Comment deadline 4/27 - question
Hi All, I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world. Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date"). How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis? I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss. Best regards, Kathy Kleiman __ ____ __
Hi Kathy, I’m not sure extending the comment period will help much. Does anyone really expect the majority of people to wade through pages of Google forms to express an opinion? I was going to comment on a couple of matters, including making sure IGOs have access to the TMCH but even though I have a reasonable working knowledge of the report I felt on balance it was too much of a time sink to comment substantively. I did try to read the other comment submitted (which now seems to have disappeared) but I couldn’t even access any of the longer fields to read all the text. Also I didn’t have the time to waste looking up what each answer was in response to as the Google form only has recommendations and question numbers so I needed to cross reference everything. All in all, pretty abysmal to be honest. I am curious though if it is someone trying to over engineer comment periods or whether perhaps it’s more serious such as systemic bias leading to complete distain for any input that might be contrary to a predetermined outcome? Best regards, Paul On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world.
Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date").
How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis?
I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss.
Best regards,
Kathy Kleiman
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Paul, all, I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed here by Paul. To be honest, I think it raises a flag and justifies due consideration on whether this new approach is working as intended. As an initial matter, Paul I noticed that you can send a note to < policy-staff@icann.org> for assistance on submitting your comments without having to navigate the online form. It goes unsaid, but it would be very unfortunate if we did not receive the benefit of your constructive ideas.
From my perspective, when one reviews that web page, there is a clear inference (I presume by design) that the online form should be utilized in most cases. However, it well may be that the challenges of navigating the form, combined with the complex policy report and the limited amount of time that is allocated for comment (in comparison to the years of deliberation that go into producing the work product) create a perfect storm instead of rainbows and sunshine.
Paul on background, I believe this new approach came about during Phase 1 of the ePDP on the Temp Spec (for Whois), i.e. it was developed/proposed by the policy support staff team in conjunction with the chair, and then presented to the full ePDP team somewhat as a fait accompli. From my view, that group had bigger fish to fry than to analyze the consequences of relying on this tool going forward for most submissions generally. The circumstances and extreme time constraints imposed on that expedited PDP process was unique, and other standard PDPs are not operating under similar circumstances. That is where my understanding of the history ends, and I leave it others to fill in the blanks or correct me if I misstated any of the facts. If I can take a moment to opine. Sometimes in the process of iteration and working towards making improvements, the risk arises of missing the forest for the trees. On that basis, I think it would be prudent for ICANN org to take a slight pause and consider the impact of this new format on the users of the system. In particular, with regards to the unaffiliated internet user, registrant, company, organization, etc. who fall under ICANN's public interest remit, but who do not have the resources or time to get more involved, attend phone calls, meetings, and collaborate with other participants to lighten the load. For these stakeholders, the public comment process is their sole method of participation, and I think it would be wise for ICANN to have as the highest priority making the submission of public comments as simple as possible. Otherwise, the benefits, e.g. saving resources and generating efficiencies, may be outweighed by a reduction in participation, transparency and/or accountability. That is how I am reading Paul's email. Obviously, the ideal system is one that *encourages* the submission of public comments. To end on a positive note, the good news is we have a very dedicated support team with Mary, Julie, Ariel, etc. who care deeply about the issues and about us as individuals; and the same goes for our fellow community members, including our leadership team, etc. So I trust in the end this will get sorted out. Sorry for the long note on a Monday morning. Hope everyone enjoys their day! Cheers, Claudio On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:50 PM Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Kathy,
I’m not sure extending the comment period will help much. Does anyone really expect the majority of people to wade through pages of Google forms to express an opinion?
I was going to comment on a couple of matters, including making sure IGOs have access to the TMCH but even though I have a reasonable working knowledge of the report I felt on balance it was too much of a time sink to comment substantively.
I did try to read the other comment submitted (which now seems to have disappeared) but I couldn’t even access any of the longer fields to read all the text. Also I didn’t have the time to waste looking up what each answer was in response to as the Google form only has recommendations and question numbers so I needed to cross reference everything.
All in all, pretty abysmal to be honest.
I am curious though if it is someone trying to over engineer comment periods or whether perhaps it’s more serious such as systemic bias leading to complete distain for any input that might be contrary to a predetermined outcome?
Best regards,
Paul
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> wrote:
Hi All,
I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world.
Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date").
How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis?
I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss.
Best regards,
Kathy Kleiman
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Hi Kathy, Claudio, Paul T., All, I’m writing to add my voice to the chorus of folks asking for an extension. We can’t pretend that transformation of work and life that we are all going through will not affect the timeframe in which we can all turn this around. If we remain diligent in the home stretch, we can make up the time lost. I support a modest extension so that everyone feels they have had their chance to speak on these important topics. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> / PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [http://www.taftlaw.com/images/bio-icon.jpg] Taft Bio<http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> [V-Card Icon] Taft vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Subscribe to our law updates<http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe> To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please subscribe here<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe>. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our Resource Toolkit<https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 7:57 AM To: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Comment deadline 4/27 - question Paul, all, I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed here by Paul. To be honest, I think it raises a flag and justifies due consideration on whether this new approach is working as intended. As an initial matter, Paul I noticed that you can send a note to <policy-staff@icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>> for assistance on submitting your comments without having to navigate the online form. It goes unsaid, but it would be very unfortunate if we did not receive the benefit of your constructive ideas. From my perspective, when one reviews that web page, there is a clear inference (I presume by design) that the online form should be utilized in most cases. However, it well may be that the challenges of navigating the form, combined with the complex policy report and the limited amount of time that is allocated for comment (in comparison to the years of deliberation that go into producing the work product) create a perfect storm instead of rainbows and sunshine. Paul on background, I believe this new approach came about during Phase 1 of the ePDP on the Temp Spec (for Whois), i.e. it was developed/proposed by the policy support staff team in conjunction with the chair, and then presented to the full ePDP team somewhat as a fait accompli. From my view, that group had bigger fish to fry than to analyze the consequences of relying on this tool going forward for most submissions generally. The circumstances and extreme time constraints imposed on that expedited PDP process was unique, and other standard PDPs are not operating under similar circumstances. That is where my understanding of the history ends, and I leave it others to fill in the blanks or correct me if I misstated any of the facts. If I can take a moment to opine. Sometimes in the process of iteration and working towards making improvements, the risk arises of missing the forest for the trees. On that basis, I think it would be prudent for ICANN org to take a slight pause and consider the impact of this new format on the users of the system. In particular, with regards to the unaffiliated internet user, registrant, company, organization, etc. who fall under ICANN's public interest remit, but who do not have the resources or time to get more involved, attend phone calls, meetings, and collaborate with other participants to lighten the load. For these stakeholders, the public comment process is their sole method of participation, and I think it would be wise for ICANN to have as the highest priority making the submission of public comments as simple as possible. Otherwise, the benefits, e.g. saving resources and generating efficiencies, may be outweighed by a reduction in participation, transparency and/or accountability. That is how I am reading Paul's email. Obviously, the ideal system is one that encourages the submission of public comments. To end on a positive note, the good news is we have a very dedicated support team with Mary, Julie, Ariel, etc. who care deeply about the issues and about us as individuals; and the same goes for our fellow community members, including our leadership team, etc. So I trust in the end this will get sorted out. Sorry for the long note on a Monday morning. Hope everyone enjoys their day! Cheers, Claudio On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:50 PM Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com<mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Kathy, I’m not sure extending the comment period will help much. Does anyone really expect the majority of people to wade through pages of Google forms to express an opinion? I was going to comment on a couple of matters, including making sure IGOs have access to the TMCH but even though I have a reasonable working knowledge of the report I felt on balance it was too much of a time sink to comment substantively. I did try to read the other comment submitted (which now seems to have disappeared) but I couldn’t even access any of the longer fields to read all the text. Also I didn’t have the time to waste looking up what each answer was in response to as the Google form only has recommendations and question numbers so I needed to cross reference everything. All in all, pretty abysmal to be honest. I am curious though if it is someone trying to over engineer comment periods or whether perhaps it’s more serious such as systemic bias leading to complete distain for any input that might be contrary to a predetermined outcome? Best regards, Paul On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote: Hi All, I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world. Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date"). How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis? I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss. Best regards, Kathy Kleiman _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Trust me, no one wants to close out Phase 1 more than I do. But, I’d rather give it 1 more week than have some folks feeling like they couldn’t get their comments in after 4 years of work. Cyntia King O: +1 816.633.7647 C: +1 818.209.6088 From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D. Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 1:14 PM To: claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com>; Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com>; kathy@kathykleiman.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Comment deadline 4/27 - question Hi Kathy, Claudio, Paul T., All, I’m writing to add my voice to the chorus of folks asking for an extension. We can’t pretend that transformation of work and life that we are all going through will not affect the timeframe in which we can all turn this around. If we remain diligent in the home stretch, we can make up the time lost. I support a modest extension so that everyone feels they have had their chance to speak on these important topics. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady / Partner Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Tel: 312.527.4000 • Fax: 312.754.2354 Direct: 312.836.4094 • Cell: 312.882.5020 <http://www.taftlaw.com> www.taftlaw.com / <mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> PMcGrady@taftlaw.com <http://www.taftlaw.com/images/bio-icon.jpg> <http://www.taftlaw.com/bio/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Taft Bio <http://www.taftlaw.com/images/vcard-icon.jpg> <http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Taft vCard <http://taftlaw.com/news/subscribe> Subscribe to our law updates To opt in to Taft's daily updates on COVID-19, please <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/subscribe> subscribe here. For news and advice on coronavirus-related implications, please review our <https://www.taftlaw.com/general/coronavirus-covid-19-resource-toolkit> Resource Toolkit anytime. This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of claudio di gangi Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 7:57 AM To: Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com <mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Comment deadline 4/27 - question Paul, all, I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed here by Paul. To be honest, I think it raises a flag and justifies due consideration on whether this new approach is working as intended. As an initial matter, Paul I noticed that you can send a note to <policy-staff@icann.org <mailto:policy-staff@icann.org> > for assistance on submitting your comments without having to navigate the online form. It goes unsaid, but it would be very unfortunate if we did not receive the benefit of your constructive ideas.
From my perspective, when one reviews that web page, there is a clear inference (I presume by design) that the online form should be utilized in most cases. However, it well may be that the challenges of navigating the form, combined with the complex policy report and the limited amount of time that is allocated for comment (in comparison to the years of deliberation that go into producing the work product) create a perfect storm instead of rainbows and sunshine.
Paul on background, I believe this new approach came about during Phase 1 of the ePDP on the Temp Spec (for Whois), i.e. it was developed/proposed by the policy support staff team in conjunction with the chair, and then presented to the full ePDP team somewhat as a fait accompli. From my view, that group had bigger fish to fry than to analyze the consequences of relying on this tool going forward for most submissions generally. The circumstances and extreme time constraints imposed on that expedited PDP process was unique, and other standard PDPs are not operating under similar circumstances. That is where my understanding of the history ends, and I leave it others to fill in the blanks or correct me if I misstated any of the facts. If I can take a moment to opine. Sometimes in the process of iteration and working towards making improvements, the risk arises of missing the forest for the trees. On that basis, I think it would be prudent for ICANN org to take a slight pause and consider the impact of this new format on the users of the system. In particular, with regards to the unaffiliated internet user, registrant, company, organization, etc. who fall under ICANN's public interest remit, but who do not have the resources or time to get more involved, attend phone calls, meetings, and collaborate with other participants to lighten the load. For these stakeholders, the public comment process is their sole method of participation, and I think it would be wise for ICANN to have as the highest priority making the submission of public comments as simple as possible. Otherwise, the benefits, e.g. saving resources and generating efficiencies, may be outweighed by a reduction in participation, transparency and/or accountability. That is how I am reading Paul's email. Obviously, the ideal system is one that encourages the submission of public comments. To end on a positive note, the good news is we have a very dedicated support team with Mary, Julie, Ariel, etc. who care deeply about the issues and about us as individuals; and the same goes for our fellow community members, including our leadership team, etc. So I trust in the end this will get sorted out. Sorry for the long note on a Monday morning. Hope everyone enjoys their day! Cheers, Claudio On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:50 PM Paul Tattersfield <gpmgroup@gmail.com <mailto:gpmgroup@gmail.com> > wrote: Hi Kathy, I’m not sure extending the comment period will help much. Does anyone really expect the majority of people to wade through pages of Google forms to express an opinion? I was going to comment on a couple of matters, including making sure IGOs have access to the TMCH but even though I have a reasonable working knowledge of the report I felt on balance it was too much of a time sink to comment substantively. I did try to read the other comment submitted (which now seems to have disappeared) but I couldn’t even access any of the longer fields to read all the text. Also I didn’t have the time to waste looking up what each answer was in response to as the Google form only has recommendations and question numbers so I needed to cross reference everything. All in all, pretty abysmal to be honest. I am curious though if it is someone trying to over engineer comment periods or whether perhaps it’s more serious such as systemic bias leading to complete distain for any input that might be contrary to a predetermined outcome? Best regards, Paul On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 2:45 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com> > wrote: Hi All, I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world. Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date"). How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis? I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss. Best regards, Kathy Kleiman _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Hi Kathy, I work with this topic and comments on behalf of one of the IPC member organisations (FICPI) and it is indeed a difficult working period right now, with most co-operative members and colleagues working from home and there focusing on trying to do the normal daily work. A two week extension - at least - would indeed be helpful and thereby increasing the possibility for interested members and organisations to co-operate and have the possibility to file their comments. All the best, Petter F.I.C.P.I. -- Petter Rindforth, LL M Fenix Legal KB Östermalmstorg 1, 3tr 114 42 Stockholm Sweden Fax:+46 8 50256500 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 19 april 2020 15:44:10 +02:00, skrev Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>:
Hi All,
I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world.
Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date").
How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis?
I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss.
Best regards, Kathy Kleiman
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg> _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy)> and the website Terms of Service (<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos).> You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
I would support an extension. Things move much slower these days and many things are being pushed back. Plus it’s an especially lengthy report with a lot of questions so extending the due date may enable us to receive wider and deeper feedback than otherwise. Lastly, if seeking input internally from one’s organization, people are slower to respond these days. So IMHO it’s not a bad idea to extend the deadline in the circumstances. Zak ________________________________ From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 2:21:59 PM To: Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Comment deadline 4/27 - question Hi Kathy, I work with this topic and comments on behalf of one of the IPC member organisations (FICPI) and it is indeed a difficult working period right now, with most co-operative members and colleagues working from home and there focusing on trying to do the normal daily work. A two week extension - at least - would indeed be helpful and thereby increasing the possibility for interested members and organisations to co-operate and have the possibility to file their comments. All the best, Petter F.I.C.P.I. -- Petter Rindforth, LL M [cid:49D61470-C55F-44F0-AA45-8F4196542C10] Fenix Legal KB Östermalmstorg 1, 3tr 114 42 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46 8 50256500 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 19 april 2020 15:44:10 +02:00, skrev Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>: Hi All, I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world. Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date"). How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis? I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss. Best regards, Kathy Kleiman _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Agreed. Sent from my iPhone On 19 Apr 2020, at 20:22, Petter Rindforth <petter.rindforth@fenixlegal.eu> wrote: Hi Kathy, I work with this topic and comments on behalf of one of the IPC member organisations (FICPI) and it is indeed a difficult working period right now, with most co-operative members and colleagues working from home and there focusing on trying to do the normal daily work. A two week extension - at least - would indeed be helpful and thereby increasing the possibility for interested members and organisations to co-operate and have the possibility to file their comments. All the best, Petter F.I.C.P.I. -- Petter Rindforth, LL M <mime-attachment.jpg> Fenix Legal KB Östermalmstorg 1, 3tr 114 42 Stockholm Sweden Fax: +46 8 50256500 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 19 april 2020 15:44:10 +02:00, skrev Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com>: Hi All, I hope you and your families, firms, organizations and schools are well and safe amidst the COVID19 challenges around the world. Our RPM WG comments are due a week from tomorrow (4/27). This comes even as other comment and related deadlines are being extended (e.g., USPTO is allowing documents "due between (and inclusive of) March 27, 2020, and April 30, 2020" to be considered timely if filed "within 30 days of the original due date"). How has COVID18 affected the companies and organizations we were hoping to reach with this comment period? How should we be considering revising deadlines and other filing issues, if at all, in response to the crisis? I would value your input greatly. The RPM WG Leadership Team is meeting at 9am Eastern tomorrow (Mon) to discuss. Best regards, Kathy Kleiman _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list GNSO-RPM-WG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (9)
-
cking＠modernip.com -
claudio di gangi -
Kathy Kleiman -
McGrady, Paul D. -
mitch＠eff.org -
Paul Keating -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Zak Muscovitch