Ditto ALL!
Michael R.
|
|
Michael R. Graham |
|
Senior Counsel and Global Director,
Intellectual Property,
Expedia Group |
|
|
T +1 425 241 1459 | M
+1 425 241 1459
1111 Expedia Group Way W
| Seattle, WA 98119
expediagroup.com |
|
|
Email:
migraham@expediagroup.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of cking@modernip.com
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 10:48 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org; 'Corwin, Philip' <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org
Subject: [External] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Phase 1 Final Report re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
Indeed.
Huge thanks to Phil, Kathy & Brian for your guidance throughout this long process.
Thanks, as well, to our indefatigable Staff & their efforts to support the working group.
Lastly, thanks to all who gave of their time & expertise to address the many complex & important issues we covered.
You guys rock.
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 Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 12:40 PM
To: julie.hedlund@icann.org;
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Phase 1 Final Report re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
Thank you, Julie.
And thanks to my co-chairs, Kathy and Brian; to our Council liaisons during the course of Phase 1, including John; to all the members of the WG for their hard work and many contributions; and last but certainly
not least to our exceptional ICANN support staff, without whom we never could have reached the finish line for Phase 1.
On to Phase 2 (but not too quickly).
Best to all,
Philip
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>
On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 1:32 PM
To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [GNSO-RPM-WG] Phase 1 Final Report re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
|
Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. |
Dear WG members,
No further views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1 were submitted by the deadline of Friday, 20 November. Consequently, staff has compiled the attached Phase 1 Final Report on the Review of All Rights Protection
Mechanisms in All gTLDs Policy Development Process to include the Consensus Designations as accepted by the WG in “Annex C – Consensus Designations” and the Minority Statement previously submitted in
“Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”.
The RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs will submit the Phase 1 Final Report to the GNSO Council for consideration.
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, November 18, 2020 at 9:50 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER re: Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
Dear WG members,
As of the deadline of Thursday, 12 November no WG members have indicated any objections to the attached Proposed Consensus Designations. Thus, these Proposed Consensus Designations are considered
to be accepted by the WG.
Reminder:
Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final Recommendation
#1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will be documented
in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”.
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, November 11, 2020 at 10:12 AM
To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Consensus Designations: RPMs PDP WG Final Report Recommendations
Dear WG members,
On behalf of the RPMs PDP WG Co-Chairs, please see the attached proposed Consensus Designations for WG review.
In summary, the Co-Chairs have designated all recommendations except TMCH Final Recommendation #1 as “Full Consensus”. Because of several members’ collective Minority Statement, submitted by Zak
Muscovitch, regarding TMCH Final Recommendation #1, the Co-Chairs have designated that recommendation as “Consensus”. Please see below for the various consensus level designations from section 3.6 of the Working Group Guidelines.
Per the RPMs PDP WG Work Plan, WG members have until
Thursday, 12 November, to indicate via the list whether they accept the Co-Chairs’ evaluation of the Consensus Designations. Per the Working Group Guidelines, if a WG member or members object to the designations, the Co-Chairs “should
reevaluate and publish an updated evaluation”. A non-response from WG members will be taken as non-objection.
Note that per the Work Plan, WG members, as a small group, may submit their views for any recommendation that did not receive full consensus support from the Working Group (i.e., only TMCH Final
Recommendation #1) by 20 November, although it will be helpful to submit them, if any, as soon as possible. Provided such views are a proposal that meets the criteria for a Minority View (See Working Group Guidelines at Section 3.6), they will
be documented in the Final Report in “Annex D - Working Group Members' Views on TMCH Final Recommendation #1”.
Kind regards,
Mary, Ariel, and Julie
Consensus Designations, per the
GNSO
Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org], section 3.6 Standard Methodology for Making Decisions:
The Chair will be responsible for designating each position as having one of the following designations:
- Full consensus - when no one in the group speaks against the recommendation in its last readings. This
is also sometimes referred to as Unanimous Consensus.
- Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree.
- Strong support but significant opposition - a position where, while most of the group supports a recommendation, there are a significant number of those who do not
support it.
- Divergence (also referred to as No Consensus) - a position where there isn't strong support for any
particular position, but many different points of view. Sometimes this is due to irreconcilable differences of opinion and sometimes it is due to the fact that no one has a particularly strong or convincing viewpoint, but the members of the group agree that
it is worth listing the issue in the report nonetheless.
- Minority View - refers to a proposal where a small number of people support the recommendation. This
can happen in response to a Consensus, Strong support but significant opposition, and No Consensus; or, it can happen in cases where there is neither support nor opposition to a suggestion made by a small number of individuals.
