Jason, To quote you, "suffice to say" others are "not alone in this [opposing] sentiment" either. That's the whole point - despite the many advances and great work done over the years, we don't all agree with everything. I don't find the words "blindside attack", "procedural issue of fairness and correcting this point" or "super priority to a limited class" terribly helpful, or indeed a genuine representation of the (years of) discussion on this issue. All RPMs could, should you choose to categorise them as such, fall into your last quote. Very few voices have seriously pushed for an end to all RPMs, and we wouldn't have spent 4 years getting to where we are now had that been the case. As for the first two, in every call where we've looked at the individual proposals, whomever the Chair of that call, we've also looked at who the respondents were and have always noted if the (e.g.) NCSG, CPH, BC etc. was for/anti/suggested amendments. The issues that many of us have with the "doughnut" percentages have again been noted on every such call. Our role is absolutely to have regard to all views and comments, but I do stand by my view that should I choose to respond in my personal capacity to any consultation (ICANN or otherwise), while I would certainly hope that my comments were processed and considered I wouldn't expect that they would carry a stronger (or even equal) voice than that of (e.g.) a SG/C, association representing 1000s, NGO etc. (delete as appropriate). And as Cyntia notes below, there were no comments received (pro or anti) that rendered any new information. All individual proposals were put forward as the WG could not decide (after years of debate) if they should be recommendations. At this stage, some have passed through that threshold, some haven't - and they were from very different proponents. We all know that we're beyond rehashing the same views re the substance (again). You're right that it impacts the CPH; they did not support the proposal. I don't find it helpful to look for malicious intent as regards this one proposal (I see none) and/or to treat it differently from every other. So while I appreciate both your perspective and passion, I respectfully agree with Cyntia, and the majority view on last week's call, that there just isn't sufficient support in the WG for this proposal to take even more of our time. Best to all (and Happy Belgian National Day!) Marie From: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 1:35 AM To: cking@modernip.com; 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Cyntia, Suffice to say I am not alone in this sentiment. We are in agreement that we have a duty to ourselves and others, and that all of our time is valuable and not to be wasted. As I've stated from the outset, we did not address the merits and it behooves us to give this the attention it deserves. We have a known problem, and while we can debate the extent of the problem (as we don't have complete information), we should all want some degree of oversight of an independent database. I am aware others in the WG had and me still be considering workable alternatives. Had we discussed the merits on the last call we just might have found the answer to this issue. Jason Schaeffer ESQwire.com P.C. ________________________________ From: cking@modernip.com <cking@modernip.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 6:13 PM To: Jason Schaeffer; 'Michael Karanicolas'; 'Marie Pattullo' Cc: 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Jason, As I stated on the call, I think we're doing very well as a group. And I take exception that there was a "blindside attack" by the participants of the call. The discussion was how much weight to give individual voices vs. the collective voices of organizations - an issue we must deal with often, both delicately & judiciously when reviewing community input in a consensus environment. Our "duty" is to do the best we can with the time that we have and to be aware of, but not subordinate to, other working groups. We need not wonder about the interplay of constituent groups when those folks are represented on our own calls. Again, your characterization of granting a "super priority to a limited class" misses the fact that this RPM was the result of years of discussion as part of a whole, new gTLD environment created by consensus of ICANN constituencies. As such, it requires consensus to re-make the RPM. We're all aware that there are documented cases of abuse on both sides of this mechanism. The question is how to address it. Unfortunately, the Proposal on the table, such as it is, is not acceptable to half of stakeholders. Therefore, if there's a new "workable way to have oversight" then someone in the working group should propose a modified Proposal 7, which can then be reviewed by the group, which could then choose to support, not support, or refer to the GNSO for further action. Outside of a modified Proposal 7, we should move forward rather than re-hashing ground covered last week. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 [Email Logo5] From: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 4:40 PM To: cking@modernip.com; 'Michael Karanicolas' <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; 'Marie Pattullo' <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Cc: 'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Cyntia, Thank you for reviewing my statement. While technically correct, you left out the key issue that I and others were responding to was a blindside attack on the value of certain voices. Our time was spent responding to a procedural issue of fairness and correcting this point. I believe we should all be able to agree that if there's a workable way to have oversight and review of the TMCH then it's our duty to do so. I'll point out that this impacts Registries, Registrars, and Registrants and I'm aware of how this interplays with other discussions in different WGs. We are discussing a mechanism that grants super priority to a limited class and, despite efforts to reframe or dismiss the issue, has documented cases of abuse. I share your concerns about giving cybersquatters another way to game the system, but that should not be the measure by which we fail to take action. Surely we can do better than this as a group. Again, we may find otherwise on tomorrow's call, but I don't believe anyone has stated that there shouldn't be a review and/or oversight of the TMCH. Jason Schaeffer ESQwire.com P.C. ________________________________ From: cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> <cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 5:04 PM To: 'Michael Karanicolas'; 'Marie Pattullo' Cc: Jason Schaeffer; 'Julie Hedlund'; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Just want to point out that we spoke about this Proposal for 25 mins (almost 1/3 of our meeting) last week. And at the end of the discussion Jason himself said "I agree that I said before that I stand on my position to everybody that we don't have consensus and that's what's that's what's troubling. We can't even get something out of, out of the gate here, which is a very important issue, but I agree, we move on. Great. Thank you." Not sure why we would revisit the topic & spend even more time agreeing there's not consensus on this. Our remit in this review was to a) identify whether the comments provided new perspectives (Thursday's discussion revealed no material new info, just the same arguments that have been made before), or b) whether there was widespread opposition/support not already considered (Thursday's discussion, again, did not offer a new, widespread opinion not already considered). In the end, we could go round-and-round on several of these issues for time unending, but the GNSO has been clear that such unending debate is not acceptable. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 [Email Logo5] From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 3:32 PM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Cc: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com<mailto:jason@esqwire.com>>; cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>; 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] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC I agree with Jason that the issue merits further discussion. I had a conflict last week, and was unable to join the call, but I also did not get the impression that the transparency issue was thoroughly discussed. This is an issue of central importance to the working group's mandate and, frankly, its legitimacy. There were substantive issues raised in the comments which were not discussed, and which warrant the group's consideration. On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:21 PM Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> wrote: Thank you for the suggestion Jason; however, I agree with Cynthia. As stated in the Initial Report itself: "Some Working Group members suspected that trademark owners may have the potential to abuse Sunrise due to TMCH's acceptance of non-standard character claim marks and common/dictionary words, as well as the broad scope of registration within the TMCH. However, there is a lack of concrete evidence to substantiate that suspicion". (pages 45 & 42). (Emphasis added). As discussed re all other individual proposals, at this stage we are not discussing substance but whether there is sufficient support to put them forward for a consensus call. There was neither sufficient support in our Working Group, nor in the public comments, for this proposal. I also have a different reading of Deloitte's comment: to me "Deloitte is taking this opportunity to share its point of view on Individual Proposal #7 that the TMCH should transition from a closed database to an open and searchable database...." reads that they are quoting the proposal; either way, as a service provider I don't think their voice has weight here, especially as they (rightly) go on to say that: "...Deloitte wants to emphasize that ICANN is the owner of the TMCH database and that not Deloitte, but IBM operates the TMDB. In this regard, it is up to ICANN and the Community to take the ultimate decision to move from a closed to an open database". We've discussed this issue at (great) length over the past years and, agreeing with Cynthia, this is not the best use of the limited time we have left. Kind regards Marie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 9:09 PM To: cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>; '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] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi Cyntia, Question 7 deserves the same treatment as other questions and the public comments should be reviewed. We were side tracked at the end of the call last week and didn't get to the merits. There's a documented problem of abuse and the ONLY opposition is based on the concern that cybersquatters will themselves abuse the open TMCH. No one said they don't want oversight of the TMCH -- at least not openly. Moreover, if you review your notes and the comments there's support and room for a compromise. Others have seemed to indicate a willingness to solve the problem. Jason From: cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com> <cking@modernip.com<mailto:cking@modernip.com>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 2:01 PM To: Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com<mailto:jason@esqwire.com>>; '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] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi All, Respectfully, I believe this would be a waste of our remaining time. The Proposal had significant opposition (at least as much opposition as support). As well, consensus has never been reached in discussions by the full working group or (2) subgroups. As consensus is needed to change an RPM that is itself the result of consensus discussions; and As we haven't been close to consensus in the working group, sub-groups or public comments; then I suggest we complete our review concentrating on Proposals where consensus may still be possible. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 [Email Logo5] From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 11:18 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] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Hi all, In advance of tomorrow's call, I am requesting that we continue discussion on the merits of TMCH Question #7. Upon reflection, at the end of the last WG call, we neither discussed the public comments nor debated the underlying merits of the positions regarding opening of the TMCH. As we are all aware, we are not debating whether or not there has been abuse of the TMCH. The only question is how much abuse has occurred. Further, those opposed to opening the TMCH DB to oversight appear to object on the basis that cybersquatters and wrongdoers will abuse the newly opened DB. It does not appear that anyone rejects having oversight of the TMCH or an ability to ensure that it is operating correctly (without abuse). Moreover, Deliotte itself commented that the TMCH should transition from a closed to open and searchable DB with the understanding that it is up to the ICANN Community to make the determination. I recall we had discussed some compromise positions that were being considered as a way to bring oversight while protecting against cybersquatters. Accordingly, I request that we be prepared to continue the discussion on the merits of TMCH Question 7 and find a workable position as a WG to review the TMCH and avoid abuse. Regards, Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 10:20 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] REMINDER: Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Dear RPM WG members, As a reminder, please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Kind regards, Mary, Ariel, and Julie From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 3:10 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Agenda for RPMs PDP WG Meeting - 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC Dear RPM WG members, Please find the updated proposed agenda and materials below for the full WG meeting Tuesday, 21 July 2020 at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes. Draft Proposed Agenda: 1. Review Agenda and Updates to Statements of Interest 2. Revisit Discussion of TMCH Proposals #4 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...> and #5 [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreads...>, see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdzoalRDcIUED01ur-yJgODCex8bj_... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QTt_m5qdz...> and the table of contents on the first tab; see also the message on the email distribution list at: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Simplified language to bring together individual TMCH #4 & #5 proposals <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2020-July/004344.html> Paul Tattersfield 3. Review of Overarching Questions #1 and #3 (skipping #2) and Additional Overarching Questions #1, #2, and #3, see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV...> and the table of contents on the first tab 4. Review of General Content Questions #1 and #2 (time permitting), see the Public Comment Review Tool at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV2tNPNhvIOskAlLVraWp-88mqzSc... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1wke2krmhV...> and the table of contents on the first tab 5. AOB Best Regards, Mary, Julie, Ariel [Image removed by sender.]<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> Virus-free. www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_camp...> _______________________________________________ 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) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 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.
