Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
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] 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 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] 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
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> 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] *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
*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> 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 <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 *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
I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started. I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves. I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37 To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 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] 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
Thanks for your input, Susan. As I stated in my June 4th response to Jon: 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. Therefore, I expect that the substantive discussion on the draft document to occur within the subteam and not on our call this Wednesday. So far as the draft being treated as a “strawperson”, if that means being the starting point for subteam discussion and with the subteam having discretion to revise, delete, and amend it, then that is the intent in my view. Best, Philip From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:00 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started. I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves. I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37 To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 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] 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
Thanks Phil, but I don’t think it’s a job for the sub-team to decide on scope. Or to be more specific, I don’t think it is the role of the sub-team to be deciding whether or not to exceed the scope laid down for the WG in the PDP charter. That would be something that the WG as a whole would have to decide was appropriate, and then to seek approval from the Council, wouldn’t it? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 05 June 2017 17:57 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks for your input, Susan. As I stated in my June 4th response to Jon: 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. Therefore, I expect that the substantive discussion on the draft document to occur within the subteam and not on our call this Wednesday. So far as the draft being treated as a “strawperson”, if that means being the starting point for subteam discussion and with the subteam having discretion to revise, delete, and amend it, then that is the intent in my view. Best, Philip From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:00 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started. I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves. I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37 To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 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] 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
Susan, I am but one of three co-chairs of this WG and therefore cannot issue a unilateral decision on where the scope question should be addressed. I will consult with my two co-chair colleagues, and with our policy support staff, and we shall get back to you and the entire WG as soon as feasible on this matter. Best, Philip From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:22 PM To: Phil Corwin; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks Phil, but I don’t think it’s a job for the sub-team to decide on scope. Or to be more specific, I don’t think it is the role of the sub-team to be deciding whether or not to exceed the scope laid down for the WG in the PDP charter. That would be something that the WG as a whole would have to decide was appropriate, and then to seek approval from the Council, wouldn’t it? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 05 June 2017 17:57 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks for your input, Susan. As I stated in my June 4th response to Jon: 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. Therefore, I expect that the substantive discussion on the draft document to occur within the subteam and not on our call this Wednesday. So far as the draft being treated as a “strawperson”, if that means being the starting point for subteam discussion and with the subteam having discretion to revise, delete, and amend it, then that is the intent in my view. Best, Philip From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:00 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started. I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves. I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37 To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 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] 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
For what it is worth, I also support a sole information gathering function for the sub-team and would oppose it endeavoring to reshape any Charter questions. I greatly appreciate the guiding strawman questions from the Co-Chairs, and agree with most of the suggested redactions from Jon. In general, purely informational inquiries and observations should probably remain under the consideration of the sub-team, including the relevant approval processes for voluntary RPMs, and whether voluntary RPMs are cost effective in view of the overall RPM ecosystem. Conversely, at least one objectively bias question (suggesting that the GPML remains forbidden) should be removed. Thank you, Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP On Jun 5, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Susan, I am but one of three co-chairs of this WG and therefore cannot issue a unilateral decision on where the scope question should be addressed. I will consult with my two co-chair colleagues, and with our policy support staff, and we shall get back to you and the entire WG as soon as feasible on this matter. Best, Philip From: Susan Payne [mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:22 PM To: Phil Corwin; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks Phil, but I don’t think it’s a job for the sub-team to decide on scope. Or to be more specific, I don’t think it is the role of the sub-team to be deciding whether or not to exceed the scope laid down for the WG in the PDP charter. That would be something that the WG as a whole would have to decide was appropriate, and then to seek approval from the Council, wouldn’t it? Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com] Sent: 05 June 2017 17:57 To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>> Subject: RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 Thanks for your input, Susan. As I stated in my June 4th response to Jon: 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. Therefore, I expect that the substantive discussion on the draft document to occur within the subteam and not on our call this Wednesday. So far as the draft being treated as a “strawperson”, if that means being the starting point for subteam discussion and with the subteam having discretion to revise, delete, and amend it, then that is the intent in my view. Best, Philip From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Payne Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 11:00 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Jon Nevett Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 I support Greg’s comments regarding the treatment of the co-chairs’ draft as a strawperson, with thanks to the co-chairs for pulling this together to help get the discussion started. I also strongly support Jon’s comments on scope. In reviewing the mandatory RPMs, the landscape in which they operate is clearly relevant – assessments on the uptake of and perceived usefulness of the Sunrise, for example, are clearly impacted by alternative voluntary services offered by registries which may have been utilised instead of making Sunrise applications. It is not our role to evaluate the voluntary services themselves. I have a few additional comments on the draft document, which I have marked-up on top of Jon’s edits. Whilst I note Kurt’s proposal that Jon’s version be referred to the subgroup for review (and have no objection to this suggestion, in which case my comments can be considered by the subgroup) I will not be on the full WG call this week, since it is at 4am my time, and want to ensure that my comments are taken into account if there is a substantive discussion of the draft during that call. Many thanks Susan Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2017 20:37 To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.co<mailto:jon@donuts.co>>; Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email<mailto:jon@donuts.email>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>>; Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com<mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com>>; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>; icannlists <icannlists@winston.com<mailto:icannlists@winston.com>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017 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] 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or... __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
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] *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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
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] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM To: 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] 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 -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org<mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
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 http://rodenbaugh.com On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg < 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] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM *To:* 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> 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] *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
*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> 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 <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 *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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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/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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine 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 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 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] 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 -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation 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 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
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> 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/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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine 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 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Agreed. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <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> 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 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct* *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax* *202-255-6172 <(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 <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 *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 <(415)%20738-8087> http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg < 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] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM *To:* 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> 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] *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
*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> 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 <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 *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
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:08 PM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> 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 Agreed. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 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] 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] 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 -- 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
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] 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 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] 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] 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 -- 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Ok, i remove my objection. Sent from my iPad
On 9 Jun 2017, at 00:22, 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] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:08 PM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> 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
Agreed.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <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> 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/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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine 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 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 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <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] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM To: 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> 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] 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
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> 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] 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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.
Then I suggest you join the group and strive to prevent the WG from wandering. That is my decided approach. Sincerely, Paul Keating, Esq.
On Jun 9, 2017, at 1:11 AM, Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> wrote:
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] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:08 PM To: Jon Nevett <jon@donuts.email> 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
Agreed.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <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> 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/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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine 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 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 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <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] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM To: 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> 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] 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
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> 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] 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
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.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Jon: I am not annoyed when WG members express dissatisfaction with procedural decisions and did not mean to convey such a feeling in my response; perhaps I have been on too many other WGs where decisions never seem final. Also, while I am but one-third of the co-chair team and have no ability or authority to dictate decisions, I am sensitive to the legitimate concerns raised by you and others on this matter and have striven to shape procedural arrangements that keep them in mind and protect the rights of all WG members. We had a good discussion of this matter on the call Wednesday night/Thursday morning and even those on the call who have share your scope concerns seemed satisfied with the plan. And that plan includes forwarding your markup of the Co-Chair questions to the subteam with it given full autonomy to choose that as its starting point. Also, as I stated in my follow-up email, “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.” What that means in practice, at least how I intended it, is that if you or others on the subteam raise an objection to a proposed co-chair question during its first meeting then the subteam will not take any further action on that question. Rather, those questions in dispute will be kicked back to the full WG for collective discussion and decision-making. Taking this path allows the new subteam to get started in the near-term on the consensus private RPM questions to which no objections have been raised, while assuring those WG members with concerns about a question that the subteam will not take further action on it until their concerns have been fully vetted within the full WG. (Noting further that the subteam appears to be large enough and with significant diversity of viewpoint that WG members can rest assured that their concerns will be raised even if they have chosen not to join the subteam – and since the subteam members will be publicly noted they can also convey those views to the subteam members to assure that they are not overlooked). Personally, I think that process is both fair and efficient, in that it allows the full WG to complete its TMCH work while allowing the new subteam to commence its work on consensus question while assuring that disputed questions will be addressed by the full WG before any final decision is made on whether the subteam should address them. The alternative is to set the TMCH work aside and delay its completion in order to have a full WG review of all the co-chair questions, or to delay the commencement of work by the subteam until after such a full WG vetting is conducted post-Johannesburg (which may add some additional weeks to our work plan). But as the co-chairs are here to serve the full WG and not to impose our views or priorities, and as our next call is likely to be better attended than this week’s, if WG members want to readdress this procedural decision on next week’s call then we can certainly do so. Best, 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: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:11 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: icannlists; Mike Rodenbaugh; 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 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<mailto: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> [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<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 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] 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] 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] 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 -- 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
Thanks Phil. Your clarification is helpful. Assume we will be back up to the WG at some point soon. Best, Jon
On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
Jon:
I am not annoyed when WG members express dissatisfaction with procedural decisions and did not mean to convey such a feeling in my response; perhaps I have been on too many other WGs where decisions never seem final. Also, while I am but one-third of the co-chair team and have no ability or authority to dictate decisions, I am sensitive to the legitimate concerns raised by you and others on this matter and have striven to shape procedural arrangements that keep them in mind and protect the rights of all WG members.
We had a good discussion of this matter on the call Wednesday night/Thursday morning and even those on the call who have share your scope concerns seemed satisfied with the plan. And that plan includes forwarding your markup of the Co-Chair questions to the subteam with it given full autonomy to choose that as its starting point.
Also, as I stated in my follow-up email, “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.” What that means in practice, at least how I intended it, is that if you or others on the subteam raise an objection to a proposed co-chair question during its first meeting then the subteam will not take any further action on that question. Rather, those questions in dispute will be kicked back to the full WG for collective discussion and decision-making. Taking this path allows the new subteam to get started in the near-term on the consensus private RPM questions to which no objections have been raised, while assuring those WG members with concerns about a question that the subteam will not take further action on it until their concerns have been fully vetted within the full WG. (Noting further that the subteam appears to be large enough and with significant diversity of viewpoint that WG members can rest assured that their concerns will be raised even if they have chosen not to join the subteam – and since the subteam members will be publicly noted they can also convey those views to the subteam members to assure that they are not overlooked).
Personally, I think that process is both fair and efficient, in that it allows the full WG to complete its TMCH work while allowing the new subteam to commence its work on consensus question while assuring that disputed questions will be addressed by the full WG before any final decision is made on whether the subteam should address them. The alternative is to set the TMCH work aside and delay its completion in order to have a full WG review of all the co-chair questions, or to delay the commencement of work by the subteam until after such a full WG vetting is conducted post-Johannesburg (which may add some additional weeks to our work plan).
But as the co-chairs are here to serve the full WG and not to impose our views or priorities, and as our next call is likely to be better attended than this week’s, if WG members want to readdress this procedural decision on next week’s call then we can certainly do so.
Best, 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: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:11 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: icannlists; Mike Rodenbaugh; 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
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 <mailto: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> [mailto: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 <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 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.
Jon: I am glad you found it helpful. Have a good weekend. Best, 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: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 10:20 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: icannlists; Mike Rodenbaugh; 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. Your clarification is helpful. Assume we will be back up to the WG at some point soon. Best, Jon On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Jon: I am not annoyed when WG members express dissatisfaction with procedural decisions and did not mean to convey such a feeling in my response; perhaps I have been on too many other WGs where decisions never seem final. Also, while I am but one-third of the co-chair team and have no ability or authority to dictate decisions, I am sensitive to the legitimate concerns raised by you and others on this matter and have striven to shape procedural arrangements that keep them in mind and protect the rights of all WG members. We had a good discussion of this matter on the call Wednesday night/Thursday morning and even those on the call who have share your scope concerns seemed satisfied with the plan. And that plan includes forwarding your markup of the Co-Chair questions to the subteam with it given full autonomy to choose that as its starting point. Also, as I stated in my follow-up email, “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.” What that means in practice, at least how I intended it, is that if you or others on the subteam raise an objection to a proposed co-chair question during its first meeting then the subteam will not take any further action on that question. Rather, those questions in dispute will be kicked back to the full WG for collective discussion and decision-making. Taking this path allows the new subteam to get started in the near-term on the consensus private RPM questions to which no objections have been raised, while assuring those WG members with concerns about a question that the subteam will not take further action on it until their concerns have been fully vetted within the full WG. (Noting further that the subteam appears to be large enough and with significant diversity of viewpoint that WG members can rest assured that their concerns will be raised even if they have chosen not to join the subteam – and since the subteam members will be publicly noted they can also convey those views to the subteam members to assure that they are not overlooked). Personally, I think that process is both fair and efficient, in that it allows the full WG to complete its TMCH work while allowing the new subteam to commence its work on consensus question while assuring that disputed questions will be addressed by the full WG before any final decision is made on whether the subteam should address them. The alternative is to set the TMCH work aside and delay its completion in order to have a full WG review of all the co-chair questions, or to delay the commencement of work by the subteam until after such a full WG vetting is conducted post-Johannesburg (which may add some additional weeks to our work plan). But as the co-chairs are here to serve the full WG and not to impose our views or priorities, and as our next call is likely to be better attended than this week’s, if WG members want to readdress this procedural decision on next week’s call then we can certainly do so. Best, 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: Jon Nevett [mailto:jon@donuts.email] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 7:11 PM To: Phil Corwin Cc: icannlists; Mike Rodenbaugh; 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 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<mailto: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> [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<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 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] 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] 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] 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 -- 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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.
+1 Sent from my iPad
On 8 Jun 2017, at 20:07, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed.
Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <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> 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/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 Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM To: Dorrain, Kristine 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 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 http://rodenbaugh.com
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <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] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM To: 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> 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] 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
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> 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] 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Could we please consider a non-Friday timeslot– at least until the Sunrise and Claims subs are finished. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 08 June 2017 15:58 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>; Kristine Dorrain <dorraink@amazon.com> 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 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/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> [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 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] 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 -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation 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 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
+1 Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: Could we please consider a non-Friday timeslot– at least until the Sunrise and Claims subs are finished. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 08 June 2017 15:58 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>; Kristine Dorrain <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> 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 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/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> [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 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] 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 -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thinking that it would be a Friday slot was based on the assumption that one of the two current subteams would be wrapped up by next week. If that's not the case then we will have to work with staff to identify another available time slot. 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 -----Original Message----- From: Kiran Malancharuvil [mailto:Kiran.Malancharuvil@markmonitor.com] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:14 PM To: Susan Payne Cc: Phil Corwin; Mike Rodenbaugh; Kristine Dorrain; 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 +1 Kiran Malancharuvil Policy Counselor MarkMonitor 415-419-9138 (m) Sent from my mobile, please excuse any typos. On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:01 AM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com>> wrote: Could we please consider a non-Friday timeslot- at least until the Sunrise and Claims subs are finished. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin Sent: 08 June 2017 15:58 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>>; Kristine Dorrain <dorraink@amazon.com<mailto:dorraink@amazon.com>> 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 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/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> [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 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] 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 -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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
In response to Jeremy's points: 1. This is incorrect. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 6.1.3, state: The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being stated, instead of a ‘ruling of the chair.’ However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific position. The appointment of co-chairs could be considered and is encouraged as a way to share the burden, provide continuity in case of absence of the Chair as well as allowing group leaders to rotate their participation in the discussion. In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO. Those who have not read the Working Group guidelines would find it very beneficial, for the rest of the WG as well as for themselves. Here's the link: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg- guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf 2. Kristine Dorrain covered this. 3. As drafted, Question 9 assumes a power we don't have and that is beyond the scope of this WG -- the power to regulate registry-specific RPMs (or "private protections," which has the advantage of connoting that these are outside the ambit of the "non-private" RPMs created by ICANN policy, pejorative though it may be). Worse yet, it insinuates that the decision not to institute the GPML should have prohibited the DPML from being offered. 4. Here, I agree that the WG should decide what to call Registry-Specific Protections. However, I don't under who is being called a "registrant" in this statement. If it is the brandowner "registering" the DPML, I might agree that DPMLs, like defensive registrations, are not exactly "voluntary" (in the sense that brandowners feel compelled to acquire something they do not want merely to prevent abusive registrations), but I somehow feel that wasn't what was intended. (If it was, I appreciate the rare outburst of empathy for the concerns of brandowners.) Other than that, I don't know who could be called a "registrant" here. Greg On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm@eff.org> wrote:
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> 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] *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
*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> 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 <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 *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 listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Along with Greg, I support Jon’s edits and support them for the reasons cited by Jon and Greg. I could not put the reasoning any better than Jon and Greg have. With that in mind, I support handing this document off to the sub team in the version Jon suggests. This is especially true if the sub-group’s task is limited to information gathering as they should not be spending valuable time investigating the out-of-scope questions. Thx & regards, Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 Skype: kjpritz
On Jun 4, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Phil Corwin <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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I agree with Jon's edits and Kurt's proposal with regards to version for the sub team's further action. I also would be particularly interested to know the answer to Jon's Q3 in due course and how they could/would do so. Thanks, Justine Chew ----- On 5 June 2017 at 08:34, Kurt Pritz <kurt@kjpritz.com> wrote:
Along with Greg, I support Jon’s edits and support them for the reasons cited by Jon and Greg. I could not put the reasoning any better than Jon and Greg have.
With that in mind, I support handing this document off to the sub team in the version Jon suggests. This is especially true if the sub-group’s task is limited to information gathering as they should not be spending valuable time investigating the out-of-scope questions.
Thx & regards,
Kurt ________________ Kurt Pritz kurt@kjpritz.com +1.310.400.4184 <+1%20310-400-4184> Skype: kjpritz
On Jun 4, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Phil Corwin <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 <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 *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> 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 <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 *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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (13)
-
Dorrain, Kristine -
Greg Shatan -
icannlists -
Jeremy Malcolm -
Jon Nevett -
Justine Chew -
Kiran Malancharuvil -
Kurt Pritz -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Paul Keating -
Phil Corwin -
Susan Payne -
Winterfeldt, Brian J.