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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg