Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
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: Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams 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.
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
Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 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<mailto: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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thanks Jason, Michael, While a perfect time zone division is unlikely, once we have a better sense of who is on the subteams/where they sit time-zone-wise, that might help us figure out time slots. Provided inter alia that there is sufficient representation, I am hoping to leave the TMCH-related subteam work to others (i.e., not volunteering). Brian From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:51 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 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<mailto: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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg 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.
I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 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<mailto: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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
+1 Georges. It’s neither helpful nor fair to attack the work of subgroup volunteers that spend the extra time and effort to research, review and bring a final work product back to the WG. As I believe Susan and Cyntia expressed during yesterday’s call, its common and prudent business practice to delegate tasks. We need to proceed and be efficient. The WG has its role and the use of small teams that wish to go above and beyond should be respected as well. Yes, we should have some better guidance and agreement on the treatment of the subteam work – as you say “the rules of the game.” Parallel teams with a time that “works” is fair and efficient. If one wishes to follow the work of both sub-teams that’s built in already. In practice it’s also quite difficult for most to really dedicate the time to more than one subteam if we are going to be honest about the effort that’s really required. From: Nahitchevansky, Georges [mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 11:23 AM To: Jason Schaeffer; Michael Karanicolas; Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 Hi All, I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams. Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success. Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG. Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others. Jason From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018 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<mailto: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<mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
I'm very proud of the URS subteams, whose work which went forward, in general, to appreciation and wide support in the full WG. Despite criticisms, this careful work was largely embraced by the WG and will be featured in our Initial Report -- with 34 operational fixes and draft policy recommendations to be presented to the ICANN Community with support of the full WG. I hope we can replicate what worked well then. If better guidance and agreement is needed, let's develop it. Frankly, I like the idea of smaller subteams and share the support that the efficiency of the subteam process is based in part on its smaller size and parallel processes... Best, Kathy On 12/6/2018 11:44 AM, Jason Schaeffer wrote:
+1 Georges.
It’s neither helpful nor fair to attack the work of subgroup volunteers that spend the extra time and effort to research, review and bring a final work product back to the WG. As I believe Susan and Cyntia expressed during yesterday’s call, its common and prudent business practice to delegate tasks.
We need to proceed and be efficient. The WG has its role and the use of small teams that wish to go above and beyond should be respected as well.
Yes, we should have some better guidance and agreement on the treatment of the subteam work – as you say “the rules of the game.”
Parallel teams with a time that “works” is fair and efficient. If one wishes to follow the work of both sub-teams that’s built in already.
In practice it’s also quite difficult for most to really dedicate the time to more than one subteam if we are going to be honest about the effort that’s really required.
*From:*Nahitchevansky, Georges [mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com] *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2018 11:23 AM *To:* Jason Schaeffer; Michael Karanicolas; Julie Hedlund *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11^th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game.
*From:*GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *Jason Schaeffer *Sent:* Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM *To:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
Hi All,
I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams.
Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success.
Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG.
Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others.
Jason
*From:*GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Karanicolas *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM *To:* Julie Hedlund *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
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 <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear All,
Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from theRPM PDP Working Groupcall held on 05 December 2018(17:00-18:30UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the action items and notes. */Please note that these /**/arehigh-level notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat room, or transcript/*/./ The recording, AC chat, transcriptand attendance records are posted on the wikiat: 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 <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Kathy, On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:17 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
I'm very proud of the URS subteams, whose work which went forward, in general, to appreciation and wide support in the full WG. Despite criticisms, this careful work was largely embraced by the WG and will be featured in our Initial Report -- with 34 operational fixes and draft policy recommendations to be presented to the ICANN Community with support of the full WG.
It's not correct that any draft policy recommendations in the initial report have "support of the full WG", as there's been no Consensus Call. There was support for publication of the recommendations for public comment, that's all. Support for actual recommendations would be determined at some later date by the working group (when the Consensus Call takes place). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
Jason: It is perfectly fair to legitimately criticize the work produced by the sub teams, when that work isn't up to snuff. What you seem to be arguing for is to make the sub teams unaccountable to anyone, and give their work product deference, regardless of its quality. I disagree. For example, consider the work produced by the Data Sub Team, in the most recent surveys. On July 24, 2018, the following email went out to that sub team: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-data/2018-July/000343.html outlining the plan for those surveys. Let me quote the most important parts: " Response rate: To render the results ***statistically significant****, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of Registry Operators (about 50 companies). Given the current survey length, AG expects to get responses from 5% of Registry Operators." (emphasis added) "Response rate: To render the results ****statistically significant****, the desired response rate is 10% of the total universe of accredited Registrars (about 45 companies)." (emphasis added) "Response rate: To render the results ****statistically significant****, the desired response rate is 50 companies that are trademark owners. " (emphasis added) (and so on) Yet, when I called out the vendor on this, whether the results were actually "statistically significant" (and to tell us the confidence intervals, margins of error, etc.) here's their answer: https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-11-28+Review+of+all+Ri... "Due to the opt-in nature of the surveys and issues that arise in defining the proper population for some of the respondent groups, we do not feel it would be proper to provide confidence intervals or margins of error for these results." In other words, none of the results had any actual statistical significance, No one in the sub team asked the right questions before the work was produced (there were numerous other issues, as can be seen by the answers to the questions I raised on the calls with them), and ultimately the work that was produced is worthless, flushing $50,000 (the cost of the survey) down the toilet, and wasting much time and energy. By your argument, though, we should simply defer to the sub team on this, regardless of the output that is produced. It *is* common to delegate tasks in business, but when those who are delegated the tasks mess up badly in the business world, they get fired, or demoted, etc. Are those sub team members going to refund ICANN the $50,000? Are those sub team members going to be "fired"? I think not. We've seen the output of the other sub teams that had similar issues regarding the quality of their work product. Same for output by other working groups in the ICANN community or by contractors. All the folks who relied on bad research in the new gTLD program, for example, lost money! The *market* held them accountable (i.e. they put up their own money based on their research). The market held them directly accountable. In the business world, there's survival of the fittest, i.e. those who make the best decisions get rewarded and survive. Unfortunately, that's not the case within ICANN -- in ICANN policymaking, folks who make bad decisions tend to survive, and their bad decisions have impacts not on themselves, but instead impact others. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:44 AM Jason Schaeffer <jason@esqwire.com> wrote:
+1 Georges.
It’s neither helpful nor fair to attack the work of subgroup volunteers that spend the extra time and effort to research, review and bring a final work product back to the WG. As I believe Susan and Cyntia expressed during yesterday’s call, its common and prudent business practice to delegate tasks.
We need to proceed and be efficient. The WG has its role and the use of small teams that wish to go above and beyond should be respected as well.
Yes, we should have some better guidance and agreement on the treatment of the subteam work – as you say “the rules of the game.”
Parallel teams with a time that “works” is fair and efficient. If one wishes to follow the work of both sub-teams that’s built in already.
In practice it’s also quite difficult for most to really dedicate the time to more than one subteam if we are going to be honest about the effort that’s really required.
From: Nahitchevansky, Georges [mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2018 11:23 AM To: Jason Schaeffer; Michael Karanicolas; Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not representative of the working group, should be given little to no weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made by anyone in the working group at the 11th hour. If we are going to have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how the work will be treated and the rules of the game.
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jason Schaeffer Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
Hi All,
I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were raised regarding the value of using sub teams.
Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively – there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with a task is critical to this WG’s success.
Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of the WG.
Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others.
Jason
From: GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM To: Julie Hedlund Cc: gnso-rpm-wg Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
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:
Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams 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
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (7)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
George Kirikos -
Jason Schaeffer -
Julie Hedlund -
Kathy Kleiman -
Michael Karanicolas -
Nahitchevansky, Georges