Hi Brian, Michael K, Michael G, and all, Thank you very much for your helpful questions, comments, and thoughts. Perhaps it might be helpful if staff recirculates the procedures agreed to by the WG when the Sub Teams were developed. We’ve attached them for reference. The timeline has changed significantly, but the procedures have remained as adopted. The relevant section is Section 8 Review of All Proposals: Review of All Proposals ● All Sub Team recommendations will be shared with the larger WG and a final decision on any proposal’s inclusion in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment will be made by the entire WG; ● All Sub Team recommendations (whether developed by the Sub Team or from individual WG members) that a Sub Team has designated as having received wide support from the Sub Team will be included in the Initial Report unless the full WG overrides such recommendation; ○ For this purpose, “overrides” means that there is substantial, material opposition from the WG to a specific Sub Team recommendation demonstrating that it does not have wide support within the WG; ● While proposals that the Sub Teams designate as lacking the requisite support will not be included in the Initial Report for the purpose of soliciting public comment, the Initial Report will include a reference (e.g. via an Appendix) linking to any objections received and documented on the WG wiki; ● The full WG may also designate certain Sub Team recommendations as requiring further consideration and refinement by the Sub Teams prior to inclusion in the Initial Report, and the Sub Team will be accorded a short period in which to reconvene and consider such matters further; ● It is important to note that this process of preparing the Initial Report is not intended to replace or replicate the formal consensus call that typically takes place when a WG is preparing its Final Report. Michael G – It seems that your suggestion that the WG “should have the ability to and responsibility of questioning the basis for statements suggested by the Sub Teams, and proposing clarifying language” falls into the penultimate bullet point. It is within the purview of the WG to suggest refinements for consideration by the Sub Team. To the extent that Sub Team members and Co-Chairs are on the WG calls we hope that such clarifications can be addressed in real time, without the requirement of reconvening the Sub Teams, which currently is not envisioned in the timeline/work plan (attached). We hope that this is helpful. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Friday, July 12, 2019 at 3:18 PM To: "Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham@expediagroup.com> Cc: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 10 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC Hi, From my perspective, these objections are unfounded. Both subteams were open to anyone who was interested in joining and participating. I think it's fairly safe to say that nobody is completely satisfied with the final language (I know I am not...). But the wording was nonetheless the result of exhaustive debate among the different stakeholders around the table. It's not that the suggested amendments are being "reflexively" rejected, so much as there is an understandable resistance among the participants who showed up to hammer out these contentious issues against restarting the same discussion all over again. If we continue to re-litigate every sentence to try and chisel out a slightly better position for our own interests, the work will never move forward. I reiterate - I am not happy with where we ended up. But I support the current approach, and I support moving forward. Best, Michael Karanicolas WIII Fellow Information Society Project - Yale Law School On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:52 PM Michael Graham (ELCA) via GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: I apparently share Brian’s misunderstanding: I was under the impression that the Sub Teams were formed to deep dive the two topics, draft answers to the Charter Questions and propose Questions for the Community based on these discussions, and present their drafts to the full Working Group for discussion, approval, or revision. I concede that the wording proposals I put forward should not be adopted insofar as I saw no (much less “wide”) support on the Chat or in the Discussion. However, some members’ criticism that the Sub Team wording was the result of substantial discussion and the Agenda reminder discouraging “recreating or relitigating the Sub Teams’ work” contradicts my understanding of both the Sub Teams’ and the Full Working Group’s roles. I think members of the Full group – whether they participated in the Sub Team work or not – should have the ability to and responsibility of questioning the basis for statements suggested by the Sub Teams, and proposing clarifying language. In any event, I would have liked to have seen the participants polled on whether they supported particular proposals rather than relying on whether members wanted to comment. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but in light of Brian’s comment and my own frustration with the process I thought it best to provide this comment. Thanks, and I look forward to our coming calls. Michael R. Graham From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 1:21 AM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 10 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC Hi Julie, all, On our last call I mentioned that I had one or two clarifying text suggestions that I would send over email. Perhaps I misunderstood the intended role of the full Working Group vis-à-vis approving the work of the Sub Teams, and given that every single suggestion on this past Wednesday’s call was reflexively rejected, I am writing here to let you know that I will not be making any further suggestions and have no comments on the Claims Sub Team report. Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 7:01 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda & Materials re: 10 July RPM Working Group Meeting 17:00 UTC Dear RPM PDP Working Group members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see the proposed agenda below for the Working Group meeting on Wednesday, 10 July at 1700 UTC for 90 minutes. Proposed Agenda: 1. Welcome and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Brief Update on ICANN65 3. Review and Discussion of TM Claims Sub Team Recommendations (see attached document): Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4, & Q5, Proposals 1, 5, 6, 11, & 12. 4. AOB Please note that per the attached work plan/timeline this is the first of four meetings in July for the WG to consider the TM Claims and Sunrise Sub Team recommendations. As you may recall, Martin Silva provided an update on the TM Claims recommendations at ICANN65 and those recommendations are unchanged in the attached document, which also was provided as the Sub Team’s report to the WG yesterday. As a reminder, per the agreed-upon process for the WG’s consideration of the Sub Teams’ recommendations, the full WG is not expected to be recreating or relitigating the Sub Teams’ work. Clarifications and fine-tuning are in order, but unless there is very broad support for rejecting a Sub Team recommendation or reviving a proposal that failed to receive wide support the Sub Team decisions stand and will be reflected in the Initial Report. Please also note that if there are suggestions for minor edits to the text of the TM Claims Sub Team’s recommendations in the attached document it would be very helpful if the text with edits indicated could be circulated to this list prior to the meeting this Wednesday. Moreover, to the extent that minor edits might be suggested on Wednesday’s call, WG members are requested to provide the text with edits indicated to this list within 48 hours of the end of Wednesday’s meeting. With best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie on behalf of the WG Co-Chairs [The cover image of the 2019 GII features an icon in the shape of a medical cross, filled with molecules and data pathways, representing innovation in health.][wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> GLOBAL INNOVATION INDEX 2019 Creating Healthy Lives - The Future of Medical Innovation Launch July 24 www.wipo.int/gii [wipo.int]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.wipo.int_gii_-3Futm-...> #GII2019 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_p...>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos [icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_t...>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.