Thank you, Mary. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 1:30 PM To: cking@modernip.com; 'McGrady, Paul D.' <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; 'Corwin, Philip' <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Griffin@Winterfeldt.law Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Final Report procedures (Re: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC) Dear Working Group members, Staff would like to note the following procedures and options that may be relevant to this current discussion, some of which we mentioned during the call earlier today: * There is no mandatory requirement to post a draft Final Report for public comment but a PDP Working Group always has the option to do so (from the GNSO PDP Manual: “with the goal of maximizing accountability and transparency with regards the PDP, especially when substantial changes have been made compared to the contents of the Initial Report”). * In addition, a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis). * There is no process or documented option for amending the substance of a Final Report after its submission to the GNSO Council – while there is no express prohibition, adding any form of documentation to a Final Report has only ever been permitted exceptionally for Minority Statements, on the explicit basis that members needed the time following a consensus call to draft these statements and with time for the statements to be incorporated as an integral, consistent part of the Final Report prior to its consideration and vote by the GNSO Council. As such, staff advises that the Working Group in the first instance try to resolve whatever impasses or outstanding issues there are in the time remaining (e.g. should Griffin, Jason and Paul come back with a refreshed proposal by next week). If you deem it necessary, you can include consideration of the advisability and utility of posting the refreshed proposal(s) for public comment for twenty-one (21) days (which is the minimum duration specified in the PDP Manual). As Kathy and Phil noted during the call today, however, any additional discussions and extensions will affect the timeline for delivery of the Final Report. If this round of deliberations (with or without a public comment component) does not result in a compromise that can realistically gain consensus within the Working Group, staff advises that the Working Group can then decide if you wish to formulate a recommendation to consider the issue during the UDRP review in a re-chartered Phase 2 of the PDP. In all cases, Working Group members are free to submit Minority Statements to a Final Report, including on proposals that did not achieve a consensus designation amongst the Working Group for the Final Report. We hope this is helpful. Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of "cking@modernip.com <mailto:cking@modernip.com> " <cking@modernip.com <mailto:cking@modernip.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 14:05 To: "'McGrady, Paul D.'" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> >, "'Corwin, Philip'" <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >, "Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> " <Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> > Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> " <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi Phil, Is there such an animal as an Amendment to a Final Report? If we come up w/ a revised idea that requires public comment, can we not complete the Final Report and, simultaneously w/ work on Phase 2, have a small sub-group review public comments then present the results to the full working group whereupon, if there is consensus, we file an Amendment or Addendum to the Final Report? Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:00 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >; Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi Phil, Sorry to press, but you didn’t answer my question directly on the call today. What happens to new ideas coming out of public comment. Will they be given WG time or will they be punted to Phase 2? Thanks Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe__;!!PtG...> subscribe here [taftlaw.com]. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid...> Resource Toolkit [taftlaw.com]. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via GNSO-RPM-WG Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 11:57 AM To: Griffin@Winterfeldt.law <mailto:Griffin@Winterfeldt.law> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Griffin: Thank you again for the time and effort you put into these thoughtful proposals and analysis. Your discussion of Individual Proposal 3 appears to have allowed the WG to complete its consideration of the matter. And I look forward to any further refinement that you and others may bring back to the WG in regard to Individual Proposals 15 & 22 and the problem of serial cybersquatting they seek to address. When I intervened to express procedural concerns regarding the latter on this morning’s call, I was experiencing technical issues that had locked me out of the meeting and chat (other than audio) and was therefore somewhat distracted trying to resolve the problem (which required a restart). So, thinking about our discussion post-meeting, let me refine my thoughts somewhat – noting that this is the view of just one of the three co-chairs, although I would hope they are generally supported after any further discussion. Therefore, I would posit the following: * When a WG member(s) seeks to further amend an Initial Report WG recommendation, and/or one or more individual proposals, the standard for the amended language’s inclusion as a WG recommendation in the Final Report is that it has achieved consensus support. We are past the phase of our work where proposals receiving only broad support, much less individual proposals with only limited support, should move forward. * The WG is not prohibited from considering the substantive content of any amended recommendation or proposal because some or all of it is new and has not been the focus of community comment on the Initial Report. However, when the amended content is included in the Final Report and it raises substantial new legal or policy issues, or places substantial new operational or financial obligations on ICANN stakeholders or constituents or ICANN Org itself, then at least those portions of the draft Final Report should be put out for additional community comment, and those comments should subsequently be reviewed and evaluated by the WG before a Final Report is delivered to Council. It would not be responsible, or fair to Council, for the WG to include new material of this nature without soliciting further community input. * If WG members support inclusion of an amended recommendation or proposal containing such substantial material in the Final Report, they should do so with the understanding that it will likely delay delivery of a Final Report to Council by mid-October and therefore require the filing of another Change Request with a revised delivery date; and that it will likely delay the completion of Phase 1 and the initiation of Phase 2 of this WG. Summing up, I hope this clarifies my view that the WG can consider new ideas at this stage of our work, but that in certain instances the inclusion of such new material in a draft Final Report should necessitate further community comment prior to the conclusion of phase 1. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Griffin Barnett Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 12:52 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi all, Per the proposed agenda item 2 below, attached please find two documents that will help guide the discussion: (1) an updated and consolidated URS Individual Proposal 15/22; and (2) a review and rationale regarding URS Individual Proposal 3 that ultimately concludes that this proposal is actually not necessary after all and should be eliminated from further consideration. On the latter point, the initial intent was to simply revise the proposal, based on discussions we had a few weeks ago, but in attempting to do so and conducting some further research, I found that the proposal is likely not needed for the problem it was apparently developed to address – this is of course discussed in more detail in the document. I will be happy to walk us through these items during the call. Any questions or feedback in the meantime is welcome. Best, Griffin _____ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!uMbuJ8s_...> [winterfeldt.law] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.winterfeldt.law/__;!!PtGJab4!uMbuJ8s_...> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1601 K Street NW, Ste 1050 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20006 griffin@winterfeldt.law <mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 3:15 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting Tuesday, 28 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Review of URS Proposals #3, #15, #22 – with proposal from Griffin Barnett (TBD), see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdz...> and the Public Comment Analysis summary at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4K... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH...> 3. Review of TMCH Proposals #4 and #5 – with proposal from Rebecca Tushnet, Paul Tattersfield, and Claudio di Gangi (TBD), see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdz...> and the Public Comment Analysis summary at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH66GPQG9XI23n8H2mgkbf39-jA4K... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1Pnqor6rHjvowH...> 4. Review of Additional Overarching Question #3, see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV...> and the table of contents on the first tab 5. Review of General Content Questions #1 and #2, see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc... [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV...> and the table of contents on the first tab 6. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=ema...> [avg.com] Virus-free. <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=ema...> www.avg.com [avg.com] -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
