In response to Jeremy's points: 1. This is incorrect. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 6.1.3, state: The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being stated, instead of a ‘ruling of the chair.’ However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific position. The appointment of co-chairs could be considered and is encouraged as a way to share the burden, provide continuity in case of absence of the Chair as well as allowing group leaders to rotate their participation in the discussion. In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO. Those who have not read the Working Group guidelines would find it very beneficial, for the rest of the WG as well as for themselves. Here's the link: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf 2. Kristine Dorrain covered this. 3. As drafted, Question 9 assumes a power we don't have and that is beyond the scope of this WG -- the power to regulate registry-specific RPMs (or "private protections," which has the advantage of connoting that these are outside the ambit of the "non-private" RPMs created by ICANN policy, pejorative though it may be). Worse yet, it insinuates that the decision not to institute the GPML should have prohibited the DPML from being offered. 4. Here, I agree that the WG should decide what to call Registry-Specific Protections. However, I don't under who is being called a "registrant" in this statement. If it is the brandowner "registering" the DPML, I might agree that DPMLs, like defensive registrations, are not exactly "voluntary" (in the sense that brandowners feel compelled to acquire something they do not want merely to prevent abusive registrations), but I somehow feel that wasn't what was intended. (If it was, I appreciate the rare outburst of empathy for the concerns of brandowners.) Other than that, I don't know who could be called a "registrant" here. Greg On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
I disagree. I have some problems with these comments/edits. It seems to me that:
1. Deleting segments of the joint statement by the co-chairs is inappropriate. The chairs have every right to express their views, as the subteam has every right to express theirs.
2. Editing out Question #5 is inappropriate - how the ICANN staff, board and community review and approve private RPMs is a very important part of the transparency and accountability process of the RPMs process.
3. Question #9 comparing the ICANN Community's rejection of the GPML (globally protected marks list) with the DPML privately sold to trademarks owners (Domains Protected Marks List) is a very valid inquiry that, of course, the WG subteam should review, consider and debate. Handcuffing the subteam upfront seems inappropriate.
4. Titles - what we call the Private RPM Protections should be something for the WG to decide (they are certainly not voluntary for registrants!)
I favor the original chairs' draft.
On 4/6/17 12:36 pm, Greg Shatan wrote:
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 <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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg