I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed). Greg Shatan On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

*Statton Hammock*

*Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs*

[image: Rightside]

*Office | 425-298-2367 <425-298-2367>*

*Mobile | 425-891-9297 <425-891-9297>* *statton@rightside.rocks*

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

​+ 1 to Volker. ​

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

...

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

I think a leadership team of 4 is getting out of hand. This is an important PDP certainly but it unlikely to be as anything like as complex as the Subsequent Procedures one, and even that is currently managing with 3. I would have said 2 co-chairs is the way to go for this one. I’m concerned that the bigger the “leadership” group the harder it is for them to find a time that they can actually get together to plan for the calls. The role of the chair(s) is to be impartial after all so it should not matter where they come from but rather whether they have the requisite skill-set. Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy | Valideus Ltd E: susan.payne@valideus.com<mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175 From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: 12 April 2016 15:45 To: Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none. I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation. Jonathan From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM To: Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed). Greg Shatan On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Also agree with Volker's suggestion. Statton Statton Hammock Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs [Image removed by sender. Rightside] Office | 425-298-2367<tel:425-298-2367> Mobile | 425-891-9297<tel:425-891-9297> statton@rightside.rocks<mailto:statton@rightside.rocks> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: ​+ 1 to Volker. ​ Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>: Hi all, with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates. With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs. Best regards, Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

I have been reading the email traffic (which has been substantial). Here are my thoughts: This WG comprises too much work for a single chairperson. I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair role for the contracting parties. This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP which has little impact on contracted parties other than ensuring that domain names remain locked and the decision is enforced. A 2-person co-chair arrangement works well as long as the co-chairs can work together so that all issues are fairly and openly addressed,, meetings run smoothly and progress is made in a timely fashion. Competing ideas (of which there are surely many) should be left to the WG member discussions; they should not find their way into the chair positions. In the WG on NGOs we have had a successful co-chair arrangement in which Phil and Petter were able to work well together and where BOTH ensured that discussions remained open and that all topics were fairly presented and considered. If it is felt that the co-chairs cannot accomplish the above, then it is best to have a single chair person with two vice-chairs. This will ensure that there is one person guiding the process (again as noted above) and two additional people to assist. The above said, I invite those being considered to provide a clear (and short) statement addressed to the remainder of the WG indicating the following: 1. Why they want to be a chair/co-chair. 2. Why they believe they would be good at the role (bearing in mind the keys are IMHO neutrality and organizational skills). 3. A commitment that they will serve in a neutral capacity such that matters of the WG will be dealt with in an open and fair manner such that all issues relevant to the WG mandate are addressed and considered. 4. A commitment that they are either able to (and will) work constructively with each of the other nominated persons or a statement of why they feel they cannot work with any particular nominated person. Please bear in mind that I am not encouraging conflict here. However, because we are considering co-chairs/Co-Vice-Chairs I feel it is important that we all know if those being considered can or cannot work well together. It is my belief that with the above to hand, we can all then move forward with more comfort in addressing how many chair/vice-chair positions there will be and who should fill those roles. Sincerely, Paul Raynor Keating, Esq. Law.es <http://law.es/> Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain) Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US) Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810 Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450 Skype: Prk-Spain email: Paul@law.es THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS. Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Petter Rindforth via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:06 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I strongly agree with Susan - The work is likely to bee too much for only one person, and 2 (yes - two) co-chairs will make a big difference (in a positive way) to split it up, to participate in preparations in between our WG meetings as well as to lead our calls and physical meetings.

There will definately be additional possibilities and work to do as vice chairs and/or sub-group / sub-tobic chairs, etc for a number of other members of this WG (including myself ;-)

Best, Petter

-- Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB Stureplan 4c, 4tr 114 35 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46(0)8-4631010 Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360 E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu www.fenixlegal.eu

NOTICE This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail. Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu Thank you

12 april 2016 16:55:01 +02:00, skrev Susan Payne via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

...

I think a leadership team of 4 is getting out of hand. This is an important PDP certainly but it unlikely to be as anything like as complex as the Subsequent Procedures one, and even that is currently managing with 3. I would have said 2 co-chairs is the way to go for this one. I¹m concerned that the bigger the ³leadership² group the harder it is for them to find a time that they can actually get together to plan for the calls. The role of the chair(s) is to be impartial after all so it should not matter where they come from but rather whether they have the requisite skill-set.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: 12 April 2016 15:45 To: Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.

Jonathan

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM To: Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

Statton Hammock

Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs

Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367>

Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>

statton@rightside.rocks

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

+ 1 to Volker.

Gabriela Szlak

Skype: gabrielaszlak

Twitter: @GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

...

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Jonathan, I was by no means trying to marginalize anyone ­ including the CPs' roles. I was merely making a point relative to the expreessed need to have "representation" at the chair/Vice Chair level. Paul From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: Jonathan Frost <jonathan@get.club> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:59 PM To: <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

Hi Paul,

I had a couple of thoughts on your comments about the CHP¹s role in this WG.

...

...

...

...

This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP which has little impact on contracted parties other than ensuring that domain names remain locked and the decision is enforced. I would caution against marginalizing the interests of the contracted parties in the RPM WG. Any consensus policy change that comes about as a result of the work of this working group would be contractually binding on the contracted parties. The current new gTLD RPMs place significant obligations on the contracted parties, beyond fulfillment of UDRP/URS. For instance, the TMCH rules have a significant impact on the day to day operations and systems of the registries.

...

...

...

...

I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair role for the contracting parties. While I originally suggested that the CHP should have representation, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus among CHP participants that this group of three potential leaders (J. Scott, Kathy, and Phil) would do a great job and no CHP rep would be necessary.

Best, Jonathan

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:07 AM To: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu; Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have been reading the email traffic (which has been substantial).

Here are my thoughts:

This WG comprises too much work for a single chairperson.

I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair role for the contracting parties. This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP which has little impact on contracted parties other than ensuring that domain names remain locked and the decision is enforced.

A 2-person co-chair arrangement works well as long as the co-chairs can work together so that all issues are fairly and openly addressed,, meetings run smoothly and progress is made in a timely fashion. Competing ideas (of which there are surely many) should be left to the WG member discussions; they should not find their way into the chair positions. In the WG on NGOs we have had a successful co-chair arrangement in which Phil and Petter were able to work well together and where BOTH ensured that discussions remained open and that all topics were fairly presented and considered.

If it is felt that the co-chairs cannot accomplish the above, then it is best to have a single chair person with two vice-chairs. This will ensure that there is one person guiding the process (again as noted above) and two additional people to assist.

The above said, I invite those being considered to provide a clear (and short) statement addressed to the remainder of the WG indicating the following:

1. Why they want to be a chair/co-chair.

2. Why they believe they would be good at the role (bearing in mind the keys are IMHO neutrality and organizational skills).

3. A commitment that they will serve in a neutral capacity such that matters of the WG will be dealt with in an open and fair manner such that all issues relevant to the WG mandate are addressed and considered.

4. A commitment that they are either able to (and will) work constructively with each of the other nominated persons or a statement of why they feel they cannot work with any particular nominated person. Please bear in mind that I am not encouraging conflict here. However, because we are considering co-chairs/Co-Vice-Chairs I feel it is important that we all know if those being considered can or cannot work well together.

It is my belief that with the above to hand, we can all then move forward with more comfort in addressing how many chair/vice-chair positions there will be and who should fill those roles.

Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

Law.es <http://law.es/>

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK) Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email: Paul@law.es <mailto:Paul@law.es>

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE DELETE THE EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein.

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH THIS IS NOT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Petter Rindforth via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:06 AM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com>, <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

...

I strongly agree with Susan - The work is likely to bee too much for only one person, and 2 (yes - two) co-chairs will make a big difference (in a positive way) to split it up, to participate in preparations in between our WG meetings as well as to lead our calls and physical meetings.

There will definately be additional possibilities and work to do as vice chairs and/or sub-group / sub-tobic chairs, etc for a number of other members of this WG (including myself ;-)

Best,

Petter

--

Petter Rindforth, LL M

Fenix Legal KB

Stureplan 4c, 4tr

114 35 Stockholm

Sweden

Fax: +46(0)8-4631010

Direct phone: +46(0)702-369360

E-mail: petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu

www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

NOTICE

This e-mail message is intended solely for the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are requested not to read, copy or distribute it or any of the information it contains. Please delete it immediately and notify us by return e-mail.

Fenix Legal KB, Sweden, www.fenixlegal.eu <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>

Thank you

12 april 2016 16:55:01 +02:00, skrev Susan Payne via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

...

I think a leadership team of 4 is getting out of hand. This is an important PDP certainly but it unlikely to be as anything like as complex as the Subsequent Procedures one, and even that is currently managing with 3. I would have said 2 co-chairs is the way to go for this one. I¹m concerned that the bigger the ³leadership² group the harder it is for them to find a time that they can actually get together to plan for the calls. The role of the chair(s) is to be impartial after all so it should not matter where they come from but rather whether they have the requisite skill-set.

Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd

E: susan.payne@valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne@valideus.com> D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: 12 April 2016 15:45 To: Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.

Jonathan

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM To: Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

Statton Hammock

Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs

Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367>

Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>

statton@rightside.rocks

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

+ 1 to Volker.

Gabriela Szlak

Skype: gabrielaszlak

Twitter: @GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

...

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Greg: I must say that I am disappointed that you have intervened for the purpose of suggesting that I should not be part of the leadership team. I am attending an all-day Cryptocurrency conference in DC and will respond fully late in the day after it concludes. For now all I will say is that after toiling in the subgroup that worked out remaining concerns on the Charter, and then successfully proposing the Charter for GNSO Council approval in Marrakech, I accepted the dual roles of Interim Chair and GNSO Liaison as a place holding courtesy, pending the decision of WG members on permanent leadership. So to imply that I am somehow misusing the Liaison role to secure a leadership position is indeed reading way too much into things. Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Apr 12, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: I think the balance issue cuts rather differently, and a vice-chair from the Contracted Parties House might actually exacerbate the issue. If we are talking about "formal" representation, both J. Scott and Phil are members of the Business Constituency, so it's not fair to say that Phil, but not J. Scott, represents "business interests." On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer. My suggested configuration was intended to find a role for all 3 volunteers, while maintaining some sort of balance. If Phil's not interested in the GNSO Liaison role, in spite of the fact that it's the role he volunteered for at Council, that's fine. However, that does make it appear that this was done as a steppingstone to the Chair and not out of interest in the role on its own merits. Of course, I may be reading too much into things. I'd like to stress that I have the highest respect, and even affection, for all 3 volunteers, and for their contributions to ICANN over the years. But the configuration of our leadership team has to take other things into account. Greg On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none. I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation. Jonathan From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM To: Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks<mailto:statton@rightside.rocks>> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed). Greg Shatan On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Also agree with Volker's suggestion. Statton Statton Hammock Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs [Rightside] Office | 425-298-2367<tel:425-298-2367> Mobile | 425-891-9297<tel:425-891-9297> statton@rightside.rocks<mailto:statton@rightside.rocks> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: ​+ 1 to Volker. ​ Gabriela Szlak Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential. 2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>: Hi all, with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates. With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs. Best regards, Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Hi Greg, I think there is a good balance here, despite your concerns: If as you say, represents business interests with an IP focus, Kathy represents users of domain names and Phil presents owners of domain names, there is no real overlap here, and even if there were, the leaderships role is a neutral one and one's own position should not influence the work, wouldn't you agree? While having a leadership position filled by the CPH may be desirable, there has been no nomination or volunteer that would fit that slot, AFAIK. Best, Volker Am 12.04.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg:

I think the balance issue cuts rather differently, and a vice-chair from the Contracted Parties House might actually exacerbate the issue.

If we are talking about "formal" representation, both J. Scott and Phil are members of the Business Constituency, so it's not fair to say that Phil, but not J. Scott, represents "business interests." On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer.

My suggested configuration was intended to find a role for all 3 volunteers, while maintaining some sort of balance. If Phil's not interested in the GNSO Liaison role, in spite of the fact that it's the role he volunteered for at Council, that's fine. However, that does make it appear that this was done as a steppingstone to the Chair and not out of interest in the role on its own merits. Of course, I may be reading too much into things.

I'd like to stress that I have the highest respect, and even affection, for all 3 volunteers, and for their contributions to ICANN over the years. But the configuration of our leadership team has to take other things into account.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.

Jonathan

*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM *To:* Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> *Cc:* Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

*Statton Hammock*

*Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs*

Rightside

*Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367>*

*Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>*

*statton@rightside.rocks <mailto:statton@rightside.rocks>*

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:

​+ 1 to Volker.

​

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>:

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

Hi Greg & All: Cc Eric at Jones Day. For Domain Name Registrants of ".COM" I'd like to see participation from people completely unrelated to the original UDRP, plus exclusion of people from the original *Trademark, intellectual property, anti-counterfeiting interests,* of April 9, 1999, as identified > https://archive.icann.org/en/dnso/constituency_groups.html < and any who've worked by, or with the Jones Day staffer "volunteer" { wink, wink } implanted at arms length from outside council to work as "inside council" for ICANN. This is important because our supposedly protected ".COM" Common Law *Mark, Word, Term, Name, Symbol, Trade Name, Trademark as ™ or other intellectual property rights of the person and Domain Name,* *not ®* all constitute *"1st in Use" *and* "In Commerce"* in Cyberspace; and are SUPPOSEDLY protected by the Lanham Act, In Rem or In Personum. This should be so, until such time as CentralNic's infringing, diluting & blurring *mock cc.COMs* here called SLD's are are resolved at the third party level *~ from the ICANN Et Al C**ontributor(s) collectively.* People here will know, that CentralNic's uk.COM was and remains now, subject to the ".COM" terms of use, as a Domain Name Registrant, per: Registrar Accreditation Agreement(Approved November 4, 1999)(Posted November 9, 1999)

http://archive.icann.org/en/nsi/icann-raa-04nov99.htm#IIJ7b < and all since.

Also Greg, since we spoke; and You're the IPC President, please identify how CentralNic's uk.COM Domain Name became ... extraterritorial to the Lanham Acts ACPA. Your answer Greg, is REQUIRED, given ICANN are identified in the TPP for Intellectual Property and Domain Names. Greg, you'll know too, that within the TPP ICANN & You as our IPC Prez have become very conveniently subjects of the Canadian Courts for questioning, per *h. For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the SLD name, the SLD holder shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the SLD holder's domicile and ...* Going forward, the Canadian Court will also be informed that, while true *(2) where **[ Verisign & Network Solutions ] as **R[r]egistrar & R[r]egistry *is located the local Court curiously abdicated responsibility! I have no doubt that before the TPP is Ratified, responsible people in the United States & Canada will be chatting ~ holding up IANA Transition ~ until the "Landcruise" problem's resolved, as I'm NOT going to the ADR Forum to resolve this problem; because they're part of the racket also. Thanks all. Cheers, Graham. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Volker,

I don't think so. First, Phil represents domain investors, a perfectly valid but very specific subset of domain name owners. Second, I think its very fair to say that there's been a significant degree of alignment between the interests of domain investors and the viewpoints espoused by some from the non-commercial user community. Again, all valid viewpoints, but ones with a high degree of overlap. Hence the concerns about balance.

As to neutrality, I agree that it is what is expected, but these and prior efforts show that importance is placed on where one comes from (both SG/C and positionally) and I think that reflects valid underlying concerns.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

Hi Greg,

I think there is a good balance here, despite your concerns: If as you say, represents business interests with an IP focus, Kathy represents users of domain names and Phil presents owners of domain names, there is no real overlap here, and even if there were, the leaderships role is a neutral one and one's own position should not influence the work, wouldn't you agree?

While having a leadership position filled by the CPH may be desirable, there has been no nomination or volunteer that would fit that slot, AFAIK.

Best,

Volker

Am 12.04.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg:

I think the balance issue cuts rather differently, and a vice-chair from the Contracted Parties House might actually exacerbate the issue.

If we are talking about "formal" representation, both J. Scott and Phil are members of the Business Constituency, so it's not fair to say that Phil, but not J. Scott, represents "business interests." On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer.

My suggested configuration was intended to find a role for all 3 volunteers, while maintaining some sort of balance. If Phil's not interested in the GNSO Liaison role, in spite of the fact that it's the role he volunteered for at Council, that's fine. However, that does make it appear that this was done as a steppingstone to the Chair and not out of interest in the role on its own merits. Of course, I may be reading too much into things.

I'd like to stress that I have the highest respect, and even affection, for all 3 volunteers, and for their contributions to ICANN over the years. But the configuration of our leadership team has to take other things into account.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg < <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.

Jonathan

*From:* <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM *To:* Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> <statton@rightside.rocks> *Cc:* Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg < <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg < <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

*Statton Hammock*

*Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs*

[image: Rightside]

*Office | 425-298-2367 <425-298-2367>*

*Mobile | 425-891-9297 <425-891-9297>*

* <statton@rightside.rocks>statton@rightside.rocks <statton@rightside.rocks>*

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg < <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

​+ 1 to Volker.

​

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg < <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing listgnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUPwww.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Mary, Tx you for this list. When you next recirculate, could you kindly include the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies from which these talented individuals hail? Tx, Kathy On 4/12/2016 1:35 PM, Mary Wong via gnso-rpm-wg wrote:

Hello again everyone,

Given that the group discussion is focusing on the question of the most appropriate configuration and numbers for the leadership team, I’d like to note that Petter Rindforth had also previously self-nominated for a vice-chair position. As such, the full slate of candidates for all chair-related positions (including just for vice-chair) is, in alphabetical order:

* */Phil Corwin/* (nominated/supported for chair/co-chair) * */J. Scott Evans/* (nominated/supported for chair/co-chair) * */Danny Glix/* (nominated for co-chair) * */Kathy Kleiman/* (nominated/supported for chair/co-chair) * */Petter Rindforth/* (nominated/supported for vice-chair)

Please allow me to take this opportunity also to apologize for the fact that my email from yesterday appears to have been sent – automatically – three times. Apparently this is related to the “reply all” glitch some of you have experienced, due to the enhanced security precautions that have been implemented for ICANN mailing lists. We’re continuing to work with IT and security on the problems – and I hope you won’t get this message three times :)

Cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong@icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Reply-To: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:30 To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

Hi Greg,

I think there is a good balance here, despite your concerns: If as you say, represents business interests with an IP focus, Kathy represents users of domain names and Phil presents owners of domain names, there is no real overlap here, and even if there were, the leaderships role is a neutral one and one's own position should not influence the work, wouldn't you agree?

While having a leadership position filled by the CPH may be desirable, there has been no nomination or volunteer that would fit that slot, AFAIK.

Best,

Volker

Am 12.04.2016 um 17:04 schrieb Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg:

...

I think the balance issue cuts rather differently, and a vice-chair from the Contracted Parties House might actually exacerbate the issue.

If we are talking about "formal" representation, both J. Scott and Phil are members of the Business Constituency, so it's not fair to say that Phil, but not J. Scott, represents "business interests." On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer.

My suggested configuration was intended to find a role for all 3 volunteers, while maintaining some sort of balance. If Phil's not interested in the GNSO Liaison role, in spite of the fact that it's the role he volunteered for at Council, that's fine. However, that does make it appear that this was done as a steppingstone to the Chair and not out of interest in the role on its own merits. Of course, I may be reading too much into things.

I'd like to stress that I have the highest respect, and even affection, for all 3 volunteers, and for their contributions to ICANN over the years. But the configuration of our leadership team has to take other things into account.

Greg

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Jonathan Frost via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that the non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to balance the equation.

Jonathan

*From:*gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM *To:* Statton Hammock <statton@rightside.rocks> *Cc:* Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

*Statton Hammock*

*Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs*

Rightside

*Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367>*

*Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>*

*statton@rightside.rocks*

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

​+ 1 to Volker.

​

*Gabriela Szlak *

*Skype:* gabrielaszlak

*Twitter: @*GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial.

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>:

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann - legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email:vgreimann@key-systems.net

Web:www.key-systems.net /www.RRPproxy.netwww.domaindiscount24.com /www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystemswww.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

I believe that many hands make light work, and I would support all three of the volunteers who have offered to lead this group. This will be a time-consuming position, over a lengthy period of time, with headaches and frustrations but without pay or glory, and I am grateful that we have these talented volunteers. By the way, all three are effective advocates for the positions they take, so if you see any of them as opposed to you in some way, you might rather have them in a neutral role than championing a particular position. :-) Bret -- Bret Fausett General Counsel ____________________________ <http://www.uniregistry.link/> Uniregistry, Inc. 2161 San Joaquin Hlils Road Newport Beach, California 92660 Mobile +1 310 985 1351 Office +1 949 706 2300 x4201 bret@uniregistry.com <mailto:bret@uniregistry.com>

George, First, while domain names are almost certainly "intangible property," I don't see them considered as intellectual property, except to the extent they are an expression of a trademark or trade name, one letter from 1999 notwithstanding. But that's neither here nor there, and beyond the scope of the conversation. After all, trademark owners are also domain name owners (and, after domain investors, probably the most prolific domain name owners). Second, I don't think anything I've said has marginalized or delegitimized anyone, and I've gone to pains to say otherwise, if you look at my emails. Greg On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:00 PM, George Kirikos via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

...

On an informal or "de facto" level, J Scott tends to represent (or at least stand for) the interests of businesses for whom IP is a significant asset, while Phil represents (and actually does represent) the interests of domain investors (a very specific sector of the business community for whom IP is, at best, not a significant asset). As such, Phil's perspectives are far more aligned with those represented by Kathy, and that is the imbalance to which I refer.

Domain names have been recognized, in law, as a new form of intellectual property since the 1990's, e.g. see:

Umbro International, Inc., Judgment Creditor v. 3263851 Canada, Inc Judgment Debtor, and Network Solutions, Inc, Garnishee, At Law No. 174388.

https://web.archive.org/web/19991009052951/http://www.alston.com/docs/Articl...

"Until Umbro's effort, domain names apparently have not been subjected to garnishment, but that is no reason to conclude that this ****new form of intellectual property**** is therefore immune." (emphasis added)

I think instead of "IP" you meant "trademarks", a different form of intellectual property (which sometimes might overlap with, interact with, and/or conflict with domain names).

Certainly for my own company's domain names, and for many other owners of domain names, it would not be correct to say that these are "not a significant asset." Many domain names are worth thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars, and are significant assets to their owners.

I think participants in the working group should be more cautious before trying to marginalize or delegitimize others who are volunteering their valuable time and expertise to improve ICANN policymaking.

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

The CCWG-Accountability has been pretty successful with three co-chairs. As for the balance with the Contracted Party House, I am not all that concerned with the proposal as I'm sure that many members of the RySG and RrSG will be tracking this pretty closely and this co-chair proposal was made by a registrar. Best, Jon

On Apr 12, 2016, at 10:58 AM, Phil Corwin via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

With all respect, Greg, my interest is in being a member of the leadership team and not in the passive Liaison role. Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VLawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 12, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote:

...

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the "formal" and de facto levels). As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: Also agree with Volker's suggestion.

Statton

Statton Hammock Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs

Office | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367> Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297>statton@rightside.rocks <mailto:statton@rightside.rocks>

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> wrote: ​+ 1 to Volker. ​

Gabriela Szlak

Skype: gabrielaszlak Twitter: @GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>: Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>

<>No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4545/12005 - Release Date: 04/10/16

<ATT00001.c>

---

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

Sounds like a WG leadership Dream Team! Thanks to these three fine folks to volunteer their time and expertise. Best, Jon

On Apr 12, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Edward Morris via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> wrote:

I would like to thank my Council colleague Volker for this proposal. Full support.

We would be fortunate as a group to have this leadership team. Phil is amongst the finest men I have met in any sphere of my life. His integrity, attention to detail and knowledge of the subject matter is second to none. Kathy and J. Scott are the go-to people for their respective communities in this area. All three are collegial in their approach and have shown an incredible dedication to the issues that concern this WG, and to ICANN itself over the past decade plus. I can't think of a stronger group to lead us forward.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

From: "Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 2:25 PM To: "Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil, Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate, maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg