Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP
Hello Paul, Phil and all – the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul’s old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO’s PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): “In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days.” I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com" <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, “a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis).” My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I’ve not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don’t think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don’t have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1VmgrsX-cptWzo971FYz8...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [https://dg01.redatatech.com/onprem_image_fetch?cid=1016&ep=e4fdcb0955b54f562...] Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1RIqVVSYno5pBzhADMIKj...> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ECIenORDhHr5YfutK_lx...> Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JwmtW-J5heLaAJMmIi4Y...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YA75SherFl6980jSDY7...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1yoUi_RzLGwN6w83FDlH...>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of the 21-day minimum comment period. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; PMcGrady@taftlaw.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int; kathy@kathykleiman.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hello Paul, Phil and all – the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul’s old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO’s PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): “In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days.” I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady@taftlaw.com" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: "brian.beckham@wipo.int" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com" <kathy@kathykleiman.com>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, “a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis).” My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I’ve not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don’t think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don’t have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1VmgrsX-cptWzo971FYz8...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1RIqVVSYno5pBzhADMIKj...> Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ECIenORDhHr5YfutK_lx...> Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JwmtW-J5heLaAJMmIi4Y...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YA75SherFl6980jSDY7...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1yoUi_RzLGwN6w83FDlH...>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Thanks Mary. Thanks Phil. We will, of course, get back to the main WG as quickly as possible. However, I think we may be jumping to the conclusion that the proposed amendments to the TM-PDDRP that are designed to prevent circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism would need to be put out to public comment. The WG has already settled on Sunrise Recommendation #2 which is essentially the same idea: “Sunrise Recommendation #2 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs includes a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Also, the idea of improvements to the TM-PDDRP came directly from public comment. I hope this helps with any angst over the timeline. Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:52 AM To: mary.wong@icann.org; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int; kathy@kathykleiman.com Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of the 21-day minimum comment period. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hello Paul, Phil and all – the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul’s old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO’s PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): “In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days.” I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, “a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis).” My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I’ve not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don’t think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don’t have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1VmgrsX-cptWzo971FYz8...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [Image removed by sender.] Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1RIqVVSYno5pBzhADMIKj...> [Image removed by sender. V-Card Icon] Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ECIenORDhHr5YfutK_lx...> Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JwmtW-J5heLaAJMmIi4Y...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YA75SherFl6980jSDY7...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1yoUi_RzLGwN6w83FDlH...>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Paul: Rest assured that I have not jumped to any conclusion that whatever the small group agrees upon will require public comment. In that regard, when it does report back, it would be helpful if in addition to the final recommendation text you could highlight what changes have been made (per a redline) from what was put out for comment in the IR. As I said below, “My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof.” (highlighted for emphasis) I appreciate your taking the lead on this. Everyone have a great weekend. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:52 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int; kathy@kathykleiman.com Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. Thanks Phil. We will, of course, get back to the main WG as quickly as possible. However, I think we may be jumping to the conclusion that the proposed amendments to the TM-PDDRP that are designed to prevent circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism would need to be put out to public comment. The WG has already settled on Sunrise Recommendation #2 which is essentially the same idea: “Sunrise Recommendation #2 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs includes a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Also, the idea of improvements to the TM-PDDRP came directly from public comment. I hope this helps with any angst over the timeline. Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:52 AM To: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of the 21-day minimum comment period. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hello Paul, Phil and all – the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul’s old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO’s PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): “In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days.” I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, “a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis).” My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I’ve not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don’t think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don’t have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1VmgrsX-cptWzo971FYz8...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1RIqVVSYno5pBzhADMIKj...> Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ECIenORDhHr5YfutK_lx...> Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JwmtW-J5heLaAJMmIi4Y...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YA75SherFl6980jSDY7...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1yoUi_RzLGwN6w83FDlH...>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
Hi Paul, and all, I am away on vacation and my replies will be delayed but I will be on the call Monday assuming wifi connection remains fine – so far, so good. I attempted to draft some new language but felt that it would not be helpful – I remain opposed to the new TM-PDDRP proposal for the reasons I mentioned when we discussed this but will endeavor to help with drafting if we can reach suitable compromise. But I also remain of the view that if anything like the proposal is submitted to the WG and the WG wants to adopt it then it must go for public comment. Sunrise Rec #2 would affect only future new gTLDs via a provision in their RA – a matter they would address with ICANN Compliance, not in a formal DRP. The proposal we are considering is a new cause of action under a DRP, it materially changes the present TM-PDDRP standard (section 6.2 Second Level),and it affects all gTLDs. Best regards, David David McAuley Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager Verisign Inc. 703-948-4154 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:52 PM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; mary.wong@icann.org; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. Thanks Phil. We will, of course, get back to the main WG as quickly as possible. However, I think we may be jumping to the conclusion that the proposed amendments to the TM-PDDRP that are designed to prevent circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism would need to be put out to public comment. The WG has already settled on Sunrise Recommendation #2 which is essentially the same idea: “Sunrise Recommendation #2 The Working Group recommends that the Registry Agreement for future new gTLDs includes a provision stating that a Registry Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners’ reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism.” Also, the idea of improvements to the TM-PDDRP came directly from public comment. I hope this helps with any angst over the timeline. Thanks! Best, Paul To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:52 AM To: mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>; McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of the 21-day minimum comment period. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>; kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hello Paul, Phil and all – the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we realize that it went to Paul’s old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address. With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language from the GNSO’s PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance (noted by Phil): “In addition to any required public comment periods, the PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the Initial Report is twenty (21) days.” I hope that is helpful. Cheers Mary From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>> Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09 To: "PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>" <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Cc: "brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Paul, Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh). Back in late July, Mary told us, “a PDP Working Group also has the ability to post interim items for public comment that it believes “will benefit from further public input” – this may be an option where there is a need to resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a piecemeal basis).” My own view would be that we should seek public comment where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect on the community or portions thereof. Very best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com>> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; Brian Beckham <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>>; Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP Hi Staff, I’ve not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together. I don’t think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need. Can you please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible next week so that we don’t have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our report date? Thanks much! Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1VmgrsX-cptWzo971FYz8...> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1RIqVVSYno5pBzhADMIKj...> Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1ECIenORDhHr5YfutK_lx...> Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/secure-web.cisco.com/1JwmtW-J5heLaAJMmIi4Y...> To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1YA75SherFl6980jSDY7...>. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/secure-web.cisco.com/1yoUi_RzLGwN6w83FDlH...>. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
participants (4)
-
Corwin, Philip -
Mary Wong -
McAuley, David -
McGrady, Paul D.