Hi All, I agree we need to have a process in place that everyone understands ahead of time. Naturally any process could be amended, if needed, by approval of the WG. To reiterate & refine my suggestions on the call yesterday: * Small, representative sub-teams (Cue discussion of what is small” & “representative”) * Weekly emails of staff notes to full WG (WG then able to provide input back to sub-team) * Sub-teams prepare a draft report & email to WG * When appropriate, call for proposals to WG * Sub-teams discuss proposals w/ interested parties * Develop report w/ proposals, including majority& minority positions * Present reports to full WG * Sub-team members give short (3-min?) overview of majority/minority positions * WG afforded short Q&A of sub-team members * WG polled to determine which items have consensus (Items w/out clear consensus could be referred back to the sub-team for further consideration) * Final report compiled, approved by full WG (noting areas of significant dissent) I look forward to your thoughts. 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 Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:23 AM To: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com>; Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com <mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> >; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi all, Thanks as always to staff for writing this up. Just with regard to the subgroups and timing, I didn't chime in on the call because I don't feel strongly either way, but thinking about it in retrospect, and about my experiences on the URS, I wonder if the smaller size of the subgroups is a feature of the system, since it makes discussions less unwieldy to have 10 or 15 participants, rather than 30 or 40. Obviously, it's problematic to take any measures to restrict participation, but having the calls occur at the same time is sort of a softer method of achieving a smaller group for discussions, particularly if people who are interested are free to float back and forth between the two. Just a thought, since I don't know that that angle was raised - that the inability to participate in both groups at the same time as being a feature of the system. Best, Michael On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > wrote: Dear All, Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from the RPM PDP Working Group call held on 05 December 2018 (17:00-18:30 UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. Please note that these are high-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript. The recording, AC chat, transcript and attendance records are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-12-05+Review+of+all+Ri.... See also the attached referenced documents. Best Regards, Julie Julie Hedlund, Policy Director == NOTES & ACTION ITEMS Actions: 1. Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams 2. Staff to schedule Sub Team calls Notes: 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: None. 2. Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for Volunteers -- see attached documents: 1) Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03 December 2018 by ICANN staff (Phase 1): Discussion: -- Concerns: 1) Simultaneous meetings -- prevents participation in both Sub Teams. Could schedule on alternate dates or could use early time slot. 2) opening individual proposals on the 2nd and close on 23 January -- complete analysis of the data first? -- There will be updates to the full WG, which would help the individuals to prepare their proposals. -- Concerned that if we can only participate in one sub team could that encourage those who aren't participating to make individual proposals. -- Support sub teams meeting in parallel, but not at the same time. -- The Sub Teams could meet at 1300 and 1700 UTC on Wednesdays, if there is enough participation. -- Could also use a Friday time and report back on Monday. -- Seems pointless to start on Phase 2 in the middle; could we take a break? It may be overcome by events. -- UDRP discussion could be organizational. -- Seem to be deviating from the URS in that the sub teams can go through the individual proposals. Concerns about whether sub teams can block individual proposals. -- Quick note on Sub-teams -- the idea is to: (1) break the work into tracks that can run concurrently so as to move forward more quickly, and (2) to apply expertise to specific topics. This shouldn't preclude people from being on multiple teams and, with weekly reporting to the group, should give sub-teams the authority to make recommendations. -- We had already considered a lot of TMCH issues before moving into URS, so we are asking people to get their proposals on the table early, not that they couldn't wait. -- Can we move the submission period for the individual proposals to be later? Per staff the timing of the submission of the individual proposals can be later. -- We can also allocate some time in the full WG when the sub teams report back and have the individual present the proposal and sub team chair. -- If the individual proposals wait until after the sub teams have presented their results then it might add time to the timeline -- although this approach does not have to be decided at this point. -- Have pros and cons presentations from the sub teams. 2) Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions 3) Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected 4) Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and Data Collected -- Add page numbers (although note that the PDF is for viewing only; the working document will be Google Doc or Google Sheets). -- Does the data include the outreach that the PDP WG did to all the SOs/ACs -- that was done in late 2016? Answer: We received one or two responses, which were not data specific. We do have them on the record and when the sub teams develop recommendations they will be reminded of all relevant input. Can add as a placeholder at the end of the document. -- On articles and blogs -- will the WG be collecting the data? Staff began the exercise, but since the WG was considering the need for data collection, which because the surveys were very extensive, it may be that the survey data may address those requests. We were hoping to get further guidance since it is a lot of work and we are not sure how much it is useful. 5) TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool -- Add the link to the Google spreadsheet in the table. -- Staff can assist Sub Teams with questions. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _____ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. _____ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
