Sorry Phil if our legitimate concerns are annoying you -- "re-litigating" something implies that we litigated in the first place. We never did. And this is not just a procedural decision -- it is a substantive one. There are members of the WG who are on record lobbying to exceed our charter. All we are asking for is that the WG or its co-chairs instruct the sub-group that it needs to keep within the charter of the WG before we start our work -- whatever that work ends up being. Not that hard. As I mentioned in my email this week, I wasn't able to join the call last night and I requested that the issue be kicked a week. Apparently, you declined my request, but for you now to argue that there wasn't objection to the Co-Chairs "chosen approach" on the call seems inappropriate. Jon
On Jun 8, 2017, at 6:22 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Folks, do we really have to re-litigate every preliminary procedural decision?
Your co-chairs had the choice of halting ongoing full WG efforts to have the potential questions vetted by 160 members, of which 40-60 generally show up on a call, or to delegate the initial vetting to the new subteam of 18 members while the full WG stays on track. There was consensus agreement and no objection to the chosen approach on last night’s call.
I plan to participate in the subteam and for my part, to keep it as drama-free as possible, will urge that its initial meeting focus on identifying all questions for which there is good consensus for addressing. If there are remaining questions on which there is not subteam consensus, but that some members feel should be addressed, they can kick them back to the full WG for further vetting. That way the subteam can at least get started on question refining and data identification on the consensus questions. This seems reasonably efficient and fair. The subteam will likely only have one meeting before Johannesburg so we can gauge how they are doing when we meet there.
And again, all policy discussion on the private sector RPMs will be at the full WG level. This subteam, like the others, is to refine the questions and identify available data and additional needs.
Thanks and best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of icannlists Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 4:04 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Jon Nevett Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
I agree with Mike and Jon. Subgroups 1 and 2 have, so far, thrown off quite a bit of drama. It would be nice to have the scope of Subgroup 3 well in hand before we kick them off. I think we need to reach a definitive conclusion on Jon’s question: whether or not private mechanisms are “RPMs” within the scope of this PDP. If Subgroup 3 is information gathering only, that will affect the volume and intensity of participation. However, if Subgroup 3 is to evaluate the effectiveness of the private mechanisms, that would also affect the volume and intensity of participation. I think there is an assumption among many that it will be the latter not the former, but I don't think that assumption is based on a decision by the WG (and Jon would argue that the assumption isn’t supported by the charter).
Best to all, 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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:08 PM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
Agreed.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>> wrote: Phil:
It's at least clear, but far from satisfactory.
Setting up a sub-group without a direction of scope from the main group -- especially when we know that there is a clear disagreement about the scope issue -- is just unacceptably silly. Anyone who knows ICANN, knows how this is going to end up. We all are going to waste a bunch of cycles and we will just be back in the same place with the same issue.
Jon
On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Mike, and other WG members:
On last night’s WG call it was agreed to that the co-chairs suggested questions are a strawman and that the subteam is free to adopt, reject, or rewrite any of them, as well as add questions of its own that it believes are relevant to understanding the interrelationship between the mandated RPMs and the additional ones supplied by the marketplace, and to informing our ongoing policy discussion.
Therefore, the starting documents for the subteam will be the co-chairs memo, the markup of same performed by Jon and added to by others, and any email threads from the WG list relating to the subteam’s work. The first order of business for the subteam will be to agree upon the questions it will address. The subteam will be tasked with reporting back to the full WG a refined list of questions along with identified available data and additional data needs. All subsequent discussion related to answering those questions will occur at the full WG level.
I hope that is clear and satisfactory. The subteam is now up to 18 members plus the co-chairs in an ex officio capacity, and interested WG members who have not yet joined the subteam are welcome to do so. We intend to schedule the subteam’s first meeting next week, probably in a Friday time slot.
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:(202)%20559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:(202)%20559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:(202)%20255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
I agree with Kristine, Jon and Susan. This WG already has a ton of work to do, and really has barely scratched the surface on its real work. We must not add more to the scope unless mandated by the full GNSO Council.
Thanks, Mike
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 <tel:(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/>
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: I fully support Jon’s and Susan’s edits. I agree that the chair’s statement should be a considered a straw person proposal and that members have the right to request that statements outside the scope of the Charter be stricken.
Question 5 is well beyond the scope of this WG and is a very slippery slope.
Unfortunately, I cannot make the call this evening. I strongly support not allowing the sub team to start work until the WG as a whole has determined what the proper scope is.
Thanks,
Kristine
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 Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
I disagree. I have some problems with these comments/edits. It seems to me that:
1. Deleting segments of the joint statement by the co-chairs is inappropriate. The chairs have every right to express their views, as the subteam has every right to express theirs.
2. Editing out Question #5 is inappropriate - how the ICANN staff, board and community review and approve private RPMs is a very important part of the transparency and accountability process of the RPMs process.
3. Question #9 comparing the ICANN Community's rejection of the GPML (globally protected marks list) with the DPML privately sold to trademarks owners (Domains Protected Marks List) is a very valid inquiry that, of course, the WG subteam should review, consider and debate. Handcuffing the subteam upfront seems inappropriate.
4. Titles - what we call the Private RPM Protections should be something for the WG to decide (they are certainly not voluntary for registrants!)
I favor the original chairs' draft.
On 4/6/17 12:36 pm, Greg Shatan wrote: I support Jon's edits and share his concerns regarding the scope and charge of this group.
I also think the spirit of bottom-up policy development supports taking changes to the document, rather than hanging on to the chairs' draft, which should be considered a strawman.
Greg
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:33 PM Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Jon:
I can’t speak for the other two co-chairs, but so far the task of our subteams has been largely confined to refining and filling gaps in the draft questions, and identifying the data needed to provide answers and the feasibility of finding such data. I would think that would be the same for the subteam doing scout work on these non-mandated, market-supplied RPMs.
I guess we may have some further discussion of what we are seeking this subteam to do during Wednesday’s call, but once we hand it off to them the subteam members will get into the details and decide how to proceed.
I welcome further thoughts from the other co-chairs, or from any WG members.
Best, Philip
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.co <mailto:jon@donuts.co>] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:36 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Jon Nevett; Scott Austin; Susan Payne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
Thanks Phil. I'd like the co-chairs agreement that the sub-group's charge is limited to such information gathering. Otherwise, we do have an issue for the full committee and I would object to the sub-group starting work without knowing the scope of its work.
Best,
Jon
On Jun 4, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
Thanks for your feedback, Jon, and for your proposed edit of the draft Subteam questions.
I appreciate your agreement “that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review”, as that is consistent with the Co-Chairs’ view that we have to understand the full scope of and interplay between available RPMs – ICANN-mandated plus additional services provided by the TMCH and registries – to comprehend the entire ecosystem and make informed decisions going forward.
On Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general agreement that further development of the draft questions prepared by us should fall to the Subteam charged with reviewing and refining them and then sending them back to the full WG for additional work. Hopefully the subteam members will reach consensus on the scope of our inquiry and their consistency with our Charter.
As the discussion on Wednesday’s call of this subject should be largely confined to our decision to delegate further refinement you shouldn’t miss much and in any event will be able to review the mp3 and transcript. I believe that you have volunteered to be a subteam member so you can are assured that your views will be fully considered as it engages.
Best regards, Philip
From: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email <mailto:jon@donuts.email>] Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 6:26 PM To: Scott Austin Cc: Susan Payne; Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
WG Members:
I would like to remind folks that our Phase 1 charter defines the RPMs for us to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We are not chartered to evaluate Commercial Online Protection Services; Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry Protections; Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary Registry RPMs; or even Private RPMs.
With that said, I have long agreed that information about additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are chartered to review. With that context in mind, I offer the suggested changes to the proposed draft questions in the attached. I deleted certain references/questions about how/whether ICANN approves such additional private protections; whether they are consistent with policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that wasn't approved and how it may relate to some additional protections currently offered. Some of those questions and commentary are superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand and would just lead us down a proverbial rabbit hole.
What I hope we want from the sub-group is information about additional protections in the marketplace to help inform our task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an attempt at an extra-charter review of individual registries services. I am supportive of the former and happy to provide information as such, but am definitely opposed to the latter.
Unfortunately, I am taking a red-eye flight on Wednesday and will not be available for our next call. I would appreciate this issue being kicked to the following call if there is any need for discussion of the group. Much appreciated.
Best,
Jon
_______________________________________________ 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>
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org <https://eff.org/> jmalcolm@eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org>
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt <https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
_______________________________________________ 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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.