciate this issue being kicked to the following call if there is any need for discussion of the group. Much appreciated.

Best,

Jon

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.