Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams
Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
Hi, Thanks very much for sending along. I have a small question with regard to the "Tasks" section, which begins with the line: "To analyze the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys as well as the previously collected data...". Could I request some clarification of the meaning of "the previously collected data"? Am I to take that to mean that it would include journalistic or academic articles which demonstrate issues with the system, for example by pointing to examples of generic words being included in the TMCH, or that these data sources would be specifically excluded? If these are excluded, and we are limited to just looking at the survey, I think that's problematic, but would be happy to hear that's not the intent of the phrasing. Best wishes, Michael Karanicolas On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members,
On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have.
Best,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hello Michael and everyone, The phrase “previously-collected data” refers to all the reports, data and information that are listed under the heading “Data collected to date” in the respective Appendix to the Table of Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions & Data Collected and the Table of Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions & Data Collected documents, circulated to the Working Group by staff on 4 December 2018 in preparation for the Working Group’s 5 December call: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-December/003549.html. As you can see, the data includes documents such as the Analysis Group’s TMCH Independent Review, the INTA Cost Impact Survey, previous input from some registries and the various reports from Deloitte. You are right that the Working Group had early on identified additional sources of potential data – namely, news articles, research publications and blog posts (including comments thereto). As staff explained on the December 2018 call where this question was raised, staff conducted some preliminary research amongst some of these sources (primarily, some of the industry and other blogs suggested by several Working Group members). 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. In addition, given the Working Group’s instructions that staff were not to conduct any sifting or analysis work but merely collate, compile and categories all entries found for further Working Group review, it seemed clear that this was a huge task for which a significant amount of Working Group (or Sub Team) time would be needed. Given that it was unclear what, exactly, the scope of the search was to be (e.g. what search terms were to be used, and what excluded) and that the Working Group soon thereafter decided to develop the data request that ultimately became the Sunrise and Claims surveys administered by the Analysis Group, 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. We hope this is helpful. Thanks and cheers Mary, Julie & Ariel From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 20:30 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Hi, Thanks very much for sending along. I have a small question with regard to the "Tasks" section, which begins with the line: "To analyze the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys as well as the previously collected data...". Could I request some clarification of the meaning of "the previously collected data"? Am I to take that to mean that it would include journalistic or academic articles which demonstrate issues with the system, for example by pointing to examples of generic words being included in the TMCH, or that these data sources would be specifically excluded? If these are excluded, and we are limited to just looking at the survey, I think that's problematic, but would be happy to hear that's not the intent of the phrasing. Best wishes, Michael Karanicolas On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members, On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have. Best, Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie _______________________________________________ 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 folks, I agree with the concerns raised by Michael Karanicolas. According to the staff reply to his email of earlier this week, further compilation of that other data awaits "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". However, cccording to the timeline, there's a meeting on January 30 of the full WG to "to receive Sub Team reports on results of survey data analysis", yet there's really nothing scheduled to give ICANN staff the direction they seek. The sub teams are set to begin analysis of "previously collected data" the following two weeks, but when would ICANN staff have been collating all the relevant third party sources that were previously identified but not systematically collected (i.e. various blog posts, etc. that highlighted sunrise abuses)? Given the deficiencies in the survey data, the importance of these other sources of data in helping to answer the charter questions is heightened. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 11:55 PM Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Michael and everyone,
The phrase “previously-collected data” refers to all the reports, data and information that are listed under the heading “Data collected to date” in the respective Appendix to the Table of Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions & Data Collected and the Table of Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions & Data Collected documents, circulated to the Working Group by staff on 4 December 2018 in preparation for the Working Group’s 5 December call: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-December/003549.html. As you can see, the data includes documents such as the Analysis Group’s TMCH Independent Review, the INTA Cost Impact Survey, previous input from some registries and the various reports from Deloitte.
You are right that the Working Group had early on identified additional sources of potential data – namely, news articles, research publications and blog posts (including comments thereto). As staff explained on the December 2018 call where this question was raised, staff conducted some preliminary research amongst some of these sources (primarily, some of the industry and other blogs suggested by several Working Group members). 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.
In addition, given the Working Group’s instructions that staff were not to conduct any sifting or analysis work but merely collate, compile and categories all entries found for further Working Group review, it seemed clear that this was a huge task for which a significant amount of Working Group (or Sub Team) time would be needed. Given that it was unclear what, exactly, the scope of the search was to be (e.g. what search terms were to be used, and what excluded) and that the Working Group soon thereafter decided to develop the data request that ultimately became the Sunrise and Claims surveys administered by the Analysis Group, 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.
We hope this is helpful.
Thanks and cheers
Mary, Julie & Ariel
From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 20:30 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams
Hi,
Thanks very much for sending along. I have a small question with regard to the "Tasks" section, which begins with the line: "To analyze the results of the Sunrise and Trademark Claims surveys as well as the previously collected data...".
Could I request some clarification of the meaning of "the previously collected data"? Am I to take that to mean that it would include journalistic or academic articles which demonstrate issues with the system, for example by pointing to examples of generic words being included in the TMCH, or that these data sources would be specifically excluded? If these are excluded, and we are limited to just looking at the survey, I think that's problematic, but would be happy to hear that's not the intent of the phrasing.
Best wishes,
Michael Karanicolas
On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members,
On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have.
Best,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi folks, After reviewing the proposed process, I have 2 main concerns: 1. For task 6, "Individual Proposals", the submission period would open January 23, for 2 weeks, until February 6. While the proposed process document states: "WG members do not necessarily need to rely on Sub Team proposals to develop individual proposals (this is why the submission period for individual proposals opens before the Sub Teams complete their discussion of and make decisions on Sub Team proposals);" (top of page 3) I disagree with that statement. By the current timeline, the individual proposals would need to be submitted by February 6, even though: - data analysis doesn't end until February 13 (and presumably wouldn't be shared with the entire WG until later) - sub-team recommendation discussions aren't completed until February 27 - review of individual proposals doesn't begin until week of March 9-14 (i.e. ICANN64) - review of individual proposals doesn't end until April 17 In my view, any proposals (originating from either individuals or the sub teams themselves) should be based on the analysis of all the data, and so it would make more sense to have the deadline for individual proposals to be at least around March 2 (i.e. a week before their review begins). I think most people who would submit individual proposals would wait until sub team recommendations are shared with the working group (after February 27) before they even *start* working on their own individual proposals, so mid-March might be a more realistic target date (i.e. sometime after ICANN64). Given that review of individual proposals are set to end on April 17, a further argument can be made for an even later date than March 2 (i.e. assuming people aren't intentionally waiting until the last minute, the sub teams can start on the earlier-submitted proposals, yet still permit further proposals to be submitted later). 2. As of the time of this email, IPC members represent roughly half of each sub team, which is far greater than their representation in the GNSO. Thus, this over-representation of a certain viewpoint/perspective creates the potential for that constituency to effectively block/veto Individual Proposals or proposals originating from other constituencies participating in the sub teams from being published in the initial report, due to the proposed process (i.e. sections 1(b), 6 (3rd bullet point), and 7 (2nd and 3rd bullet points) greatly disadvantage individual proposals that don't get through the sub teams "successfully"). In my view, there should be a bias towards inclusion of all proposals, in order to hear from the *entire* community, as consensus ultimately is determined by the full community, and the IPC doesn't have a veto in the GNSO. Being able to block/veto proposals at an early stage would hinder attempts later on towards compromise, as well as the ability to find *combinations* of proposals that can reach consensus (i.e. proposals A and B individually may not have consensus support, but A+B packaged together might reach consensus support as a compromise, if the package of A+B satisfies the concerns of multiple ICANN stakeholder groups). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members,
On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams. Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have.
Best,
Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
participants (4)
-
George Kirikos -
Julie Hedlund -
Mary Wong -
Michael Karanicolas