Updated Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Including Submission of Additional Data
Dear RPM WG members, The WG Co-Chairs have considered the requests concerning additional data and the observation that additional specific information may assist the WG’s efforts. Note however that our agreed work process does not allow for an extensive research exercise, and we believe we have already been presented with the vast majority of such information and sources over the past 2 years -- so this is something of a “last call” for data. (Nor do we have the staff resources to conduct such an exercise.) In this light, WG members may suggest additional data to the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams that may either: (1) yield specific useful data we do not currently have and/or or (2) assist Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams. Examples of additional data: * articles about the registration of domains in Sunrise Periods (or attempts) that appear to have had an impact on contracted parties, registrants, or brand owners; * anecdotes or specific evidence from impacted parties; or * studies, reports, or articles discussing the harm of infringement including cybersquatting (including consumer harm). To assist in this process and try to stay within our current timeline, we have added some brief procedures in section 5 of the attached document. Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes: * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); * Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; * Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start *28 January and end 08 February*; * Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and * Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings. As noted in the attached revised procedures, although additional data of various kinds may be submitted, we are asking WG members to use the designated Google Form (https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 [goo.gl] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__goo.gl_forms_84YtaNDH2M...>) to ensure that any additional data a member wishes to provide should: * highlight what specific information (i.e., new data or evidence-based conclusion) it is being cited for; * include a rationale for why and how that specific information is relevant and in respect of which particular question; and * suggest a solution and/or idea for how to address the topic. If you have issue accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang@icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org> to request assistance. A .doc version of form will be provided upon request. Upon the close of the submission window, Sub Teams will review any additional data to determine whether it is useful in advancing the WG’s efforts. Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman, RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs
As discussed on yesterday's sub team calls, I continue to have serious concerns about this proposed process for submitting additional data. It (1) has an unrealistic and unreasonably short window (ending 8 days from now) to submit those additional data sources, and (2) places high burdens on those doing the submissions, higher than those placed on other data sources and treated differently as to process. 1. In response to Michael K's concerns, staff openly stated: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html " However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of the results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial matter." and " ....it seemed clear that this was a huge task for which a significant amount of Working Group (or Sub Team) time would be needed." Thus, what staff determined to be a "huge task" that would take "a great deal of time and effort" is now being pushed back upon individual working group members. This is a de facto way of saying "we don't want any more data" from the sources that were previously documented but never formally analyzed (e.g. blog posts from the domain name industry blogs documenting serious gaming of the sunrises, and related issues). 2. On top of this, anyone making a submission is expected to do so via a Google Form (which was linked to in the earlier email) that provides an analysis of the data sources and relevance to each of the Charter questions. Currently, the sub teams are expending enormous efforts to break down data sources in a similar manner, highlighting specific information, and linking them to each charter question. For example, one of those data sources is the INTA Study (one that had major statistical deficiencies, as previously discussed. Why is it that INTA is not being asked to fill out that form, breaking down their survey and highlighting those specific questions, but instead the sub teams are devoting enormous resources (literally weeks) to that task? (indeed, also ICANN Staff resources, since they already spent numerous hours making a spreadsheet that attempted to analyze each of 12 "previously identified" data sources, of which the INTA study was included). The time required for individual working group members to do the same for all the other data sources (blogs, articles, comments to those blogs, etc.) would likely far exceed the time spent by ICANN staff, given there are more sources 3. INTA was invited to make a presentation of their survey. Why weren't the domain name industry journalists who documented those sunrise abuses/gaming invited to share their expertise with a presentation to the working group, to document the failures of the TMCH and Sunrise period, i.e. telling the "other side" of the story (that points to the failures of the TMCH and Sunrise policies)? In conclusion, equal amounts of resources should be devoted to balance things out. Data sources relevant to registrants' interests and concerns are being severely disadvantaged by this proposed process. If this is not addressed in a timely manner (by COB Friday Feb 1, 2019), I'll look to the Working Group guidelines to remedy this imbalance. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:46 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Dear RPM WG members,
The WG Co-Chairs have considered the requests concerning additional data and the observation that additional specific information may assist the WG’s efforts. Note however that our agreed work process does not allow for an extensive research exercise, and we believe we have already been presented with the vast majority of such information and sources over the past 2 years -- so this is something of a “last call” for data. (Nor do we have the staff resources to conduct such an exercise.)
In this light, WG members may suggest additional data to the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams that may either: (1) yield specific useful data we do not currently have and/or or (2) assist Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams. Examples of additional data:
articles about the registration of domains in Sunrise Periods (or attempts) that appear to have had an impact on contracted parties, registrants, or brand owners; anecdotes or specific evidence from impacted parties; or studies, reports, or articles discussing the harm of infringement including cybersquatting (including consumer harm).
To assist in this process and try to stay within our current timeline, we have added some brief procedures in section 5 of the attached document. Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start 28 January and end 08 February; Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings.
As noted in the attached revised procedures, although additional data of various kinds may be submitted, we are asking WG members to use the designated Google Form (https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 [goo.gl]) to ensure that any additional data a member wishes to provide should:
highlight what specific information (i.e., new data or evidence-based conclusion) it is being cited for; include a rationale for why and how that specific information is relevant and in respect of which particular question; and suggest a solution and/or idea for how to address the topic.
If you have issue accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang@icann.org to request assistance. A .doc version of form will be provided upon request.
Upon the close of the submission window, Sub Teams will review any additional data to determine whether it is useful in advancing the WG’s efforts.
Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman, RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
P.S. To understand the context further, and how long ICANN Staff has had to collect this data, this was discussed in August 2017! (yes, that's 2017, not 2018!) https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-08-09+Review+of+all+Ri... https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-08-16+Review+of+all+Ri... I'd really like to know how individual members are now expected to do, in 8 days, what ICANN staff didn't do with more than a year, and with much greater financial resources than unpaid volunteers. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:34 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
As discussed on yesterday's sub team calls, I continue to have serious concerns about this proposed process for submitting additional data. It (1) has an unrealistic and unreasonably short window (ending 8 days from now) to submit those additional data sources, and (2) places high burdens on those doing the submissions, higher than those placed on other data sources and treated differently as to process.
1. In response to Michael K's concerns, staff openly stated:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
" However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of the results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial matter."
and
" ....it seemed clear that this was a huge task for which a significant amount of Working Group (or Sub Team) time would be needed."
Thus, what staff determined to be a "huge task" that would take "a great deal of time and effort" is now being pushed back upon individual working group members. This is a de facto way of saying "we don't want any more data" from the sources that were previously documented but never formally analyzed (e.g. blog posts from the domain name industry blogs documenting serious gaming of the sunrises, and related issues).
2. On top of this, anyone making a submission is expected to do so via a Google Form (which was linked to in the earlier email) that provides an analysis of the data sources and relevance to each of the Charter questions. Currently, the sub teams are expending enormous efforts to break down data sources in a similar manner, highlighting specific information, and linking them to each charter question. For example, one of those data sources is the INTA Study (one that had major statistical deficiencies, as previously discussed.
Why is it that INTA is not being asked to fill out that form, breaking down their survey and highlighting those specific questions, but instead the sub teams are devoting enormous resources (literally weeks) to that task? (indeed, also ICANN Staff resources, since they already spent numerous hours making a spreadsheet that attempted to analyze each of 12 "previously identified" data sources, of which the INTA study was included). The time required for individual working group members to do the same for all the other data sources (blogs, articles, comments to those blogs, etc.) would likely far exceed the time spent by ICANN staff, given there are more sources
3. INTA was invited to make a presentation of their survey. Why weren't the domain name industry journalists who documented those sunrise abuses/gaming invited to share their expertise with a presentation to the working group, to document the failures of the TMCH and Sunrise period, i.e. telling the "other side" of the story (that points to the failures of the TMCH and Sunrise policies)?
In conclusion, equal amounts of resources should be devoted to balance things out. Data sources relevant to registrants' interests and concerns are being severely disadvantaged by this proposed process.
If this is not addressed in a timely manner (by COB Friday Feb 1, 2019), I'll look to the Working Group guidelines to remedy this imbalance.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:46 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Dear RPM WG members,
The WG Co-Chairs have considered the requests concerning additional data and the observation that additional specific information may assist the WG’s efforts. Note however that our agreed work process does not allow for an extensive research exercise, and we believe we have already been presented with the vast majority of such information and sources over the past 2 years -- so this is something of a “last call” for data. (Nor do we have the staff resources to conduct such an exercise.)
In this light, WG members may suggest additional data to the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams that may either: (1) yield specific useful data we do not currently have and/or or (2) assist Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams. Examples of additional data:
articles about the registration of domains in Sunrise Periods (or attempts) that appear to have had an impact on contracted parties, registrants, or brand owners; anecdotes or specific evidence from impacted parties; or studies, reports, or articles discussing the harm of infringement including cybersquatting (including consumer harm).
To assist in this process and try to stay within our current timeline, we have added some brief procedures in section 5 of the attached document. Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet); Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February; Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start 28 January and end 08 February; Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings.
As noted in the attached revised procedures, although additional data of various kinds may be submitted, we are asking WG members to use the designated Google Form (https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 [goo.gl]) to ensure that any additional data a member wishes to provide should:
highlight what specific information (i.e., new data or evidence-based conclusion) it is being cited for; include a rationale for why and how that specific information is relevant and in respect of which particular question; and suggest a solution and/or idea for how to address the topic.
If you have issue accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang@icann.org to request assistance. A .doc version of form will be provided upon request.
Upon the close of the submission window, Sub Teams will review any additional data to determine whether it is useful in advancing the WG’s efforts.
Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman, RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't? http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d... https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-... https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing... https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-... https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ... Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs. WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution. Brian On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't? http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d... https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-... https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing... https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-... https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/ https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ... Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated previously for the URS? Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
Brian
On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d...
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...
https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing...
https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-...
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ...
Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Hey Brian, That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having been circulated for the URS? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual proposals, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****, that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different. i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this in early January 2019: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to create a process: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html (i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9, although it had been raised previously) That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half. Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly ridiculous. Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html " * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);" How convenient. Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.") Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized, or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what others must endure. Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce barriers to participation and trying to have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e. the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo. This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls) By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed. Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of the subteams and/or the working group. When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it. The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference, especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely would be, given how many are interested in these topics). Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions, I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not appear to be taken seriously. John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3 ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry, who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I think that would likely have no financial impact. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated previously for the URS?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
Brian
On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d...
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...
https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing...
https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-...
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ...
Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
And if anyone needed any further evidence about the differential treatment of members of this PDP, witness what happened on the sub teams this week. ICANN staff delivered documents on Tuesday that sub team members were online given until Thursday (yesterday) to review. https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000176.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000183.html I raised concerns about this short time window (along with other issues of workload) on the calls, but nothing happens. I then had to rearrange my schedule to do the review, and was the only person in the 2 sub teams to have made comments: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000196.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000196.html The clean versions are then prepared based on my edits: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000198.html (23:49 UTC) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000198.html (23:48:59 UTC) After all this (note the timestamps), comes a request from one of the co-chairs of this PDP for more time: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000199.html (23:56:40 UTC) That request is granted shortly thereafter! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-February/000199.html So, we're all "equal" as members, but some members are more "equal" than others in terms of changing the workload and timelines. This illustrates exactly why we need more "workers" and fewer "overseers/managers". With everyone on an equal footing **doing*** the work, and a professional external and neutral project manager facilitating the work, we'd have, among other things: a) more people actually doing the work (as they would be freed from the responsibility and time required to "manage", and could reinvest that time in doing the work), which should results in greater work output b) better understanding of the realities of the workload c) greater fairness when providing input as to unfair workloads/timelines, as the professional external and neutral project manager would be independent, as the "status" of the current co-chairs would revert to that of everyone else. Co-chairs aren't meant to be "rulers" who dictate what's going to happen, but are intended to "serve" the needs of the members who are trying to get the work done. That often seems to be forgotten. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:30 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Brian,
That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having been circulated for the URS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual proposals, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****, that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different. i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this in early January 2019:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to create a process:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9, although it had been raised previously)
That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
" * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
How convenient.
Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.") Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized, or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what others must endure.
Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce barriers to participation and trying to have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e. the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of the subteams and/or the working group.
When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference, especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions, I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not appear to be taken seriously.
John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3 ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry, who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I think that would likely have no financial impact.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated previously for the URS?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
Brian
On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d...
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...
https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing...
https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-...
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ...
Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
George, As one of the Co-chair you are referring too, I can assure you no has privileges here. Your comment along with others build up the feedback that we needed to do something different with this specific task. So we don’t react only to the last email we received, but to all the of them aggregated, yours included. I don’t think anyone here sees themselves as rulers, jus members that chose to coordinate, a role we did not invent but was requested by the community. I do appreciate your thoughts on the chair role and work. Sometimes it is not so easy to calculate exactly how many hours a task will take to a member, and more often than not, there is a compromise to be made between time constraints and resources. Last week we, and I, made a mistake on the workload planning. Besides being sorry, I learned, and we all moved as a team to try to find solutions, new balances and support changes to address yours, and other, legitimate concerns. I hope you can appreciate that there is no bad faith, no one was treated with privilege. I open your emails as fast as with any other member, read it fully and start taking notes to act upon it (I did this as a member, imagine now as a co-chair). Is not instant, is not obvious, but your voice is being heard, and your concerns are being taken into account as we do with everyone on the list or the calls. Best, Martín Silva Valent
On 1 Feb 2019, at 12:41, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
And if anyone needed any further evidence about the differential treatment of members of this PDP, witness what happened on the sub teams this week.
ICANN staff delivered documents on Tuesday that sub team members were online given until Thursday (yesterday) to review.
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000176.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000183.html
I raised concerns about this short time window (along with other issues of workload) on the calls, but nothing happens. I then had to rearrange my schedule to do the review, and was the only person in the 2 sub teams to have made comments:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000196.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000196.html
The clean versions are then prepared based on my edits:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000198.html (23:49 UTC) https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-January/000198.html (23:48:59 UTC)
After all this (note the timestamps), comes a request from one of the co-chairs of this PDP for more time:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-sunrise/2019-January/000199.html (23:56:40 UTC)
That request is granted shortly thereafter!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-trademark/2019-February/000199.html
So, we're all "equal" as members, but some members are more "equal" than others in terms of changing the workload and timelines.
This illustrates exactly why we need more "workers" and fewer "overseers/managers". With everyone on an equal footing **doing*** the work, and a professional external and neutral project manager facilitating the work, we'd have, among other things:
a) more people actually doing the work (as they would be freed from the responsibility and time required to "manage", and could reinvest that time in doing the work), which should results in greater work output
b) better understanding of the realities of the workload
c) greater fairness when providing input as to unfair workloads/timelines, as the professional external and neutral project manager would be independent, as the "status" of the current co-chairs would revert to that of everyone else.
Co-chairs aren't meant to be "rulers" who dictate what's going to happen, but are intended to "serve" the needs of the members who are trying to get the work done. That often seems to be forgotten.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:30 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Brian,
That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having been circulated for the URS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual proposals, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****, that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different. i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this in early January 2019:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to create a process:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9, although it had been raised previously)
That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly ridiculous.
Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
" * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
How convenient.
Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.") Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized, or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what others must endure.
Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce barriers to participation and trying to have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e. the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of the subteams and/or the working group.
When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference, especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions, I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not appear to be taken seriously.
John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3 ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry, who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I think that would likely have no financial impact.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated previously for the URS?
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
Brian
On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-d...
https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-...
https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing...
https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-...
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typ...
Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon what ICANN staff abandoned.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Dear George and everyone, Staff begs your indulgence as we believe we need to respond to George's continued allegation that ICANN staff is asking Working Group members to do the work that had originally been suggested be done by staff. As we have endeavored to explain on the mailing list and on the Sub Team calls, the current "ask" from the Working Group leadership team is not that Working Group members should perform the same broad research that was originally suggested. Rather, the proposal is a much more specific and narrow one: viz., that Working Group members who already have knowledge of additional data sources not yet known to the Working Group should provide that information now. This will ensure that relevant data is brought to the Working Group's attention as well as allow the Working Group to leverage the expertise and knowledge present amongst our membership. Staff has also tried to clarify that, because the original research suggestions were made early on in the PDP deliberations and before the detailed data request for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys was developed, it may be more productive at this stage of the PDP to narrow any additional research that the Working Group believes is needed to filling gaps for which the data amassed to date do not provide useful information. As noted previously, the original research suggestions were fairly broad and would have required the Working Group to analyze any and all materials gathered through that broad search, without any initial winnowing or preliminary analysis by staff. At no point in the process did staff intimate that the research would have been “too hard”; we simply reported our view that the breadth of the original suggestion meant that a substantial amount of time and effort would have been expended on an extremely wide-ranging and vaguely-defined search in order to compile a list of sources (in many cases anecdotal) that would then have required additional Working Group effort to review and analyze. In view of the Working Group agreement to conduct professional surveys for Sunrise and Trademark Claims, it therefore seemed prudent to first see the results of those surveys and then take stock of what else might be necessary and useful. We trust that this explanatory note is clear. Best regards, Julie, Ariel & Mary On 2/1/19, 21:32, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Hey Brian, That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having been circulated for the URS? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual proposals, see: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****, that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different. i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this in early January 2019: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to create a process: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html (i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9, although it had been raised previously) That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half. Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly ridiculous. Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time! https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html " * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);" How convenient. Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.") Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized, or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what others must endure. Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce barriers to participation and trying to have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e. the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources (like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo. This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls) By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed. Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of the subteams and/or the working group. When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it. The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference, especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely would be, given how many are interested in these topics). Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions, I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not appear to be taken seriously. John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3 ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry, who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I think that would likely have no financial impact. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c... On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing > list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated > previously for the URS? > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > 416-588-0269 > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c... > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote: > > > > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs. > > > > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution. > > > > > > Brian > > > > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > > > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of > > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to > > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why > > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP, > > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve > > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't? > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_16492-2... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onlinedomain.com_2014_0... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2017... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2015... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetcommerce.or... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014... > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014... > > > > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes > > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes > > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing > > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have > > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet > > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff > > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so > > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon > > what ICANN staff abandoned. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > George Kirikos > > 416-588-0269 > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c... > > _______________________________________________ > > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list > > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg > > > > > > > > World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Mary: It would have been more productive to simply send us what work ICANN staff has already done, if it even exists. Why not send that along, if it exists? Today's email instead seem like a distraction, to attempt get away from the fact that the work from August 2017 hasn't been done. Instead working group members are being asked to step up and do something instead. 1. to say that the current "ask" is more narrow is to say it's been decided (by who?) that we as a PDP want **less** data (especially less data that will challenge the status quo, and that will reveal flaws in TMCH and Sunrise, and which doesn't overlap with other data we already have), I never agreed to that. Folks wanted all that data, otherwise those sources wouldn't have been sent along in August 2017. The ask is allegedly now "narrow" only because staff failed to do what was asked in August 2017, and due to that, there's now less time and resources available to do what should have already been done. In other words, folks are trying to "cushion" the latest request, to lower expectations, expecting now that less data will actually be delivered (given the constraints that now exist), and then be able to declare "success" against that lower standard. 2. you talk about data that is "not yet known" to the working group. I see only 12 documents in the sub teams that we're reviewing currently, and none of it was from the lists of blogs, etc. that were mentioned in August 2017. Where are those, or are they still considered "unknown" because ICANN staff didn't do what was asked? 3. The original suggestions were made *early on* as you say *in order that ICANN staff could do the work*!!! That was a *feature* not a bug. Your work was to be done in *parallel* to the surveys, and wasn't in any way *blocked* by what the Analysis Group conducted. When was it decided to abandon the effort? (give a specific date, and link to a mailing list post please, as a citation). We have the email from you and other staff on January 9, responding to Michael K: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html saying " However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of the results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial matter." Yes, and you were given ample time! Going on, it was written: "staff has not proceeded further with the research – pending more specific direction from the Working Group once analysis of the Sunrise and Claims survey data as well as the data already available is complete, such that the utility of such a wide-ranging and undefined search can be clearer." When exactly is that "direction" to be provided, given that there are no working group calls scheduled until *after* the deadline next week for submission of the "data sources"?? You should have *already* sought "direction" immediately after you decided not to proceed further with the research (presumably in 2017). Show me how this research by staff will ever be incorporated into the timeline that's been established (it seems only the documents provided by next week will). 4. I don't know how to spell it out more clearly on how to do this. You go to Google, you do a search for: site:thedomains.com "sunrise" site:thedomains.com "tmch" site:thedomains.com "clearinghouse" site:thedomains.com "gaming" and then you repeat that with other relevant keywords, for all the other blogs/sources. That's what I did, as a start. Or you go to each site and use their built-in site search. And then you scan the results, and look for relevant articles and their comments. (lots of false positives, but gems too as I posted yesterday) But, feel free to pass along what you've already researched/compiled/found. If it takes more than 30 minutes from the time of this email to send along those already compiled articles/posts, I'll just assume that it was research started today (using the tips above on how to do it), rather than in August 2017. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:57 AM Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and everyone,
Staff begs your indulgence as we believe we need to respond to George's continued allegation that ICANN staff is asking Working Group members to do the work that had originally been suggested be done by staff. As we have endeavored to explain on the mailing list and on the Sub Team calls, the current "ask" from the Working Group leadership team is not that Working Group members should perform the same broad research that was originally suggested. Rather, the proposal is a much more specific and narrow one: viz., that Working Group members who already have knowledge of additional data sources not yet known to the Working Group should provide that information now. This will ensure that relevant data is brought to the Working Group's attention as well as allow the Working Group to leverage the expertise and knowledge present amongst our membership.
Staff has also tried to clarify that, because the original research suggestions were made early on in the PDP deliberations and before the detailed data request for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys was developed, it may be more productive at this stage of the PDP to narrow any additional research that the Working Group believes is needed to filling gaps for which the data amassed to date do not provide useful information. As noted previously, the original research suggestions were fairly broad and would have required the Working Group to analyze any and all materials gathered through that broad search, without any initial winnowing or preliminary analysis by staff.
At no point in the process did staff intimate that the research would have been “too hard”; we simply reported our view that the breadth of the original suggestion meant that a substantial amount of time and effort would have been expended on an extremely wide-ranging and vaguely-defined search in order to compile a list of sources (in many cases anecdotal) that would then have required additional Working Group effort to review and analyze. In view of the Working Group agreement to conduct professional surveys for Sunrise and Trademark Claims, it therefore seemed prudent to first see the results of those surveys and then take stock of what else might be necessary and useful.
We trust that this explanatory note is clear.
Best regards,
Julie, Ariel & Mary
On 2/1/19, 21:32, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Brian,
That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that
matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having
been circulated for the URS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can
remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual
proposals, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****,
that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different.
i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had
ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have
had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this
in early January 2019:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to
create a process:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9,
although it had been raised previously)
That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what
ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than
they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly
ridiculous.
Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group
meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
" * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
How convenient.
Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd
already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that
working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did
absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too
hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.")
Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people
listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When
working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic
timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized,
or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what
others must endure.
Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration
laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an
apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce
barriers to participation and trying to
have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply
create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are
erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e.
the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was
identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep
flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix
them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources
(like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub
teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for
the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according
to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered
until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until
April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to
discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the
procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual
proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams
had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of
expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over
individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for
public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader
community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC
has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour
of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the
perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of
the subteams and/or the working group.
When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced
representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the
current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub
team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also
becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower
barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can
weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference,
especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely
would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working
group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions,
I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I
foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to
demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not
appear to be taken seriously.
John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a
professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the
co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the
outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be
revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction
that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive
travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3
ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a
professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry,
who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I
think that would likely have no financial impact.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
>
> Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing
> list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated
> previously for the URS?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
> >
> > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
> >
> > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of
> > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to
> > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why
> > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP,
> > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve
> > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_16492-2...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onlinedomain.com_2014_0...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2017...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2015...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetcommerce.or...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes
> > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes
> > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing
> > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have
> > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet
> > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff
> > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so
> > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon
> > what ICANN staff abandoned.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> >
> >
> >
> > World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
P.S. In case I wasn't specific enough, the current timeline (PDF from the first post of this thread) says that "additional data" will be considered by the sub teams only on February 13, 2019 "if any is submitted.* There is nothing at all about ICANN Staff collecting any more data, and it's implicit that no other data exists (not counting the 12 documents, the so-called "previously collected data", the sub teams were given that we're currently working on, none of which includes anything from those August 2017 sources) anywhere in the timeline (going up to December 2019!). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 11:40 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Mary:
It would have been more productive to simply send us what work ICANN staff has already done, if it even exists. Why not send that along, if it exists? Today's email instead seem like a distraction, to attempt get away from the fact that the work from August 2017 hasn't been done. Instead working group members are being asked to step up and do something instead.
1. to say that the current "ask" is more narrow is to say it's been decided (by who?) that we as a PDP want **less** data (especially less data that will challenge the status quo, and that will reveal flaws in TMCH and Sunrise, and which doesn't overlap with other data we already have), I never agreed to that. Folks wanted all that data, otherwise those sources wouldn't have been sent along in August 2017. The ask is allegedly now "narrow" only because staff failed to do what was asked in August 2017, and due to that, there's now less time and resources available to do what should have already been done.
In other words, folks are trying to "cushion" the latest request, to lower expectations, expecting now that less data will actually be delivered (given the constraints that now exist), and then be able to declare "success" against that lower standard.
2. you talk about data that is "not yet known" to the working group. I see only 12 documents in the sub teams that we're reviewing currently, and none of it was from the lists of blogs, etc. that were mentioned in August 2017. Where are those, or are they still considered "unknown" because ICANN staff didn't do what was asked?
3. The original suggestions were made *early on* as you say *in order that ICANN staff could do the work*!!! That was a *feature* not a bug. Your work was to be done in *parallel* to the surveys, and wasn't in any way *blocked* by what the Analysis Group conducted. When was it decided to abandon the effort? (give a specific date, and link to a mailing list post please, as a citation). We have the email from you and other staff on January 9, responding to Michael K:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
saying " However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of the results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial matter."
Yes, and you were given ample time!
Going on, it was written:
"staff has not proceeded further with the research – pending more specific direction from the Working Group once analysis of the Sunrise and Claims survey data as well as the data already available is complete, such that the utility of such a wide-ranging and undefined search can be clearer."
When exactly is that "direction" to be provided, given that there are no working group calls scheduled until *after* the deadline next week for submission of the "data sources"?? You should have *already* sought "direction" immediately after you decided not to proceed further with the research (presumably in 2017). Show me how this research by staff will ever be incorporated into the timeline that's been established (it seems only the documents provided by next week will).
4. I don't know how to spell it out more clearly on how to do this. You go to Google, you do a search for:
site:thedomains.com "sunrise" site:thedomains.com "tmch" site:thedomains.com "clearinghouse" site:thedomains.com "gaming"
and then you repeat that with other relevant keywords, for all the other blogs/sources. That's what I did, as a start. Or you go to each site and use their built-in site search. And then you scan the results, and look for relevant articles and their comments. (lots of false positives, but gems too as I posted yesterday)
But, feel free to pass along what you've already researched/compiled/found. If it takes more than 30 minutes from the time of this email to send along those already compiled articles/posts, I'll just assume that it was research started today (using the tips above on how to do it), rather than in August 2017.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:57 AM Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Dear George and everyone,
Staff begs your indulgence as we believe we need to respond to George's continued allegation that ICANN staff is asking Working Group members to do the work that had originally been suggested be done by staff. As we have endeavored to explain on the mailing list and on the Sub Team calls, the current "ask" from the Working Group leadership team is not that Working Group members should perform the same broad research that was originally suggested. Rather, the proposal is a much more specific and narrow one: viz., that Working Group members who already have knowledge of additional data sources not yet known to the Working Group should provide that information now. This will ensure that relevant data is brought to the Working Group's attention as well as allow the Working Group to leverage the expertise and knowledge present amongst our membership.
Staff has also tried to clarify that, because the original research suggestions were made early on in the PDP deliberations and before the detailed data request for the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys was developed, it may be more productive at this stage of the PDP to narrow any additional research that the Working Group believes is needed to filling gaps for which the data amassed to date do not provide useful information. As noted previously, the original research suggestions were fairly broad and would have required the Working Group to analyze any and all materials gathered through that broad search, without any initial winnowing or preliminary analysis by staff.
At no point in the process did staff intimate that the research would have been “too hard”; we simply reported our view that the breadth of the original suggestion meant that a substantial amount of time and effort would have been expended on an extremely wide-ranging and vaguely-defined search in order to compile a list of sources (in many cases anecdotal) that would then have required additional Working Group effort to review and analyze. In view of the Working Group agreement to conduct professional surveys for Sunrise and Trademark Claims, it therefore seemed prudent to first see the results of those surveys and then take stock of what else might be necessary and useful.
We trust that this explanatory note is clear.
Best regards,
Julie, Ariel & Mary
On 2/1/19, 21:32, "GNSO-RPM-WG on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hey Brian,
That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that
matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having
been circulated for the URS?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can
remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual
proposals, see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html
But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****,
that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different.
i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html
and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had
ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have
had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this
in early January 2019:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to
create a process:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9,
although it had been raised previously)
That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what
ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.
Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than
they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly
ridiculous.
Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group
meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html
" * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"
How convenient.
Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd
already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that
working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html
Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did
absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too
hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.")
Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people
listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When
working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic
timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized,
or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what
others must endure.
Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration
laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an
apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce
barriers to participation and trying to
have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply
create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome. Barriers are
erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e.
the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was
identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep
flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix
them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources
(like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.
This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub
teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)
By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for
the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according
to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered
until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until
April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to
discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the
procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual
proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams
had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of
expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over
individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for
public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.
Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader
community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC
has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour
of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the
perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of
the subteams and/or the working group.
When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced
representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the
current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub
team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also
becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.
The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower
barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can
weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference,
especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely
would be, given how many are interested in these topics).
Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working
group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions,
I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I
foreshadowed it each time). Every time. It seems that I will have to
demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not
appear to be taken seriously.
John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a
professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the
co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the
outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be
revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction
that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive
travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3
ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a
professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry,
who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I
think that would likely have no financial impact.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
>
> Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing
> list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated
> previously for the URS?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
> >
> > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
> >
> > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of
> > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to
> > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why
> > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP,
> > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve
> > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__domainincite.com_16492-2...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__onlinedomain.com_2014_0...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2017...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.thedomains.com_2015...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.internetcommerce.or...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__domainnamewire.com_2014...
> >
> > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes
> > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes
> > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing
> > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have
> > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet
> > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff
> > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so
> > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon
> > what ICANN staff abandoned.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwICAg&c...
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> >
> >
> >
> > World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________
GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org
participants (5)
-
BECKHAM, Brian -
George Kirikos -
Kathy Kleiman -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Mary Wong