And if anyone needed any further evidence about the differential treatment of members of this PDP, witness what happened on the sub teams this week. ICANN staff delivered documents on Tuesday that sub team members were online given until Thursday (yesterday) to review. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000176.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000183.html I raised concerns about this short time window (along with other issues of workload) on the calls, but nothing happens. I then had to rearrange my schedule to do the review, and was the only person in the 2 sub teams to have made comments: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000196.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000196.html The clean versions are then prepared based on my edits: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000198.html (23:49 UTC) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000198.html (23:48:59 UTC) After all this (note the timestamps), comes a request from one of the co-chairs of this PDP for more time: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000199.html (23:56:40 UTC) That request is granted shortly thereafter! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-February/000199.html So, we're all "equal" as members, but some members are more "equal" than others in terms of changing the workload and timelines. This illustrates exactly why we need more "workers" and fewer "overseers/managers". With everyone on an equal footing **doing*** the work, and a professional external and neutral project manager facilitating the work, we'd have, among other things: a) more people actually doing the work (as they would be freed from the responsibility and time required to "manage", and could reinvest that time in doing the work), which should results in greater work output b) better understanding of the realities of the workload c) greater fairness when providing input as to unfair workloads/timelines, as the professional external and neutral project manager would be independent, as the "status" of the current co-chairs would revert to that of everyone else. Co-chairs aren't meant to be "rulers" who dictate what's going to happen, but are intended to "serve" the needs of the members who are trying to get the work done. That often seems to be forgotten. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:30 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Brian,
That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having been circulated for the URS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual proposals, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****, that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different. i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this in early January 2019:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to create a process:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9, although it had been raised previously)
That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
" * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
How convenient.
Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.") Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized, or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what others must endure.
Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce barriers to participation and trying to have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e. the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of the subteams and/or the working group.
When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference, especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions, I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not appear to be taken seriously.
John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3 ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry, who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I think that would likely have no financial impact.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated previously for the URS?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
Brian
On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d...
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...
https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing...
https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-...
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ...
Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.