I have been reading the email traffic (which has been substantial). Here are my thoughts: This WG comprises too much work for a single chairperson. I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair role for the contracting parties. This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP which has little impact on contracted parties other than ensuring that domain names remain locked and the decision is enforced. A 2-person co-chair arrangement works well as long as the co-chairs can work together so that all issues are fairly and openly addressed,, meetings run smoothly and progress is made in a timely fashion. Competing ideas (of which there are surely many) should be left to the WG member discussions; they should not find their way into the chair positions. In the WG on NGOs we have had a successful co-chair arrangement in which Phil and Petter were able to work well together and where BOTH ensured that discussions remained open and that all topics were fairly presented and considered. If it is felt that the co-chairs cannot accomplish the above, then it is best to have a single chair person with two vice-chairs. This will ensure that there is one person guiding the process (again as noted above) and two additional people to assist. The above said, I invite those being considered to provide a clear (and short) statement addressed to the remainder of the WG indicating the following: 1. Why they want to be a chair/co-chair. 2. Why they believe they would be good at the role (bearing in mind the keys are IMHO neutrality and organizational skills). 3. A commitment that they will serve in a neutral capacity such that matters of the WG will be dealt with in an open and fair manner such that all issues relevant to the WG mandate are addressed and considered. 4. A commitment that they are either able to (and will) work constructively with each of the other nominated persons or a statement of why they feel they cannot work with any particular nominated person. Please bear in mind that I am not encouraging conflict here. However, because we are considering co-chairs/Co-Vice-Chairs I feel it is important that we all know if those being considered can or cannot work well together. It is my belief that with the above to hand, we can all then move forward with more comfort in addressing how many chair/vice-chair positions there will be and who should fill those roles. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul@law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Petter Rindforth via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:06 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
I strongly agree with Susan - The work is likely to bee too much for only one person, and 2 (yes - two) co-chairs will make a big difference (in a positive way) to split it up, to participate in preparations in between our WG meetings as well as to lead our calls and physical meetings.
There will definately be additional possibilities and work to do as vice chairs and/or sub-group / sub-tobic chairs, etc for a number of other members of this WG (including myself ;-)
Best, Petter
-- Petter Rindforth, LL M
Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu
NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you
12 april 2016 16:55:01 +02:00, skrev Susan Payne via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:
I think a leadership team of 4 is getting out of hand. This is an important PDP certainly but it unlikely to be as anything like as complex as the Subsequent Procedures one, and even that is currently managing with 3. I would have said 2 co-chairs is the way to go for this one. I¹m concerned that the bigger the ³leadership² group the harder it is for them to find a time that they can actually get together to plan for the calls. The role of the chair(s) is to be impartial after all so it should not matter where they come from but rather whether they have the requisite skill-set.
Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd
E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: 12 April 2016 15:45 To: Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.
I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.
Jonathan
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM To: Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).
Greg Shatan
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
Also agree with Volker's suggestion.
Statton
Statton Hammock
Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs
Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367>
Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>
statton@rightside.rocks
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:
+ 1 to Volker.
Gabriela Szlak
Skype: gabrielaszlak
Twitter: @GabiSzlak
La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.
2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:
Hi all,
with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.
With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.
Best regards,
Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
