Hi folks, After reviewing the proposed process, I have 2 main concerns: 1. For task 6, "Individual Proposals", the submission period would open January 23, for 2 weeks, until February 6. While the proposed process document states: "WG members do not necessarily need to rely on Sub Team proposals to develop individual proposals (this is why the submission period for individual proposals opens before the Sub Teams complete their discussion of and make decisions on Sub Team proposals);" (top of page 3) I disagree with that statement. By the current timeline, the individual proposals would need to be submitted by February 6, even though: - data analysis doesn't end until February 13 (and presumably wouldn't be shared with the entire WG until later) - sub-team recommendation discussions aren't completed until February 27 - review of individual proposals doesn't begin until week of March 9-14 (i.e. ICANN64) - review of individual proposals doesn't end until April 17 In my view, any proposals (originating from either individuals or the sub teams themselves) should be based on the analysis of all the data, and so it would make more sense to have the deadline for individual proposals to be at least around March 2 (i.e. a week before their review begins). I think most people who would submit individual proposals would wait until sub team recommendations are shared with the working group (after February 27) before they even *start* working on their own individual proposals, so mid-March might be a more realistic target date (i.e. sometime after ICANN64). Given that review of individual proposals are set to end on April 17, a further argument can be made for an even later date than March 2 (i.e. assuming people aren't intentionally waiting until the last minute, the sub teams can start on the earlier-submitted proposals, yet still permit further proposals to be submitted later). 2. As of the time of this email, IPC members represent roughly half of each sub team, which is far greater than their representation in the GNSO. Thus, this over-representation of a certain viewpoint/perspective creates the potential for that constituency to effectively block/veto Individual Proposals or proposals originating from other constituencies participating in the sub teams from being published in the initial report, due to the proposed process (i.e. sections 1(b), 6 (3rd bullet point), and 7 (2nd and 3rd bullet points) greatly disadvantage individual proposals that don't get through the sub teams "successfully"). In my view, there should be a bias towards inclusion of all proposals, in order to hear from the *entire* community, as consensus ultimately is determined by the full community, and the IPC doesn't have a veto in the GNSO. Being able to block/veto proposals at an early stage would hinder attempts later on towards compromise, as well as the ability to find *combinations* of proposals that can reach consensus (i.e. proposals A and B individually may not have consensus support, but A+B packaged together might reach consensus support as a compromise, if the package of A+B satisfies the concerns of multiple ICANN stakeholder groups). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members,
On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have.
Best,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg