Wow, that got sent late. Greg, I don’t think we need a subgroup to discuss whether we need a subgroup to discuss mediation. It seems like we’re twisting ourselves into knots over a non-issue. Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 UTC -7
On 23 Aug 2016, at 10:38, Reg Levy <reg@mmx.co> wrote:
I agree—this is an unnecessary task that presupposes registries are bad actors.
Reg Levy VP Compliance + Policy | Minds + Machines Group Limited C: +1-310-963-7135 S: RegLevy2 <mmx_logo-edges_2[3].png>
UTC -7
On 23 Aug 2016, at 09:37, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:
I am very concerned that the formation of a mediation subteam to gather information presupposes the question. If in fact, there is a problem with brand owners running to ICANN to report pervasive bad faith activities by a registry rather than working things out with the registry, we don’t have evidence of this. We cannot presuppose that mediation is the right answer when we don’t know the question. If we want to create a sub team to investigate problems, lets do that. But creating a subteam to discuss a SOLUTION for which a problem has yet to be identified is putting the cart before the horse. Even if problems are identified, it’s not a foregone conclusion that mediation is going to be the right answer.
Thanks,
Kristine
Kristine Dorrain Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339 dorraink@amazon.com <mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:53 AM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>; 'David Tait' <david.tait@icann.org <mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
Paul, <>
As much as I love the sentiment of giving peace a chance, isn’t that usually chanted when there is actually a war going on? My assumption is that unless there is evidence to the contrary, aren’t we at peace already J At this point I am not aware of any complaints of a PDDRP nature (meaning that registries have profited off of the infringement of third parties as a result of their affirmative conduct – which is a paraphrase of the standard). Therefore, spending any time working on a mediation program for the pddrp when there is no evidence that there was any activity that would have led to a valid pddrp complaint seems like spinning our wheels.
What it seems like you are talking about is a general mediation program for any complaints about registry activity whether or not of a pddrp nature. If we went down that path, I still think this subgroup is premature because we have not documented the types of “causes of action” for which mediation could or should be sought. That should be step 1.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
From: Paul McGrady [mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:48 AM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>>; 'David Tait' <david.tait@icann.org <mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
Hi Jeff,
I agree with the general sentiment that if it’s not broken, we should not be out looking for ways to fix it. However, in the case of building in a mediation mechanism, rather than a change to the elements of a complaint, I think we may want to make an exception here if it “gives peace a chance” in the long term.
One of the complaints the IPC heard from the Registry House in Helsinki was that there is a tendency to run to ICANN Staff & Board with complaints instead of dealing with the registry in the first instance to see if it can be resolved. The additional of a mediation option seems, to me, to bake in an opportunity and method for that dialogue in advance of a more formal complaint (via PDDRP or to Staff/Board). In other words, all the mediation program would do is make a way forward for what we all aspire to anyway – talking our problems out with each other.
Best, Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 8:20 PM To: David Tait <david.tait@icann.org <mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
Just to be clear, this is about mediation as it relates to the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy, not mediation of disputes in general.
I still have a standing objection about the formation of this group and looking at mediating issues between a registry operator and a complainant as there has been no evidence for the need of such a program since there has been no evidence yet of any situation that could have given rise to a PDDRP dispute.
I will continue to be a broken record on this l, but absent evidence demonstrating a need for any changes, we should not be spending any time on making those changes.
Jeff Neuman
On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:19 PM, David Tait <david.tait@icann.org <mailto:david.tait@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members
At its meeting on 17 August 2016 the Working Group concluded that there was a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. Staff would therefore invite those who would be interested in participating in this sub-team to respond to this email and we will begin the process of establishing the sub-team.
We would kindly request that you send us any responses by 0900 UTC 24 August 2016
Please note that Petter Rindforth has already kindly volunteered for this sub-team.
Kind regards,
David Tait
David A. Tait Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Mobile: + 44-7864-793776 Email: david.tait@icann.org <mailto:david.tait@icann.org> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> _______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
