Co-Chair Statement on Refinement of Draft Questions for Private Protections Sub team
Dear Working Group Members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on the proposed questions, which will be considered by the Private Protections Sub Team. Thanks. Amr The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28 May 2017” exceed the scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the questions and identifying related data needs. We continue to believe that would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH, Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which should ensure a robust discussion and diversity of viewpoints. WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns if the subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full WG prior to initiating full WG discussion of the refined questions. Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment from Council. The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this subject. It is also worth noting the Guidelines for GNSO WGs make it clear that: “Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.” Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage of our process, we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam. In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with supporting policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving such concerns within a policy WG. As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also state: “Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.” The co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member, but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations, and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters can be resolved via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council. We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call.
The risk of a debate about scope matters that would "inordinately delay" the work of the WG seems to be very small, considering that there was no support on the list for the chairs' strawman and a significant number of consistent criticisms and edits revising that strawman. At the least, that would seem to indicate that the subgroup should start with Jon's edited version. At the risk of being blunt, there seems to be a bit too much "pride of authorship" on display here. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group Members,
On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on the proposed questions, which will be considered by the Private Protections Sub Team.
Thanks.
Amr
The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28 May 2017” exceed the scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the questions and identifying related data needs. We continue to believe that would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH, Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which should ensure a robust discussion and diversity of viewpoints.
WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns if the subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full WG prior to initiating full WG discussion of the refined questions. Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment from Council.
The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this subject. It is also worth noting the Guidelines for GNSO WGs make it clear that: *“Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.”*
*Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage of our process, we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam.*
In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with supporting policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving such concerns within a policy WG.
As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also state: *“Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.”* The co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member, but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations, and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters can be resolved via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council.
We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg: No one is mandating which version the sub team works with initially. I, for one, thought it was obvious that you all (if you have volunteered for the sub team) would begin with the document as edited by Jon and Susan. J. Scott [ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif] J. Scott Evans 408.536.5336 (tel) 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544 Director, Associate General Counsel 408.709.6162 (cell) San Jose, CA, 95110, USA Adobe. Make It an Experience. jsevans@adobe.com www.adobe.com From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM To: Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Co-Chair Statement on Refinement of Draft Questions for Private Protections Sub team The risk of a debate about scope matters that would "inordinately delay" the work of the WG seems to be very small, considering that there was no support on the list for the chairs' strawman and a significant number of consistent criticisms and edits revising that strawman. At the least, that would seem to indicate that the subgroup should start with Jon's edited version. At the risk of being blunt, there seems to be a bit too much "pride of authorship" on display here. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org<mailto:amr.elsadr@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group Members, On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on the proposed questions, which will be considered by the Private Protections Sub Team. Thanks. Amr The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28 May 2017” exceed the scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the questions and identifying related data needs. We continue to believe that would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH, Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which should ensure a robust discussion and diversity of viewpoints. WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns if the subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full WG prior to initiating full WG discussion of the refined questions. Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment from Council. The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this subject. It is also worth noting the Guidelines for GNSO WGs make it clear that: “Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.” Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage of our process, we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam. In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with supporting policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving such concerns within a policy WG. As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also state: “Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.” The co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member, but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations, and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters can be resolved via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council. We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call. _______________________________________________ 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5bfdebd7ece74a1daf5008d4ad1d827e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636323789632106357&sdata=Unz88%2BJFFny8sKnJ2g8OO56%2FbZUS0T1%2FyGe6gfeS%2FiQ%3D&reserved=0>
Thanks for the clarification. On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:00 PM J. Scott Evans <jsevans@adobe.com> wrote:
Greg:
No one is mandating which version the sub team works with initially. I, for one, thought it was obvious that you all (if you have volunteered for the sub team) would begin with the document as edited by Jon and Susan.
J. Scott
[image: ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]
*J. Scott Evans*
408.536.5336 (tel)
345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
Director, Associate General Counsel
408.709.6162 (cell)
San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
Adobe. Make It an Experience.
jsevans@adobe.com
www.adobe.com
*From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan < gregshatanipc@gmail.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM *To: *Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Co-Chair Statement on Refinement of Draft Questions for Private Protections Sub team
The risk of a debate about scope matters that would "inordinately delay" the work of the WG seems to be very small, considering that there was no support on the list for the chairs' strawman and a significant number of consistent criticisms and edits revising that strawman. At the least, that would seem to indicate that the subgroup should start with Jon's edited version. At the risk of being blunt, there seems to be a bit too much "pride of authorship" on display here.
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group Members,
On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on the proposed questions, which will be considered by the Private Protections Sub Team.
Thanks.
Amr
The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28 May 2017” exceed the scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the questions and identifying related data needs. We continue to believe that would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH, Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which should ensure a robust discussion and diversity of viewpoints.
WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns if the subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full WG prior to initiating full WG discussion of the refined questions. Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment from Council.
The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this subject. It is also worth noting the Guidelines for GNSO WGs make it clear that: *“Decisions made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.”*
*Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage of our process, we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam.*
In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with supporting policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving such concerns within a policy WG.
As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also state: *“Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.”* The co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member, but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations, and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters can be resolved via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council.
We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.or...>
participants (3)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Greg Shatan -
J. Scott Evans