REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”.
Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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
Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Further to Paul McGrady’s nomination and Marie Pattullo’s second, I also am pleased to support Brian Beckham’s nomination for the third co-chair position, alongside the existing co-chairs, Phil and Kathy, who have worked very hard and made great contributions on behalf of this WG. In my experience, Brian is a thoughtful, communicative, and collaborative individual with deep experience, and who I can see making great contributions in consensus building. Although I do not always see eye to eye with Brian on policy issues, I nevertheless have the highest respect and admiration for him and look forward to the possibility of him becoming a co-chair of this WG. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, Internet Commerce Association *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Marie Pattullo *Sent:* April-23-18 9:04 AM *To:* BECKHAM, Brian; Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie *From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey* *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie *From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie *From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Ditto. Gerald M. Levine From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Zak Muscovitch Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 11:32 AM To: Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be>; BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Further to Paul McGrady’s nomination and Marie Pattullo’s second, I also am pleased to support Brian Beckham’s nomination for the third co-chair position, alongside the existing co-chairs, Phil and Kathy, who have worked very hard and made great contributions on behalf of this WG. In my experience, Brian is a thoughtful, communicative, and collaborative individual with deep experience, and who I can see making great contributions in consensus building. Although I do not always see eye to eye with Brian on policy issues, I nevertheless have the highest respect and admiration for him and look forward to the possibility of him becoming a co-chair of this WG. Zak Muscovitch General Counsel, Internet Commerce Association From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marie Pattullo Sent: April-23-18 9:04 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian; Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com> >; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [ <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> julie.hedlund@icann.org; <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> mcgradygnso@gmail.com Cc: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady < <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund < <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg < <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
All, I¹m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a ³Specification 13² to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN ³working groups² and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless ³eUDRP² that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven¹t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG¹s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott¹s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[g nso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc il_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp 6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Np dh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5f HP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization¹s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: Nominations or self-nominations; Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; Vote by simple majority; Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions².
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote:
Brian,
I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair.
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "Corwin, Philip" < pcorwin@verisign.com>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" < gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
All,
I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination.
Marie
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I concur with the sentiments expressed by others. I think Brian would be a very good third co-chair for the RPM group given the amount of work that is left to do. Thanks Brian for volunteering. Georges From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:44 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>" <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>>, "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] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
I agree. Thank you Brian for volunteering. Flip Flip Petillion fpetillion@petillion.law +32484652653 www.petillion.law [/Users/flippetillion/Library/Containers/com.microsoft.Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_576770299]<http://www.petillion.law/> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Monday, 23 April 2018 at 19:30 To: Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com>, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Cc: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair I concur with the sentiments expressed by others. I think Brian would be a very good third co-chair for the RPM group given the amount of work that is left to do. Thanks Brian for volunteering. Georges From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:44 PM To: Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>" <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>>, "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] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
+1 Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=8V_mfwWzH-QYTHljb5GG5nWdi9mcu_FqGzK_QknW7Dg&s=BJXOu0e-bMrxEy_uxBIMDTlTyy_Rrrio6DdFt9LpQUY&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=Ekb-UfsAICWw8clYHc2dJ---inYlXDb2m4M0Cmg4jfU&e=> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>" <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>>, "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] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf-5Bgnso.icann.org-5D&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=8V_mfwWzH-QYTHljb5GG5nWdi9mcu_FqGzK_QknW7Dg&s=-C7Iq3mbfALANaCdx4zfNql89zBGsPvLMOigge36AjQ&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=8V_mfwWzH-QYTHljb5GG5nWdi9mcu_FqGzK_QknW7Dg&s=vvqCrqtRZn-fn682q7h-oUztPkZmPp85vHPCnPEgGQM&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=8V_mfwWzH-QYTHljb5GG5nWdi9mcu_FqGzK_QknW7Dg&s=vvqCrqtRZn-fn682q7h-oUztPkZmPp85vHPCnPEgGQM&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=DbXb5NzRlFfySrpYFo5BVAT-tqlUAlOQnabB-JqgRYk&m=8V_mfwWzH-QYTHljb5GG5nWdi9mcu_FqGzK_QknW7Dg&s=vvqCrqtRZn-fn682q7h-oUztPkZmPp85vHPCnPEgGQM&e=<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
+1 On April 23, 2018 2:02:46 PM trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com wrote: +1 Best Regards, Marc H.TrachtenbergShareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote: Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com Cc:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
+1 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Doug Isenberg Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 2:55 PM Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair +1 On April 23, 2018 2:02:46 PM trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com<mailto:trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com> wrote: +1 Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com<mailto:mike@rodenbaugh.com>> wrote: Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=Ekb-UfsAICWw8clYHc2dJ---inYlXDb2m4M0Cmg4jfU&e=> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be<mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be>> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>" <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>>, "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] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> _______________________________________________ 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drpm-2Dwg&d=DwMFaQ&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e=> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... ________________________________ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com<mailto:postmaster@gtlaw.com>, and do not use or disseminate such information.
+1 Héctor Ariel Manoff Vitale, Manoff & Feilbogen Viamonte 1145 10º Piso C1053ABW Buenos Aires República Argentina Te: (54-11) 4371-6100 Fax: (54-11) 4371-6365 E-mail: <mailto:amanoff@vmf.com.ar> amanoff@vmf.com.ar Web: <http://www.vmf.com.ar/> http://www.vmf.com.ar **************************************************************************************************************************************************** Esta comunicación tiene como destinatario a la persona o empresa a la cual está dirigida y puede contener información confidencial y reservada. Si el lector de este mensaje no es el destinatario o sus empleados o representantes, deberá proceder a reenviar el presente a su remitente. La distribución, diseminación o copiado de este mensaje podría constituir violación a la ley. Gracias. This email and any files transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address. Thank you. **************************************************************************************************************************************************** De: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] En nombre de Brian Winterfeldt Enviado el: lunes, 23 de abril de 2018 17:29 Para: 'Doug Isenberg' CC: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Asunto: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair +1 _____ <https://www.winterfeldt.law/> https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b1... Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> 1200 17 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> th <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW, <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Ste 501 <x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036 brian@winterfeldt.law +1 202 903 4422 From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Doug Isenberg Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 2:55 PM Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair +1 On April 23, 2018 2:02:46 PM trachtenbergm@gtlaw.com wrote: +1 Best Regards, Marc H.Trachtenberg Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Office (312) 456-1020 Mobile (773) 677-3305 On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote: Me too, thanks very much Brian for stepping up for so much extra work! Best, Mike Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__rodenbaugh.com&d=DwMFaQ&...> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> wrote: Brian, I am happy to see you volunteer. I am in favor of your becoming the 3rd co-chair. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marie Pattullo <marie.pattullo@aim.be> Date: Monday, April 23, 2018 at 3:03 PM To: "BECKHAM, Brian" <brian.beckham@wipo.int>, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin@verisign.com>, "julie.hedlund@icann.org" <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "mcgradygnso@gmail.com" <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [ <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> julie.hedlund@icann.org; <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> mcgradygnso@gmail.com Cc: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...> https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_li...> &d=DwICAg&c=2s2mvbfY0UoSKkl6_Ol9wg&r=L7MB7eHT-UoCXD4iA3c7Sm3JrKXt7T1dG3NjBzCxm1c&m=2S3havEpUsLPirt3Ir3V6o98M8V983esnN212Ih0SG4&s=JOw8RmFo60kV33utVE9sctorNkKdpoqjC5M7MjzifYg&e= _____ If you are not an intended recipient of confidential and privileged information in this email, please delete it, notify us immediately at postmaster@gtlaw.com, and do not use or disseminate such information.
Marie: The answer to your inquiry is in the last post in the thread below. I have pasted the relevant sections from the GNSO WG Guidelines into my reply. Given the multiple endorsements that Brian has received since accepting the nomination, and the lack of any objections, it appears likely that Brian will be handily elected. If that occurs then I look forward to working with him in the administration of this WG, and I know that Kathy does as well. Our tentative agenda for the May 2nd WG call is Report from the Documents Sub Team, and Further discussion on URS Phase II proposal (dedicating one hour to this important proposal for a Charter modification, so that if there is substantial support we can get a request to Council for its May meeting -- and leaving time to poll the full WG if the level of support and opposition needs to be clarified). Because of that heavy agenda for the first call in May we were planning to schedule a period on the May 9th call in which WG members could engage with Brian, after which we can immediately hold an election for him to be approved as co-chair. As the highlighted section below makes clear, as soon as the election is concluded Brian may assume co-chair duties on a provisional basis pending approval by Council. I hope that answers your inquiry as to how this process will develop. Best, Philip GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> “2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. (Emphasis added) Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Marie Pattullo [mailto:marie.pattullo@aim.be] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:04 AM To: BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair All, I’m not sure how this process should develop but I am more than happy to second/support/welcome this nomination. Marie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 10:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com<mailto:pcorwin@verisign.com>>; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially. I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including: 1. Soundstop.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf 2. AustinPain.com -- http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts... 3. SDT.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-ud... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf 4. Moobitalk.com -- http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1... https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arre... (actual decision) It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
George, all, Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community. The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions. Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted: <Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings. <sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course. <Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence. --- In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team. Hope this helps. Best regards, Claudio On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann- overturns-udrp-decision-court/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com -- http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod. 147273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. SDT.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for- filing-a-frivolous-udrp/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com -- http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5- 7233a147b62c https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de- paris-pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
*Soundstop*, *Austin Pain* and *SDT* are all *settlements*. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law. These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose. Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.) In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to *Soundstop*, *Austin Pain* and *SDT*. *Moobitalk* is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page. Again I should note that *Moobitalk* doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour." Greg On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns- udrp-decision-court/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com -- http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147 273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. SDT.com -- http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filin g-a-frivolous-udrp/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com -- http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc- 416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris- pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Greg: A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here: 1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain 2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside" 3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged" 4. Moobitalk.com - you concede Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes). Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com: S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010 http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases. Nice try, though. :-) Q.E.D. George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts...
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-ud... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1...
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arre... (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George K With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle cases for any number of reasons. These often include business decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way, there are many cases that involve appeals that are no more than hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Greg: A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here: 1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain 2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside" 3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged" 4. Moobitalk.com - you concede Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes). Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com: S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010 http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases. Nice try, though. :-) Q.E.D. George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi on-court/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov. uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv olous-udrp/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a 5-7233a147b62c
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Of course, none of this has any relevance on Brian Beckham's qualifications to serve as co-chair. (And, in any event, the list of court cases that WIPO publishes is accurately labeled; is more than any provider has done, AFAIK; and is not required by ICANN.) Doug -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:53 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair George K With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle cases for any number of reasons. These often include business decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way, there are many cases that involve appeals that are no more t han hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | www.kilpatricktownsend.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Greg: A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here: 1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain 2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside" 3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged" 4. Moobitalk.com - you concede Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes). Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com: S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010 http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases. Nice try, though. :-) Q.E.D. George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a
legal
principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi on-court/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov. uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv olous-udrp/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a 5-7233a147b62c
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be
wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George K. Of the settlements referenced that you inflate as "judicial outcomes" which one do you believe states the basis upon which justice was served? Which settlement shows judicial analysis of case precedent applied to facts, even to the level of a summary proceeding with findings like the UDRP? Which one states that one party won and the other lost? Unless you were a party to the settlement, the only thing the settlement proves is that litigation ended, for any of the myriad reasons Georges N. and Greg listed, including nuisance value, given the uncertainty of outcome in any proceeding - including UDRP, and the certainty of expense, especially in federal court. Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:53 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair George K With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle cases for any number of reasons. These often include business decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way, there are many cases that involve appeals that are n o more t han hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kilpatricktownsend.c... -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Greg: A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here: 1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,1,1UOI... -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain 2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,ScW... -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside" 3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,n2WgoTPTcd... -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged" 4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,cmXU... - you concede Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes). Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,CyK...: S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexport%2fs... which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases. Nice try, though. :-) Q.E.D. George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,0Xb... On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c= E,1,6G_oCGC3Ekc6y0cFR2wCgql0aBHfhbfd5ctt4XHOS5h-MfIEDA13S2n-BA8xpFHzUKyRG45gI3S7NYvDCsVp0CBOzxHYV7g2pWq7y7I56TqLt_E,&typo=1> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsdt.com&c=E,1,m9 SDW5vPm2L2W0pVTIOxt9-pQZGi53q0-n8wVgHpUOzq9T0a87YQgkDkZgQW72yuyl7y3q1q8FF1tZkyBfKjCxpqFVsPx98NxgA7pUahqx-QsKbSoIozbdQ,&typo=1> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,QjuI...> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fam c%2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,9ToonqUTvs17BWn4BwAW3dX08S7xU wJuJio7LrcA88JbaxiRhN-SuccDsQ2J5mien2Y4usweW-0GNNPxU_Y3OjzLqCFWwF_V0 vtbivbx_XiHb-KlwA,,&typo=1
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c= E,1,r9MFzB-VevJWHWQw1NgGhu5_Qm5eNP2Qj28pdcyzgk2VoruiiveNSEdK-GJUWPCw 2e9ntYWcM_HukpII4nkIkFTCkLvgfuAgli57NTVM1HCPEZlBQobMyDc0uQ,,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.co m%2f2016%2f07%2f21%2fmike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi&c=E,1,UaIjapATb GEJJr29OHE3FgwDqU66Z1IV7ZlY5FqW30xPb2fdsntrd0bYgWhXGowAwir89q-dOaYIC xrUeLIQTPgF2QIUvjXDDT-DNCJqhinG-9g,&typo=1 on-court/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c om%2fwp-content%2fsoundstop-1.pdf&c=E,1,5YnTkZ5E8CdBrDd8HfM-yP8aiW8X ivAEkehtRAqHIXzZD-c_KZZ1hCOv4fxB4dyLy3c7mDs8yAtvTP1jMKpawvLOMaXlZ-eo szFZyjf7i8yE74DDnXVsrQ,,&typo=1
2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c =E,1,8mQ3IRTAhl0IZIrxSYfxtoaHrWySOxhoal7SVF9o8HSTmkLU2DqrH56Qoz1Mhzk gqIzTtXWOYfrzbBfadZdmNylc0Gp1NdsmNmXQ0tyNcIFb&typo=1 --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov. uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,4Z yljat3VECb3_K5JcLQjYFhSh_zo6tlJqtF2-tfJvUuYqRtOKFZ0fyNkADhCtfqy50CiD t6i711vK_TdMfqKbbLXquEs30H0beB0usSpk6CYS3jpqg,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.co m%2f2015%2f07%2f22%2f50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv&c=E,1,ghF-h_Nkp Drphr3ruXB2X8Mn3Mp9GB0mQ4-2sT2YZILzzvM_20xrQvq1ZZF0AWfD0CkdenrmPOJCN xGOYDkMWMQnNCGmovXz7vn9an4LmrrAnUeYrmMB8i4h&typo=1 olous-udrp/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c om%2fwp-content%2fSDT-settlement1.pdf&c=E,1,9NBwxSKIXz78y3Cve_1Hz1_7 KrLUwv-OtedxJ9qONJ2H4mMTem2pT-YKVaOrvhzC64spm5ljyKvpyX8p48r6FHfBAEl_ u5rOrc-6Fw7ltItWNBDcnm7wcCA-&typo=1
4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c= E,1,9YlPgjAXMhjC2S9xwsQn68QYpWGPU-ax0iWZZr8LHtZzeukuygcRoB3lsIEt5_v3 8dlGPRrPnBVHdh3-We7Dtj71KjEczv3uhOjiIarkyaP57xhGe3hO2Vs,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lexology.com% 2flibrary%2fdetail.aspx%3fg%3d5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a&c=E,1,q5gDFHiDp rb72jDV8gs7NovfzXrNHkO0JVNMB3x7l4EW_LpJUkIhSmnUEerEH66a4SPZHhke_di3h vPH05itSM6aGaJ997o4BvWMhjGHEEbubti1&typo=1 5-7233a147b62c
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.legalis.net% 2fjurisprudences%2fcour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c&c=E,1,iYEik6JFKF6vH 7GFt2bQlaAmxv-rv-wt9VVr9hIIlEcUEWD7lxX3jED75lTwAPH7MH4w6dQWT5IjWedGc Qq_vTQk8fgSatqwEJYgrmGH4X0Ecf3aa_jr&typo=1 h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c =E,1,yPf4qHsRcG91O3VcAUuxc3uj4rOdqRu2ALw2EEbAVl-4RIkiMcBCejzNFQPbFDr 0_3RkrbeMXu8cRXSbS8BWhOReUN70B5R3JjHxnAGuOqVszjpySvA,&typo=1 _______________________________________________ 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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
Scott: Recall that Verizon "settled" its case with iREIT: http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/ http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit/ Does anyone actually believe this was a mere "nuisance" settlement, etc? No, Verizon and David Steele (their lawyer) kicked their butt! (especially that "Exhibit 5", bravo) I and others were cheering Verizon on, because Verizon was right! We have balanced opinions -- we hate cybersquatting (just like you), but we *also* hate reverse domain name hijacking. I'm confident each of the domain name owners in those cases WIPO should be posting feel quite vindicated, that they kept the domain and/or received money. One can go to the pleadings, to assess the strength of each case. Many folks are intelligent and can "read between the lines." As I said before, a "red car" is still a car. WIPO already published a previous consent order. Similarly, Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
George K.
Of the settlements referenced that you inflate as "judicial outcomes" which one do you believe states the basis upon which justice was served? Which settlement shows judicial analysis of case precedent applied to facts, even to the level of a summary proceeding with findings like the UDRP? Which one states that one party won and the other lost? Unless you were a party to the settlement, the only thing the settlement proves is that litigation ended, for any of the myriad reasons Georges N. and Greg listed, including nuisance value, given the uncertainty of outcome in any proceeding - including UDRP, and the certainty of expense, especially in federal court.
Best regards, Scott
Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call
Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:53 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
George K
With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle cases for any number of reasons. These often include business decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way, there are many cases that involve appeals that are n o more t han hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement
Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kilpatricktownsend.c...
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,1,1UOI... -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,ScW... -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,n2WgoTPTcd... -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,cmXU... - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,CyK...:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexport%2fs...
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,0Xb...
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c= E,1,6G_oCGC3Ekc6y0cFR2wCgql0aBHfhbfd5ctt4XHOS5h-MfIEDA13S2n-BA8xpFHzUKyRG45gI3S7NYvDCsVp0CBOzxHYV7g2pWq7y7I56TqLt_E,&typo=1> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsdt.com&c=E,1,m9 SDW5vPm2L2W0pVTIOxt9-pQZGi53q0-n8wVgHpUOzq9T0a87YQgkDkZgQW72yuyl7y3q1q8FF1tZkyBfKjCxpqFVsPx98NxgA7pUahqx-QsKbSoIozbdQ,&typo=1> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,QjuI...> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fam c%2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,9ToonqUTvs17BWn4BwAW3dX08S7xU wJuJio7LrcA88JbaxiRhN-SuccDsQ2J5mien2Y4usweW-0GNNPxU_Y3OjzLqCFWwF_V0 vtbivbx_XiHb-KlwA,,&typo=1
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c= E,1,r9MFzB-VevJWHWQw1NgGhu5_Qm5eNP2Qj28pdcyzgk2VoruiiveNSEdK-GJUWPCw 2e9ntYWcM_HukpII4nkIkFTCkLvgfuAgli57NTVM1HCPEZlBQobMyDc0uQ,,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.co m%2f2016%2f07%2f21%2fmike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi&c=E,1,UaIjapATb GEJJr29OHE3FgwDqU66Z1IV7ZlY5FqW30xPb2fdsntrd0bYgWhXGowAwir89q-dOaYIC xrUeLIQTPgF2QIUvjXDDT-DNCJqhinG-9g,&typo=1 on-court/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c om%2fwp-content%2fsoundstop-1.pdf&c=E,1,5YnTkZ5E8CdBrDd8HfM-yP8aiW8X ivAEkehtRAqHIXzZD-c_KZZ1hCOv4fxB4dyLy3c7mDs8yAtvTP1jMKpawvLOMaXlZ-eo szFZyjf7i8yE74DDnXVsrQ,,&typo=1
2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c =E,1,8mQ3IRTAhl0IZIrxSYfxtoaHrWySOxhoal7SVF9o8HSTmkLU2DqrH56Qoz1Mhzk gqIzTtXWOYfrzbBfadZdmNylc0Gp1NdsmNmXQ0tyNcIFb&typo=1 --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov. uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,4Z yljat3VECb3_K5JcLQjYFhSh_zo6tlJqtF2-tfJvUuYqRtOKFZ0fyNkADhCtfqy50CiD t6i711vK_TdMfqKbbLXquEs30H0beB0usSpk6CYS3jpqg,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.co m%2f2015%2f07%2f22%2f50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv&c=E,1,ghF-h_Nkp Drphr3ruXB2X8Mn3Mp9GB0mQ4-2sT2YZILzzvM_20xrQvq1ZZF0AWfD0CkdenrmPOJCN xGOYDkMWMQnNCGmovXz7vn9an4LmrrAnUeYrmMB8i4h&typo=1 olous-udrp/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c om%2fwp-content%2fSDT-settlement1.pdf&c=E,1,9NBwxSKIXz78y3Cve_1Hz1_7 KrLUwv-OtedxJ9qONJ2H4mMTem2pT-YKVaOrvhzC64spm5ljyKvpyX8p48r6FHfBAEl_ u5rOrc-6Fw7ltItWNBDcnm7wcCA-&typo=1
4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c= E,1,9YlPgjAXMhjC2S9xwsQn68QYpWGPU-ax0iWZZr8LHtZzeukuygcRoB3lsIEt5_v3 8dlGPRrPnBVHdh3-We7Dtj71KjEczv3uhOjiIarkyaP57xhGe3hO2Vs,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lexology.com% 2flibrary%2fdetail.aspx%3fg%3d5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a&c=E,1,q5gDFHiDp rb72jDV8gs7NovfzXrNHkO0JVNMB3x7l4EW_LpJUkIhSmnUEerEH66a4SPZHhke_di3h vPH05itSM6aGaJ997o4BvWMhjGHEEbubti1&typo=1 5-7233a147b62c
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.legalis.net% 2fjurisprudences%2fcour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c&c=E,1,iYEik6JFKF6vH 7GFt2bQlaAmxv-rv-wt9VVr9hIIlEcUEWD7lxX3jED75lTwAPH7MH4w6dQWT5IjWedGc Qq_vTQk8fgSatqwEJYgrmGH4X0Ecf3aa_jr&typo=1 h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c =E,1,yPf4qHsRcG91O3VcAUuxc3uj4rOdqRu2ALw2EEbAVl-4RIkiMcBCejzNFQPbFDr 0_3RkrbeMXu8cRXSbS8BWhOReUN70B5R3JjHxnAGuOqVszjpySvA,&typo=1 _______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
Agree w/ Doug Isenberg - this thread (including requests for WIPO to update it's website) is extraneous & has nothing to do w/ the qualifications of Brian Beckham & his ability to serve as a non-partisan co-chair. My Observation: To-date Brian has been respectful of multiple POVs, is knowledgeable & has agreed to take on a task most of us would avoid. I support Brian Beckham as an RPM group co-chair. Cyntia King E: cking@modernip O: +1 81-ModernIP C: +1 818.209.6088 -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 10:55 AM To: Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Scott: Recall that Verizon "settled" its case with iREIT: <http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/> http://www.loffs.org/verizon-vs-ireit/ <http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit/> http://www.circleid.com/posts/verizon_ireit_court_lawsuit/ Does anyone actually believe this was a mere "nuisance" settlement, etc? No, Verizon and David Steele (their lawyer) kicked their butt! (especially that "Exhibit 5", bravo) I and others were cheering Verizon on, because Verizon was right! We have balanced opinions -- we hate cybersquatting (just like you), but we *also* hate reverse domain name hijacking. I'm confident each of the domain name owners in those cases WIPO should be posting feel quite vindicated, that they kept the domain and/or received money. One can go to the pleadings, to assess the strength of each case. Many folks are intelligent and can "read between the lines." As I said before, a "red car" is still a car. WIPO already published a previous consent order. Similarly, Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 <http://www.leap.com/> http://www.leap.com/ On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Scott Austin < <mailto:SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
George K.
Of the settlements referenced that you inflate as "judicial outcomes" which one do you believe states the basis upon which justice was served? Which settlement shows judicial analysis of case precedent applied to facts, even to the level of a summary proceeding with findings like the UDRP? Which one states that one party won and the other lost? Unless you were a party to the settlement, the only thing the settlement proves is that litigation ended, for any of the myriad reasons Georges N. and Greg listed, including nuisance value, given the uncertainty of outcome in any proceeding - including UDRP, and the certainty of expense, especially in federal court.
Best regards,
Scott
Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule:
a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call
Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP
Law Group LLP
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | <mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg < <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of
Nahitchevansky, Georges
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:53 AM
To: George Kirikos < <mailto:icann@leap.com> icann@leap.com>; Greg Shatan
< <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
Working Group Co-Chair
George K
With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not
mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty
or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a
meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle
cases for any number of reasons. These often include business
decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a
litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the
losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean
that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a
judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be
able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because
the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand
owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly
lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way,
there are many cases that involve appeals that are n o mo
re t han hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement
Georges Nahitchevansky
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY
10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820
<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com |
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kilpatricktown> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kilpatricktown
send.com&c=E,1,rRq9TKQK6kPNdPQGWK6YrBSpdTn20mE_28VAGKjQyTa9SVmX466jIap
r60xWkn3I-JKUvbr7KjIonTmzP3RVCM2eu0-Zi4-tMWlDx3-xsffTmnhdCj0exeuI&typo
=1
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rpm-wg [ <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of
George Kirikos
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM
To: Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
Cc: <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
Working Group Co-Chair
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,
1,1UOIpaLoOcwYcULVS1KDFtuBKeYuclqgLN0XYuFMQfIBcVwysa9cZK4e39z1ulDiTFOD
mVlRskJlhU9bYqdTDfa7jp9wSZWOq0g6z0bLWqU933kONIQa9eiqO5c,&typo=1 --
Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,Sc WPIRoJqQdbYD-udNqlxB6ZkNJ2WcdBcuz5IrZml7NpE8M2q-S9L4YzYS9H-65MyVr21befjPE-xG ExgDIF3nOY9B81KKja5zIrkP1SbzwToIJBwA,,&typo=1> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,ScW PIRoJqQdbYD-udNqlxB6ZkNJ2WcdBcuz5IrZml7NpE8M2q-S9L4YzYS9H-65MyVr21befjPE-xGE xgDIF3nOY9B81KKja5zIrkP1SbzwToIJBwA,,&typo=1 -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,n2Wg> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,n2Wg
oTPTcdx8WFte8HkmNulLeV8M1cMLSA171AM6a9ONyYX2F2PlvzTCcHXIViM2MzGCQyco_6
im5noaikJi1WSOAjol-v8mD7NHTPehZW99oD_6T2sciw,,&typo=1 -- Telepathy
(domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets
$50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,
1,cmXU5UwTM-QnlFIef5N22Dzf8q1mxdJmyOmUGudPw4q_MCyl1KyESzwY9x2d_WOxa14r
MitOUSRV2BiiHawYN3iaDZM65VJzDTPMr6s6HOscmwY4&typo=1 - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,Cy KiEVKNrCUQ0BPKM-FsAM7yk5UVrEX0zV_kHaronjPf7Pvpjc8jBTEq9_DCIXWzbuPYxlhF6YXzd8 ZD8OaYzhR2ZaenPiZ6-kXwpFI-LR1ZBw,,&typo=1> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,CyK iEVKNrCUQ0BPKM-FsAM7yk5UVrEX0zV_kHaronjPf7Pvpjc8jBTEq9_DCIXWzbuPYxlhF6YXzd8Z D8OaYzhR2ZaenPiZ6-kXwpFI-LR1ZBw,,&typo=1:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexpo> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexpo
rt%2fsites%2fwww%2famc%2fen%2fdocs%2fcourtorderd2009-1520.pdf&c=E,1,lN
eZ2HW4BCBQNYGIAlZYtPGXvd0-BEOXKjoETqn8kKlCRsmAC8e5PYAyol5M30hHA_-zu7M3
8ijtYibNGMSZp1IVMOVfUUdoNvIqaOQYkau1b3mbIA,,&typo=1
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!].
That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong
--- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E
,1,0XbrabFaJNzZ_nlkTLfmmNXYT0sFSARluHWaimX3zIwxLUBulVqU2X4-WwnZ7_mH40l
6UO7Jna-hgeRdbENvQfryALpSbz2GHaT6ss7O_m3jyBmtIeM,&typo=1
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is
entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as
"orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court
orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private
agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but
there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a
third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court
actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision.
They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not
represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law
school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are
reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point,"
she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse
of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases
that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read
this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of
those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a
cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be
the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much
into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop,
Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two
court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those
looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases.
In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in
my
case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select
UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the
other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name
hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice,"
and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or
appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi
< <mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com> ipcdigangi@gmail.com>
wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not
publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a
requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they
have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these
are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive,
updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c
=
E,1,6G_oCGC3Ekc6y0cFR2wCgql0aBHfhbfd5ctt4XHOS5h-MfIEDA13S2n-BA8xpFHzUKyRG45g I3S7NYvDCsVp0CBOzxHYV7g2pWq7y7I56TqLt_E,&typo=1> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsdt.com&c=E,1,m
9
SDW5vPm2L2W0pVTIOxt9-pQZGi53q0-n8wVgHpUOzq9T0a87YQgkDkZgQW72yuyl7y3q1q8FF1tZ kyBfKjCxpqFVsPx98NxgA7pUahqx-QsKbSoIozbdQ,&typo=1> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
< <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,Qju I8Zqnd6Gc1dhsGD84YGwr9k71xvn2deHPz7ZDMdmUVIDQF8rvLF_wWgUwh32nTT-oiODuA94BUga tIKxKFPqJndzb_RVDsZUtDiEI&typo=1> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,QjuI 8Zqnd6Gc1dhsGD84YGwr9k71xvn2deHPz7ZDMdmUVIDQF8rvLF_wWgUwh32nTT-oiODuA94BUgat IKxKFPqJndzb_RVDsZUtDiEI&typo=1> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal
principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP.
This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this
decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general
applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is
willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role.
As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently
qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos < <mailto:icann@leap.com> icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs,
I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with
the working group guidelines which place constraints on their
behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.).
It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his
commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to
update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fa> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fa
m
c%2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,9ToonqUTvs17BWn4BwAW3dX08S7x
U
wJuJio7LrcA88JbaxiRhN-SuccDsQ2J5mien2Y4usweW-0GNNPxU_Y3OjzLqCFWwF_V
0
vtbivbx_XiHb-KlwA,,&typo=1
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention
in the past, including:
1.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c
=
E,1,r9MFzB-VevJWHWQw1NgGhu5_Qm5eNP2Qj28pdcyzgk2VoruiiveNSEdK-GJUWPC
w
2e9ntYWcM_HukpII4nkIkFTCkLvgfuAgli57NTVM1HCPEZlBQobMyDc0uQ,,&typo=1
--
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c
o
m%2f2016%2f07%2f21%2fmike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi&c=E,1,UaIjapAT
b
GEJJr29OHE3FgwDqU66Z1IV7ZlY5FqW30xPb2fdsntrd0bYgWhXGowAwir89q-dOaYI
C
xrUeLIQTPgF2QIUvjXDDT-DNCJqhinG-9g,&typo=1
on-court/
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.
c
om%2fwp-content%2fsoundstop-1.pdf&c=E,1,5YnTkZ5E8CdBrDd8HfM-yP8aiW8
X
ivAEkehtRAqHIXzZD-c_KZZ1hCOv4fxB4dyLy3c7mDs8yAtvTP1jMKpawvLOMaXlZ-e
o
szFZyjf7i8yE74DDnXVsrQ,,&typo=1
2.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&
c
=E,1,8mQ3IRTAhl0IZIrxSYfxtoaHrWySOxhoal7SVF9o8HSTmkLU2DqrH56Qoz1Mhz
k
gqIzTtXWOYfrzbBfadZdmNylc0Gp1NdsmNmXQ0tyNcIFb&typo=1 --
<http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov> http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.
uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,4> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,4
Z
yljat3VECb3_K5JcLQjYFhSh_zo6tlJqtF2-tfJvUuYqRtOKFZ0fyNkADhCtfqy50Ci
D
t6i711vK_TdMfqKbbLXquEs30H0beB0usSpk6CYS3jpqg,&typo=1 --
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c
o
m%2f2015%2f07%2f22%2f50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv&c=E,1,ghF-h_Nk
p
Drphr3ruXB2X8Mn3Mp9GB0mQ4-2sT2YZILzzvM_20xrQvq1ZZF0AWfD0CkdenrmPOJC
N
xGOYDkMWMQnNCGmovXz7vn9an4LmrrAnUeYrmMB8i4h&typo=1
olous-udrp/
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.
c
om%2fwp-content%2fSDT-settlement1.pdf&c=E,1,9NBwxSKIXz78y3Cve_1Hz1_
7
KrLUwv-OtedxJ9qONJ2H4mMTem2pT-YKVaOrvhzC64spm5ljyKvpyX8p48r6FHfBAEl
_
u5rOrc-6Fw7ltItWNBDcnm7wcCA-&typo=1
4.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c
=
E,1,9YlPgjAXMhjC2S9xwsQn68QYpWGPU-ax0iWZZr8LHtZzeukuygcRoB3lsIEt5_v
3
8dlGPRrPnBVHdh3-We7Dtj71KjEczv3uhOjiIarkyaP57xhGe3hO2Vs,&typo=1 --
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lexology.com> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lexology.com
%
2flibrary%2fdetail.aspx%3fg%3d5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a&c=E,1,q5gDFHiD
p
rb72jDV8gs7NovfzXrNHkO0JVNMB3x7l4EW_LpJUkIhSmnUEerEH66a4SPZHhke_di3
h
vPH05itSM6aGaJ997o4BvWMhjGHEEbubti1&typo=1
5-7233a147b62c
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.legalis.net> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.legalis.net
%
2fjurisprudences%2fcour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c&c=E,1,iYEik6JFKF6v
H
7GFt2bQlaAmxv-rv-wt9VVr9hIIlEcUEWD7lxX3jED75lTwAPH7MH4w6dQWT5IjWedG
c
Qq_vTQk8fgSatqwEJYgrmGH4X0Ecf3aa_jr&typo=1
h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/
(actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges
are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert
"record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other
side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name
hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice.
If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos
416-588-0269
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&
c
=E,1,yPf4qHsRcG91O3VcAUuxc3uj4rOdqRu2ALw2EEbAVl-4RIkiMcBCejzNFQPbFD
r
0_3RkrbeMXu8cRXSbS8BWhOReUN70B5R3JjHxnAGuOqVszjpySvA,&typo=1
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<mailto: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
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <mailto: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
George: Thanks for the link to the initial Verizon pleadings, but I think they make the same point. I too prefer to cheer on those who are right, but without the underlying pleadings, including discovery, or the facts applied to law and analyzed in a judicial opinion or administrative decision, it may be very difficult to identify who was right in a case that ended through settlement. And I think the car analogy you are using misses the point. A car is static. Cases on the other hand, whether court or administrative proceedings like UDRP or URS, are dynamic. I propose a case is more like a race, with litigants (cars?) that enter a starting gate, follow rules of the road, and are subject to determinations of track officials, including someone holding a checkered flag to bring the race to an end and declare a winner after those involved have completed the course. So whatever the make, model or color your car is, it won’t tell you who won the race . And an order approving a settlement, would be similar to an agreement by the participants to pull out of the race early, with an approval flag from the officials, for reasons the racers may or may not disclose. One or both may have run out of gas, punctured a tire or realized too late their car wasn't properly designed to complete the race. They may even get the officials to approve leaving the race early like an order approving a settlement, but unless they declare a winner, there is none and we can only speculate who would have won the race had it been completed. An order approving a consent settlement, like a race abandoned before the finish line gives no guidance on how to win the next one. In this context a red car may be still a red car, but an order approving a settlement is not an order granting a motion to dismiss, and a consent judgment is not an opinion. The Verizon pleadings don't predict who would have won if the case went to trial and the drivers had finished the race. And nuisance value is relative. Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com -----Original Message----- From: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:55 AM To: Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Scott: Recall that Verizon "settled" its case with iREIT: https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.loffs.org%2fverizon-v... https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.circleid.com%2fposts%... Does anyone actually believe this was a mere "nuisance" settlement, etc? No, Verizon and David Steele (their lawyer) kicked their butt! (especially that "Exhibit 5", bravo) I and others were cheering Verizon on, because Verizon was right! We have balanced opinions -- we hate cybersquatting (just like you), but we *also* hate reverse domain name hijacking. I'm confident each of the domain name owners in those cases WIPO should be posting feel quite vindicated, that they kept the domain and/or received money. One can go to the pleadings, to assess the strength of each case. Many folks are intelligent and can "read between the lines." As I said before, a "red car" is still a car. WIPO already published a previous consent order. Similarly, Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,e1k... On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:15 AM, Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
George K.
Of the settlements referenced that you inflate as "judicial outcomes" which one do you believe states the basis upon which justice was served? Which settlement shows judicial analysis of case precedent applied to facts, even to the level of a summary proceeding with findings like the UDRP? Which one states that one party won and the other lost? Unless you were a party to the settlement, the only thing the settlement proves is that litigation ended, for any of the myriad reasons Georges N. and Greg listed, including nuisance value, given the uncertainty of outcome in any proceeding - including UDRP, and the certainty of expense, especially in federal court.
Best regards, Scott
Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call a 30-minute call a 60-minute call
Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Nahitchevansky, Georges Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:53 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com>; Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
George K
With all due respect, the fact that a party settles a case does not mean that their case was deficient, that the UDRP decision was faulty or deficient, or that the appealing respondent or complainant had a meritorious case. Any attorney will tell you that parties settle cases for any number of reasons. These often include business decisions based on the cost, time and effort to be expended in a litigation. The mere fact that a brand owner paid some money to the losing Respondent means nothing about the merits. It may just mean that instead of spending gobs of money on a litigation to get a judgment against a party to only get the domain name (and never be able to collect monetary damages, or possible attorneys fees, because the defendant is shady or essentially judgment proof), that brand owner simply decides as a business decision to pay a significantly lower amount to get the matter resolved quickly. Put another way, there are many cases that involve appeals that are n o more t han hold up suits that get resolved because the company facing the suit does not want to spend the time and money on a case that they know will cost them way more than simply settling. Similarly, respondents who lose and get into a litigation sometimes settle because they know they are going to face significant damages, the possible seizing of their portfolio of domain name to satisfy a judgment and the time and cost of litigating (in other words, they appeal a UDRP and then face a party who will go the distance to prove their rights). That is not say that there aren't meritorious cases, but to read something into a settlement is more or less a pointless exercise and involves speculation as to what motivated the parties to settle. Greg's point as to adjudicated orders and decisions is correct. They have way more probative value than a settlement
Georges Nahitchevansky Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The Grace Building | 1114 Avenue of the Americas | New York, NY 10036-7703 office 212 775 8720 | fax 212 775 8820 ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com | https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.kilpatricktown send.com&c=E,1,rRq9TKQK6kPNdPQGWK6YrBSpdTn20mE_28VAGKjQyTa9SVmX466jIap r60xWkn3I-JKUvbr7KjIonTmzP3RVCM2eu0-Zi4-tMWlDx3-xsffTmnhdCj0exeuI&typo =1
-----Original Message----- From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of George Kirikos Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:50 AM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E, 1,1UOIpaLoOcwYcULVS1KDFtuBKeYuclqgLN0XYuFMQfIBcVwysa9cZK4e39z1ulDiTFOD mVlRskJlhU9bYqdTDfa7jp9wSZWOq0g6z0bLWqU933kONIQa9eiqO5c,&typo=1 -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,ScW... -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,n2Wg oTPTcdx8WFte8HkmNulLeV8M1cMLSA171AM6a9ONyYX2F2PlvzTCcHXIViM2MzGCQyco_6 im5noaikJi1WSOAjol-v8mD7NHTPehZW99oD_6T2sciw,,&typo=1 -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E, 1,cmXU5UwTM-QnlFIef5N22Dzf8q1mxdJmyOmUGudPw4q_MCyl1KyESzwY9x2d_WOxa14r MitOUSRV2BiiHawYN3iaDZM65VJzDTPMr6s6HOscmwY4&typo=1 - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,CyK...:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fexpo rt%2fsites%2fwww%2famc%2fen%2fdocs%2fcourtorderd2009-1520.pdf&c=E,1,lN eZ2HW4BCBQNYGIAlZYtPGXvd0-BEOXKjoETqn8kKlCRsmAC8e5PYAyol5M30hHA_-zu7M3 8ijtYibNGMSZp1IVMOVfUUdoNvIqaOQYkau1b3mbIA,,&typo=1
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E ,1,0XbrabFaJNzZ_nlkTLfmmNXYT0sFSARluHWaimX3zIwxLUBulVqU2X4-WwnZ7_mH40l 6UO7Jna-hgeRdbENvQfryALpSbz2GHaT6ss7O_m3jyBmtIeM,&typo=1
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c = E,1,6G_oCGC3Ekc6y0cFR2wCgql0aBHfhbfd5ctt4XHOS5h-MfIEDA13S2n-BA8xpFHzUKyRG45gI3S7NYvDCsVp0CBOzxHYV7g2pWq7y7I56TqLt_E,&typo=1> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fsdt.com&c=E,1,m 9 SDW5vPm2L2W0pVTIOxt9-pQZGi53q0-n8wVgHpUOzq9T0a87YQgkDkZgQW72yuyl7y3q1q8FF1tZkyBfKjCxpqFVsPx98NxgA7pUahqx-QsKbSoIozbdQ,&typo=1> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,QjuI...> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2fa m c%2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,9ToonqUTvs17BWn4BwAW3dX08S7x U wJuJio7LrcA88JbaxiRhN-SuccDsQ2J5mien2Y4usweW-0GNNPxU_Y3OjzLqCFWwF_V 0 vtbivbx_XiHb-KlwA,,&typo=1
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c = E,1,r9MFzB-VevJWHWQw1NgGhu5_Qm5eNP2Qj28pdcyzgk2VoruiiveNSEdK-GJUWPC w 2e9ntYWcM_HukpII4nkIkFTCkLvgfuAgli57NTVM1HCPEZlBQobMyDc0uQ,,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c o m%2f2016%2f07%2f21%2fmike-mann-overturns-udrp-decisi&c=E,1,UaIjapAT b GEJJr29OHE3FgwDqU66Z1IV7ZlY5FqW30xPb2fdsntrd0bYgWhXGowAwir89q-dOaYI C xrUeLIQTPgF2QIUvjXDDT-DNCJqhinG-9g,&typo=1 on-court/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire. c om%2fwp-content%2fsoundstop-1.pdf&c=E,1,5YnTkZ5E8CdBrDd8HfM-yP8aiW8 X ivAEkehtRAqHIXzZD-c_KZZ1hCOv4fxB4dyLy3c7mDs8yAtvTP1jMKpawvLOMaXlZ-e o szFZyjf7i8yE74DDnXVsrQ,,&typo=1
2. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com& c =E,1,8mQ3IRTAhl0IZIrxSYfxtoaHrWySOxhoal7SVF9o8HSTmkLU2DqrH56Qoz1Mhz k gqIzTtXWOYfrzbBfadZdmNylc0Gp1NdsmNmXQ0tyNcIFb&typo=1 --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov. uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,4 Z yljat3VECb3_K5JcLQjYFhSh_zo6tlJqtF2-tfJvUuYqRtOKFZ0fyNkADhCtfqy50Ci D t6i711vK_TdMfqKbbLXquEs30H0beB0usSpk6CYS3jpqg,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.c o m%2f2015%2f07%2f22%2f50000-penalty-for-filing-a-friv&c=E,1,ghF-h_Nk p Drphr3ruXB2X8Mn3Mp9GB0mQ4-2sT2YZILzzvM_20xrQvq1ZZF0AWfD0CkdenrmPOJC N xGOYDkMWMQnNCGmovXz7vn9an4LmrrAnUeYrmMB8i4h&typo=1 olous-udrp/ https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire. c om%2fwp-content%2fSDT-settlement1.pdf&c=E,1,9NBwxSKIXz78y3Cve_1Hz1_ 7 KrLUwv-OtedxJ9qONJ2H4mMTem2pT-YKVaOrvhzC64spm5ljyKvpyX8p48r6FHfBAEl _ u5rOrc-6Fw7ltItWNBDcnm7wcCA-&typo=1
4. https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c = E,1,9YlPgjAXMhjC2S9xwsQn68QYpWGPU-ax0iWZZr8LHtZzeukuygcRoB3lsIEt5_v 3 8dlGPRrPnBVHdh3-We7Dtj71KjEczv3uhOjiIarkyaP57xhGe3hO2Vs,&typo=1 --
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.lexology.com % 2flibrary%2fdetail.aspx%3fg%3d5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a&c=E,1,q5gDFHiD p rb72jDV8gs7NovfzXrNHkO0JVNMB3x7l4EW_LpJUkIhSmnUEerEH66a4SPZHhke_di3 h vPH05itSM6aGaJ997o4BvWMhjGHEEbubti1&typo=1 5-7233a147b62c
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.legalis.net % 2fjurisprudences%2fcour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-c&c=E,1,iYEik6JFKF6v H 7GFt2bQlaAmxv-rv-wt9VVr9hIIlEcUEWD7lxX3jED75lTwAPH7MH4w6dQWT5IjWedG c Qq_vTQk8fgSatqwEJYgrmGH4X0Ecf3aa_jr&typo=1 h-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f& c =E,1,yPf4qHsRcG91O3VcAUuxc3uj4rOdqRu2ALw2EEbAVl-4RIkiMcBCejzNFQPbFD r 0_3RkrbeMXu8cRXSbS8BWhOReUN70B5R3JjHxnAGuOqVszjpySvA,&typo=1 _______________________________________________ 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
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
________________________________
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
George, A “clown car” is still a car and a crushed car is still a car, but neither will get you where you want to go. In a narrow semantic sense, you are correct, up to a point; the word “order”’appears on the document. But in a substantive way, you are still incorrect. A settlement is not a decided case, no matter how it’s labeled. A settlement that is “ordered” by a judge has no more value than a settlement that is handled out of court, except between the parties (if the parties settlement is recorded with the court, it is generally easier to come back to the court to enforce the settlement). For the rest of the world, these are meaningless in terms of understanding how the court viewed this case. These are not “judicial outcomes”; the judge had nothing to do with it. There is certainly nothing in the settlement documents that would support the assertion that the “UDRP decisions are likely highly deficient.” It would be misleading to leave people with that impression. Whether a settlement is “of interest” is irrelevant. WIPO is offering case law, not a list of all court activity. One swallow does not make a spring, and one settlement listing does not make “long-established precedent.” (Nice try, though.) Why WIPO listed one settlement among the cases, I don’t know; but it proves nothing about the intended scope of the list. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything i’ve said is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t prove that anything I’ve said is wrong. In any event, this settlement is not case law, and it would not be appropriate to call it a case (except in a world where a clown car is still a car). It’s amusing that the one settlement that’s listed is one that was favorable to the Complainant, although the litigation was commenced by Respondent (i.e., the Complainant got the domain in the settlement). So, while it shouldn’t be on the list, it is “interesting.” (And no, listing this settlement is not credible evidence of WIPO bias and conspiracy against respondents....) As for Moobitalk, I did not “concede”; I agreed. I had expressed no prior opinion on the subject. But if calling it a concession makes you feel like you won something, I wouldn’t want to take that away.... I’ll stop to note that “Boom goes the dynamite” originated in possibly the worst and most embarrassing college TV station sports newscast in history. One mistake followed another, but the beleaguered student broadcaster was able to finally use his signature call of “Boom goes the dynamite.” The segment was so exceptionally, hilariously bad it went viral, and a meme was born. So, yeah, that is probably the right “sound effect” for your email. Best regards, Greg On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. Moobitalk.com - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not
publishing
your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court...
https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts...
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-ud...
https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1...
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arre...
(actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Hi Greg, The WIPO website refers to "orders and decisions", and makes no distinction (the one you want to invent) to bar consent orders or consent decisions from their list. As noted earlier, WIPO did not hesitate to already include one (for lawsociety.com) in its collection, a long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ You claim "WIPO is offering case law", yet where's the "case law" in the lawsociety.com court order? :-) The phrase "case law" doesn't appear on that page, either, another invention by yourself as to what that list is supposed to represent. Indeed, while you claim these are "meaningless", they certainly mean something to the *registrar*. Remember, the registrar would have kept the domain in limbo, awaiting the outcome of the court case (which in some cases challenged an adverse UDRP for the registrant, which would have meant a transfer of the domain to the TM holder), without these orders to the contrary. The consent order certainly carries the same weight to them as any other court order. Indeed, there have been occasions where judges *refuse* a proposed consent order or proposed settlement by parties. (search Google for "judge rejects settlement" without the quotes) The judges don't just blindly rubber stamp them. If the parties wanted to, the complainant could have simply withdrawn the case, without any order. But, no....these orders went further then that and memorialized various things (e.g. the money owed, where the domain name should end up, etc.) within the court order. As for where things "originate", recall lobster "was considered a mark of poverty or as a food for indentured servants" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#History yet now is treated somewhat differently. "Boom goes the dynamite" may have had dubious origins, but the phrase was used correctly in the prior email, as it has caught on and since become a popular way to indicate a "pivotal moment": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_goes_the_dynamite While you might look down upon and snicker at things that have humble origins, others do not. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
A “clown car” is still a car and a crushed car is still a car, but neither will get you where you want to go. In a narrow semantic sense, you are correct, up to a point; the word “order”’appears on the document. But in a substantive way, you are still incorrect. A settlement is not a decided case, no matter how it’s labeled. A settlement that is “ordered” by a judge has no more value than a settlement that is handled out of court, except between the parties (if the parties settlement is recorded with the court, it is generally easier to come back to the court to enforce the settlement). For the rest of the world, these are meaningless in terms of understanding how the court viewed this case. These are not “judicial outcomes”; the judge had nothing to do with it.
There is certainly nothing in the settlement documents that would support the assertion that the “UDRP decisions are likely highly deficient.” It would be misleading to leave people with that impression.
Whether a settlement is “of interest” is irrelevant. WIPO is offering case law, not a list of all court activity. One swallow does not make a spring, and one settlement listing does not make “long-established precedent.” (Nice try, though.) Why WIPO listed one settlement among the cases, I don’t know; but it proves nothing about the intended scope of the list. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything i’ve said is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t prove that anything I’ve said is wrong. In any event, this settlement is not case law, and it would not be appropriate to call it a case (except in a world where a clown car is still a car).
It’s amusing that the one settlement that’s listed is one that was favorable to the Complainant, although the litigation was commenced by Respondent (i.e., the Complainant got the domain in the settlement). So, while it shouldn’t be on the list, it is “interesting.” (And no, listing this settlement is not credible evidence of WIPO bias and conspiracy against respondents....)
As for Moobitalk, I did not “concede”; I agreed. I had expressed no prior opinion on the subject. But if calling it a concession makes you feel like you won something, I wouldn’t want to take that away....
I’ll stop to note that “Boom goes the dynamite” originated in possibly the worst and most embarrassing college TV station sports newscast in history. One mistake followed another, but the beleaguered student broadcaster was able to finally use his signature call of “Boom goes the dynamite.” The segment was so exceptionally, hilariously bad it went viral, and a meme was born. So, yeah, that is probably the right “sound effect” for your email.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. Moobitalk.com - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts...
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-ud... https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1...
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arre... (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
George, On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
The WIPO website refers to "orders and decisions", and makes no distinction (the one you want to invent) to bar consent orders or consent decisions from their list.
The title of the page is "Select UDRP-related Court Cases." "Cases" are generally understood to be decisions (i.e,. judicial opinions). See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case ("A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process.") When law schools teach by the "case method" and use "casebooks" they are using judicial opinions. See https://www.princetonreview.com/law-school-advice/case-method Rather than "inventing" things, I am offering interpretations based on my knowledge and experience (32 years of practicing law, after graduating Columbia Law School, where I was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and Editor-in-Chief of a law journal). You are offering a different interpretation. I'm comfortable with mine. Others can decide which interpretation they prefer. As for "inventing" stuff -- there's no such thing as a "consent decision" (at least not in US law or any law I'm familiar with). Not only is that your invention, that would be an oxymoron -- a decision is a final opinion by the court, so consent cannot be part of it. There are three "orders" on the page; 2 are default judgments, which do count as judicial opinions. The third is the Law Society order.
As noted earlier, WIPO did not hesitate to already include one (for lawsociety.com) in its collection, a long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list:
You can call this a "long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list." To me, it looks like an anomaly that proves nothing. There's certainly no way to deduce intent from this posting. More than likely it was a mistake, not something intended to be "precedent.". Given that they've never posted another settlement in spite of being informed of them *repeatedly* (although I bet all from the same source...), I'd say that *not* listing those settlements better demonstrates how they view the list. But why speculate? Let's ask Brian Beckham to tell us how WIPO views the list.
You claim "WIPO is offering case law", yet where's the "case law" in the lawsociety.com court order? :-)
Nowhere, unlike every other item on the page, which is why it is an anomaly that probably shouldn't be there.
The phrase "case law" doesn't appear on that page, either, another invention by yourself as to what that list is supposed to represent.
See above. "Case law" means "law established by judicial decision in cases." This is, with one exception, a list of cases that are judicial opinions, establishing case law. I believe I'm making a very reasonable inference regarding the list -- that a list of "Court Cases" is intended to be a list of case law.
Indeed, while you claim these are "meaningless", they certainly mean something to the *registrar*. Remember, the registrar would have kept the domain in limbo, awaiting the outcome of the court case (which in some cases challenged an adverse UDRP for the registrant, which would have meant a transfer of the domain to the TM holder), without these orders to the contrary. The consent order certainly carries the same weight to them as any other court order.
This is consistent with the case being meaningless beyond the parties involved. Although I thought I was clear enough, I was referring to the value of the case beyond those involved in it. The registrar may not be a party, but they are clearly involved, as the entity holding the asset in question.
Indeed, there have been occasions where judges *refuse* a proposed consent order or proposed settlement by parties. (search Google for "judge rejects settlement" without the quotes) The judges don't just blindly rubber stamp them.
I'm well aware of that, but these are edge cases, compared to the huge volume of settlements that are approved (or don't even get reviewed by a judge). A rejection happens when the court sees a settlement that doesn't serve justice or seems fundamentally unfair. As long as the settlement seems reasonable, the courts do essentially rubberstamp them (I never said they did it blindly...).
If the parties wanted to, the complainant could have simply withdrawn the case, without any order. But, no....these orders went further then that and memorialized various things (e.g. the money owed, where the domain name should end up, etc.) within the court order.
These things would all be memorialized by the parties in a Settlement Agreement between the parties, whether or not there was an order. Clearly, in these cases the parties didn't want to simply withdraw the case. One or both parties wanted the order. Typically, courts issue orders for settlements because the litigants have asked them to. As noted previously, this can make it easier to enforce the settlement if one party fails to comply. If the settlement is completely "out of court", the party seeking to enforce would generally need to bring an entirely new action. The fact that the settlement is subject to an order, does not change the fact that it is the parties that are memorializing these things, then providing the order to the judge. (I'm not inventing this; this is how it works, in my experience. Though judges will rewrite orders they don't quite like, the order is produced by the parties.)
As for where things "originate", recall lobster "was considered a mark of poverty or as a food for indentured servants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#History
yet now is treated somewhat differently. "Boom goes the dynamite" may have had dubious origins, but the phrase was used correctly in the prior email, as it has caught on and since become a popular way to indicate a "pivotal moment":
Clearly, you think there was a "pivotal moment" in your email. In my view, it was closer to the original circumstance in which "Boom goes the dynamite" was used. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course.
While you might look down upon and snicker at things that have humble origins, others do not.
Not sure where this came from. I certainly didn't say anything remotely like that, nor can I see anything I wrote that could be interpreted that way. But clearly, I do not see the world through your eyes.... Best regards, Greg
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
A “clown car” is still a car and a crushed car is still a car, but neither will get you where you want to go. In a narrow semantic sense, you are correct, up to a point; the word “order”’appears on the document. But in a substantive way, you are still incorrect. A settlement is not a decided case, no matter how it’s labeled. A settlement that is “ordered” by a judge has no more value than a settlement that is handled out of court, except between the parties (if the parties settlement is recorded with the court, it is generally easier to come back to the court to enforce the settlement). For the rest of the world, these are meaningless in terms of understanding how the court viewed this case. These are not “judicial outcomes”; the judge had nothing to do with it.
There is certainly nothing in the settlement documents that would support the assertion that the “UDRP decisions are likely highly deficient.” It would be misleading to leave people with that impression.
Whether a settlement is “of interest” is irrelevant. WIPO is offering case law, not a list of all court activity. One swallow does not make a spring, and one settlement listing does not make “long-established precedent.” (Nice try, though.) Why WIPO listed one settlement among the cases, I don’t know; but it proves nothing about the intended scope of the list. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything i’ve said is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t prove that anything I’ve said is wrong. In any event, this settlement is not case law, and it would not be appropriate to call it a case (except in a world where a clown car is still a car).
It’s amusing that the one settlement that’s listed is one that was favorable to the Complainant, although the litigation was commenced by Respondent (i.e., the Complainant got the domain in the settlement). So, while it shouldn’t be on the list, it is “interesting.” (And no, listing this settlement is not credible evidence of WIPO bias and conspiracy against respondents....)
As for Moobitalk, I did not “concede”; I agreed. I had expressed no prior opinion on the subject. But if calling it a concession makes you feel like you won something, I wouldn’t want to take that away....
I’ll stop to note that “Boom goes the dynamite” originated in possibly the worst and most embarrassing college TV station sports newscast in history. One mistake followed another, but the beleaguered student broadcaster was able to finally use his signature call of “Boom goes the dynamite.” The segment was so exceptionally, hilariously bad it went viral, and a meme was born. So, yeah, that is probably the right “sound effect” for your email.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. Moobitalk.com - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for
LawSociety.com:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
courtorderd2009-1520.pdf
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders
or
decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi < ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some
of
these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs,
I'm
relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann- overturns-udrp-decision-court/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf
2. AustinPain.com --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod. 147273/gov.uscourts.cod.147273.23.0.pdf
3. SDT.com --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for- filing-a-frivolous-udrp/ https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf
4. Moobitalk.com --
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g= 5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a147b62c
https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de- paris-pole-5-ch-1-arret-du-8-novembre-2016/ (actual decision)
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
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
_______________________________________________ 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 Greg, The Wikipedia link supports my argument, not yours. First, WIPO doesn't use the term "legal case". The Wikipedia page says: "At any point during the case, the parties can agree to a settlement, which will end the case, although in some circumstances, such as in class actions, a settlement requires court approval in order to be binding." i.e. it's a case at **all times**, from the moment it is started, to the moment it ends. Even WIPO agrees, because their own page says: "Court cases that are pending or for which no order/decision is available are not published on this list." i.e. their own implicit definition of a "court case" *includes cases* that are pending (but then they won't publish them until there is an order/decision. Your argument was lost when the lawsociety.com case was posted a couple of emails ago. Learn to cut your losses. :-) Writing off evidence that proves you're wrong as just 'an anomaly' doesn't work. What's amusing is that you're kind of painting yourself into a corner --- because if we were to pivot and ask "Where are all the examples of cybersquatting that require RPMs such as the UDRP/URS/TMCH, etc?" some folks would point to the most expansive non-judicial examples and claim "This is cybersquatting" (some have great imaginations, and claim enormous damage from all that cybersquatting), even though there are actually very few cybersquatting cases that make it through the courts to an reasoned verdict. If we were to follow your overly narrow interpretations in the email exchanges of the past few days, we should set a very narrow definition of cybersquatting, to be consistent, i.e. only cite those cases where a judge declares that it is cybersquatting with a reasoned order (and not via a consent order/settlement, either) as examples of "cybersquatting." Quick test, Greg: was the Verizon iREIT case an example of cybersquatting, that justifies RPMs? Remember, nothing was ever proven in court (as it was settled). I say it *was* clear-cut cybersquatting, but for you to be consistent, you'd have to say "No, that wasn't cybersquatting, George." Should you answer "No", then I really wonder why we need the UDRP/URS/TMCH, since there'd be very little evidence of actual cybersquatting (evidence via reasoned verdicts of the courts, by that narrowest definition of "evidence"). Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/ On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Hi Greg,
The WIPO website refers to "orders and decisions", and makes no distinction (the one you want to invent) to bar consent orders or consent decisions from their list.
The title of the page is "Select UDRP-related Court Cases." "Cases" are generally understood to be decisions (i.e,. judicial opinions). See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case ("A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process.")
When law schools teach by the "case method" and use "casebooks" they are using judicial opinions. See https://www.princetonreview.com/law-school-advice/case-method Rather than "inventing" things, I am offering interpretations based on my knowledge and experience (32 years of practicing law, after graduating Columbia Law School, where I was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and Editor-in-Chief of a law journal). You are offering a different interpretation. I'm comfortable with mine. Others can decide which interpretation they prefer.
As for "inventing" stuff -- there's no such thing as a "consent decision" (at least not in US law or any law I'm familiar with). Not only is that your invention, that would be an oxymoron -- a decision is a final opinion by the court, so consent cannot be part of it.
There are three "orders" on the page; 2 are default judgments, which do count as judicial opinions. The third is the Law Society order.
As noted earlier, WIPO did not hesitate to already include one (for lawsociety.com) in its collection, a long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list:
You can call this a "long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list." To me, it looks like an anomaly that proves nothing. There's certainly no way to deduce intent from this posting. More than likely it was a mistake, not something intended to be "precedent.". Given that they've never posted another settlement in spite of being informed of them *repeatedly* (although I bet all from the same source...), I'd say that not listing those settlements better demonstrates how they view the list. But why speculate? Let's ask Brian Beckham to tell us how WIPO views the list.
You claim "WIPO is offering case law", yet where's the "case law" in the lawsociety.com court order? :-)
Nowhere, unlike every other item on the page, which is why it is an anomaly that probably shouldn't be there.
The phrase "case law" doesn't appear on that page, either, another invention by yourself as to what that list is supposed to represent.
See above. "Case law" means "law established by judicial decision in cases." This is, with one exception, a list of cases that are judicial opinions, establishing case law. I believe I'm making a very reasonable inference regarding the list -- that a list of "Court Cases" is intended to be a list of case law.
Indeed, while you claim these are "meaningless", they certainly mean something to the *registrar*. Remember, the registrar would have kept the domain in limbo, awaiting the outcome of the court case (which in some cases challenged an adverse UDRP for the registrant, which would have meant a transfer of the domain to the TM holder), without these orders to the contrary. The consent order certainly carries the same weight to them as any other court order.
This is consistent with the case being meaningless beyond the parties involved. Although I thought I was clear enough, I was referring to the value of the case beyond those involved in it. The registrar may not be a party, but they are clearly involved, as the entity holding the asset in question.
Indeed, there have been occasions where judges *refuse* a proposed consent order or proposed settlement by parties. (search Google for "judge rejects settlement" without the quotes) The judges don't just blindly rubber stamp them.
I'm well aware of that, but these are edge cases, compared to the huge volume of settlements that are approved (or don't even get reviewed by a judge). A rejection happens when the court sees a settlement that doesn't serve justice or seems fundamentally unfair. As long as the settlement seems reasonable, the courts do essentially rubberstamp them (I never said they did it blindly...).
If the parties wanted to, the complainant could have simply withdrawn the case, without any order. But, no....these orders went further then that and memorialized various things (e.g. the money owed, where the domain name should end up, etc.) within the court order.
These things would all be memorialized by the parties in a Settlement Agreement between the parties, whether or not there was an order. Clearly, in these cases the parties didn't want to simply withdraw the case. One or both parties wanted the order. Typically, courts issue orders for settlements because the litigants have asked them to. As noted previously, this can make it easier to enforce the settlement if one party fails to comply. If the settlement is completely "out of court", the party seeking to enforce would generally need to bring an entirely new action. The fact that the settlement is subject to an order, does not change the fact that it is the parties that are memorializing these things, then providing the order to the judge. (I'm not inventing this; this is how it works, in my experience. Though judges will rewrite orders they don't quite like, the order is produced by the parties.)
As for where things "originate", recall lobster "was considered a mark of poverty or as a food for indentured servants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#History
yet now is treated somewhat differently. "Boom goes the dynamite" may have had dubious origins, but the phrase was used correctly in the prior email, as it has caught on and since become a popular way to indicate a "pivotal moment":
Clearly, you think there was a "pivotal moment" in your email. In my view, it was closer to the original circumstance in which "Boom goes the dynamite" was used. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course.
While you might look down upon and snicker at things that have humble origins, others do not.
Not sure where this came from. I certainly didn't say anything remotely like that, nor can I see anything I wrote that could be interpreted that way. But clearly, I do not see the world through your eyes....
Best regards,
Greg
/
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
George,
A “clown car” is still a car and a crushed car is still a car, but neither will get you where you want to go. In a narrow semantic sense, you are correct, up to a point; the word “order”’appears on the document. But in a substantive way, you are still incorrect. A settlement is not a decided case, no matter how it’s labeled. A settlement that is “ordered” by a judge has no more value than a settlement that is handled out of court, except between the parties (if the parties settlement is recorded with the court, it is generally easier to come back to the court to enforce the settlement). For the rest of the world, these are meaningless in terms of understanding how the court viewed this case. These are not “judicial outcomes”; the judge had nothing to do with it.
There is certainly nothing in the settlement documents that would support the assertion that the “UDRP decisions are likely highly deficient.” It would be misleading to leave people with that impression.
Whether a settlement is “of interest” is irrelevant. WIPO is offering case law, not a list of all court activity. One swallow does not make a spring, and one settlement listing does not make “long-established precedent.” (Nice try, though.) Why WIPO listed one settlement among the cases, I don’t know; but it proves nothing about the intended scope of the list. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything i’ve said is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t prove that anything I’ve said is wrong. In any event, this settlement is not case law, and it would not be appropriate to call it a case (except in a world where a clown car is still a car).
It’s amusing that the one settlement that’s listed is one that was favorable to the Complainant, although the litigation was commenced by Respondent (i.e., the Complainant got the domain in the settlement). So, while it shouldn’t be on the list, it is “interesting.” (And no, listing this settlement is not credible evidence of WIPO bias and conspiracy against respondents....)
As for Moobitalk, I did not “concede”; I agreed. I had expressed no prior opinion on the subject. But if calling it a concession makes you feel like you won something, I wouldn’t want to take that away....
I’ll stop to note that “Boom goes the dynamite” originated in possibly the worst and most embarrassing college TV station sports newscast in history. One mistake followed another, but the beleaguered student broadcaster was able to finally use his signature call of “Boom goes the dynamite.” The segment was so exceptionally, hilariously bad it went viral, and a meme was born. So, yeah, that is probably the right “sound effect” for your email.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote:
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. Soundstop.com -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. AustinPain.com -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. SDT.com -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. Moobitalk.com - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/amc/en/docs/courtorderd2009-1520.pdf
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> wrote: > > With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, > I'm > relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the > working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour > (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant > to > be an administrative/clerical task, essentially. > > I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his > commitment > towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update > their > "Court Challenged Cases" page at: > > http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/ > > with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention > in > the past, including: > > 1. Soundstop.com -- > > > > http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court... > https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf > > 2. AustinPain.com -- > > > > http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts... > > 3. SDT.com -- > > > > http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-ud... > https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf > > 4. Moobitalk.com -- > > > > http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5899d5f9-3bbc-416e-a9a5-7233a1... > > > > https://www.legalis.net/jurisprudences/cour-dappel-de-paris-pole-5-ch-1-arre... > (actual decision) > > It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges > are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert > "record > cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of > the > coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the > court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would > get > that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful. > > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
George: I prefer (and concur in) Greg’s interpretation based on my knowledge and experience (34 years of practicing law, although I had to settle for Georgetown Law (a little further down the ranks than Columbia, but located a little closer to the USPTO and in a city where laws and regulations spawn perennially), where I was also on the Executive Editorial Board of a law journal and published a note on advertising regulation in China. Working on K Street in Washington does give you some experience at seeing how the policy-to-rule sausage is made whether statutory or regulatory – and how much can go wrong without checks and balances, leaving final versions much different than proposed or intended. I think there is much better use of your time and ours focusing on almost 20 years guidance in actual decisions that have worked fairly well. This is better than “reading between the lines” to speculate on the winner in settlements and treating aborted dec actions as cause for celebration. Better instead to look at exemplary cases and decisions to suggest policy changes to improve the summary processes of UDRP and URS and give panelists, practitioners and parties the tools they need to achieve justice while keeping the Internet a stable and commercially viable platform for business and expression. This artificial political range war between rightsholders and domain investors is insincere and destructive. If UDRP fails or is rendered ineffective you could be forced to protect your name or work in a distant court you can’t reach but whose citizens and their conduct can reach you, your reputation and your customers online. Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> a 30-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/30min> a 60-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/60min> [cid:image001.png@01D3E08A.25E41690][IntellectualPropertyLaw 100] [microbadge[1]] <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com<mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:39 AM To: George Kirikos <icann@leap.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair George, On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 5:17 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote: Hi Greg, The WIPO website refers to "orders and decisions", and makes no distinction (the one you want to invent) to bar consent orders or consent decisions from their list. The title of the page is "Select UDRP-related Court Cases." "Cases" are generally understood to be decisions (i.e,. judicial opinions). See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case ("A legal case is a dispute between opposing parties resolved by a court, or by some equivalent legal process.") When law schools teach by the "case method" and use "casebooks" they are using judicial opinions. See https://www.princetonreview.com/law-school-advice/case-method<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.princetonreview.com%2flaw-school-advice%2fcase-method&c=E,1,8hCbCKOv8WsYFVDM87iTD7V3K7O8geB6O5LzMivZSQ9AIu5srX3YcuSkKYVJZGWBzdJj7DCkdpxwZdUvB83gc0Png2c29oulgEWT96gjKtul5GtlOg,,&typo=1> Rather than "inventing" things, I am offering interpretations based on my knowledge and experience (32 years of practicing law, after graduating Columbia Law School, where I was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and Editor-in-Chief of a law journal). You are offering a different interpretation. I'm comfortable with mine. Others can decide which interpretation they prefer. As for "inventing" stuff -- there's no such thing as a "consent decision" (at least not in US law or any law I'm familiar with). Not only is that your invention, that would be an oxymoron -- a decision is a final opinion by the court, so consent cannot be part of it. There are three "orders" on the page; 2 are default judgments, which do count as judicial opinions. The third is the Law Society order. As noted earlier, WIPO did not hesitate to already include one (for lawsociety.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flawsociety.com&c=E,1,Q5R7...>) in its collection, a long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/challenged/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wipo.int%2famc%2fen%2fdomains%2fchallenged%2f&c=E,1,a6T_TcZusZMS4xYqQ9RMa9GZS5r3k8vlXCSVZ_QLeRmNRo2QV1PZB_qioCfICwFuCVxRaLeqUY0aDI82XGsFDaoTnMwuekyPHMZIcMTFXGCCwOM5&typo=1> You can call this a "long-established precedent that is demonstrable proof in how they view their own list." To me, it looks like an anomaly that proves nothing. There's certainly no way to deduce intent from this posting. More than likely it was a mistake, not something intended to be "precedent.". Given that they've never posted another settlement in spite of being informed of them *repeatedly* (although I bet all from the same source...), I'd say that not listing those settlements better demonstrates how they view the list. But why speculate? Let's ask Brian Beckham to tell us how WIPO views the list. You claim "WIPO is offering case law", yet where's the "case law" in the lawsociety.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2flawsociety.com&c=E,1,zFNA...> court order? :-) Nowhere, unlike every other item on the page, which is why it is an anomaly that probably shouldn't be there. The phrase "case law" doesn't appear on that page, either, another invention by yourself as to what that list is supposed to represent. See above. "Case law" means "law established by judicial decision in cases." This is, with one exception, a list of cases that are judicial opinions, establishing case law. I believe I'm making a very reasonable inference regarding the list -- that a list of "Court Cases" is intended to be a list of case law. Indeed, while you claim these are "meaningless", they certainly mean something to the *registrar*. Remember, the registrar would have kept the domain in limbo, awaiting the outcome of the court case (which in some cases challenged an adverse UDRP for the registrant, which would have meant a transfer of the domain to the TM holder), without these orders to the contrary. The consent order certainly carries the same weight to them as any other court order. This is consistent with the case being meaningless beyond the parties involved. Although I thought I was clear enough, I was referring to the value of the case beyond those involved in it. The registrar may not be a party, but they are clearly involved, as the entity holding the asset in question. Indeed, there have been occasions where judges *refuse* a proposed consent order or proposed settlement by parties. (search Google for "judge rejects settlement" without the quotes) The judges don't just blindly rubber stamp them. I'm well aware of that, but these are edge cases, compared to the huge volume of settlements that are approved (or don't even get reviewed by a judge). A rejection happens when the court sees a settlement that doesn't serve justice or seems fundamentally unfair. As long as the settlement seems reasonable, the courts do essentially rubberstamp them (I never said they did it blindly...). If the parties wanted to, the complainant could have simply withdrawn the case, without any order. But, no....these orders went further then that and memorialized various things (e.g. the money owed, where the domain name should end up, etc.) within the court order. These things would all be memorialized by the parties in a Settlement Agreement between the parties, whether or not there was an order. Clearly, in these cases the parties didn't want to simply withdraw the case. One or both parties wanted the order. Typically, courts issue orders for settlements because the litigants have asked them to. As noted previously, this can make it easier to enforce the settlement if one party fails to comply. If the settlement is completely "out of court", the party seeking to enforce would generally need to bring an entirely new action. The fact that the settlement is subject to an order, does not change the fact that it is the parties that are memorializing these things, then providing the order to the judge. (I'm not inventing this; this is how it works, in my experience. Though judges will rewrite orders they don't quite like, the order is produced by the parties.) As for where things "originate", recall lobster "was considered a mark of poverty or as a food for indentured servants" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#History yet now is treated somewhat differently. "Boom goes the dynamite" may have had dubious origins, but the phrase was used correctly in the prior email, as it has caught on and since become a popular way to indicate a "pivotal moment": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_goes_the_dynamite Clearly, you think there was a "pivotal moment" in your email. In my view, it was closer to the original circumstance in which "Boom goes the dynamite" was used. You are entitled to your own opinion, of course. While you might look down upon and snicker at things that have humble origins, others do not. Not sure where this came from. I certainly didn't say anything remotely like that, nor can I see anything I wrote that could be interpreted that way. But clearly, I do not see the world through your eyes.... Best regards, Greg /<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,M-S...> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
George,
A “clown car” is still a car and a crushed car is still a car, but neither will get you where you want to go. In a narrow semantic sense, you are correct, up to a point; the word “order”’appears on the document. But in a substantive way, you are still incorrect. A settlement is not a decided case, no matter how it’s labeled. A settlement that is “ordered” by a judge has no more value than a settlement that is handled out of court, except between the parties (if the parties settlement is recorded with the court, it is generally easier to come back to the court to enforce the settlement). For the rest of the world, these are meaningless in terms of understanding how the court viewed this case. These are not “judicial outcomes”; the judge had nothing to do with it.
There is certainly nothing in the settlement documents that would support the assertion that the “UDRP decisions are likely highly deficient.” It would be misleading to leave people with that impression.
Whether a settlement is “of interest” is irrelevant. WIPO is offering case law, not a list of all court activity. One swallow does not make a spring, and one settlement listing does not make “long-established precedent.” (Nice try, though.) Why WIPO listed one settlement among the cases, I don’t know; but it proves nothing about the intended scope of the list. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything i’ve said is wrong. Indeed, it doesn’t prove that anything I’ve said is wrong. In any event, this settlement is not case law, and it would not be appropriate to call it a case (except in a world where a clown car is still a car).
It’s amusing that the one settlement that’s listed is one that was favorable to the Complainant, although the litigation was commenced by Respondent (i.e., the Complainant got the domain in the settlement). So, while it shouldn’t be on the list, it is “interesting.” (And no, listing this settlement is not credible evidence of WIPO bias and conspiracy against respondents....)
As for Moobitalk, I did not “concede”; I agreed. I had expressed no prior opinion on the subject. But if calling it a concession makes you feel like you won something, I wouldn’t want to take that away....
I’ll stop to note that “Boom goes the dynamite” originated in possibly the worst and most embarrassing college TV station sports newscast in history. One mistake followed another, but the beleaguered student broadcaster was able to finally use his signature call of “Boom goes the dynamite.” The segment was so exceptionally, hilariously bad it went viral, and a meme was born. So, yeah, that is probably the right “sound effect” for your email.
Best regards,
Greg
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:49 AM George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:
Greg:
A "consent order" is still an order (just like a "red car" is still a car), and a "consent judgment" is still a judgment even if it's the result of a settlement. Most cases are settled. When a TM holder wins a UDRP complaint, but then is challenged in court, the outcome of that challenge is certainly of interest. Take a look at the outcomes here:
1. Soundstop.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,1,Gw_9...> -- Domain Asset Holdings (domain owner) kept the domain
2. AustinPain.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,8ja...> -- "Judgment and Permanent Injunction" -- domain owner keeps the domain, and also gets $25,000 - "the NAF Order in the UDRP proceeding is hereby set aside"
3. SDT.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,jb8CsaFobk...> -- Telepathy (domain owner) keeps the domain, and gets $50,000 paid to it by the initiator of the UDRP; "Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction"; "Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered and Adjudged"
4. Moobitalk.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,NkR4...> - you concede
Folks would be misled by simply having the UDRP decisions appear at NAF/WIPO, making it seems as if they're the final outcome, the final word, when they're not. By knowing these cases exist, others can go to the actual pleadings, and learn something (in particular, that the UDRP decisions which were rendered are likely highly deficient, given the judicial outcomes).
Furthermore, WIPO has *already* listed a case, the one for LawSociety.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fLawSociety.com&c=E,1,DDW...>:
S.H., Inc. v. The Law Society, Case No. CV10-0248MJP, United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, July 19, 2010
which was *also* the result of a settlement (a consent order) [boom goes the dynamite -- I really need sound effects for these emails!]. That precedent further reinforces that everything you said is wrong --- to be consistent with their long-established precedent, they should be adding all the cases.
Nice try, though. :-)
Q.E.D.
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,xixNLVy-ncxFSYyfrjOejt7FHKVIa1PiKG4inZDam1TkOybAXmCqnL_SWm8W7NCJmN6K6PV4C7-sA5mrg6AVR5JEE8jN65aUv4NTa_TY&typo=1>
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT are all settlements. The WIPO page is entitled "Select UDRP-related Court Cases," which they specify as "orders and decisions." As settlements, they really are neither court orders or decisions. The court just rubber-stamped the private agreement of the parties. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no judicial value in these actions. They provide nothing a third party could rely on, set no precedent, apply no law and make no law.
These are not "successful challenges" in the sense that a court actually considered the merits of the case and rendered a decision. They may be favorable settlements to the respondents, but they do not represent success in court in the way that a "case" does. (In law school, when students are "reading cases" in law school, they are reading decisions; when a lawyer says she has a "case on this point," she is referring to a decision.) A s such I wouldn't consider these "cases" at all for this purpose.
Also none of these are relevant to "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice." Hopefully, nobody who read this thread actually thought that these (non)cases represented any of those things, or thought that WIPO was biased and engaging in a cover-up by "failing" to post these settlements. (This seemed to be the undercurrent of the argument, but perhaps I'm reading too much into it.)
In other words, WIPO did the right thing with regard to Soundstop, Austin Pain and SDT.
Moobitalk is different -- it is an actual court decision (indeed, two court decisions), which I think would be of some interest to those looking for court decisions reflecting the outcome of judicial challenges to UDRP cases. In this instance, I would join George in requesting (respectfully, in my case) that WIPO post the decisions in this case on the "Select UDRP-related Court Cases" page.
Again I should note that Moobitalk doesn't appear to demonstrate "the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice," and also note that none of this is relevant to Brian's fitness or appropriateness to serve as Co-Chair of this WG. For that purpose, this is a "frolic and detour."
Greg
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM, claudio di gangi <ipcdigangi@gmail.com<mailto:ipcdigangi@gmail.com>> wrote:
George, all,
Personally, I don't believe WIPO is doing anything wrong by not publishing your specific list of post-UDRP cases, which is not a requirement for Providers. From my perspective, it looks like they have posted some of these cases as a nice gesture to the community.
The webpage on which these cases are published clearly states these are "select" cases and there is no intent to create a comprehensive, updated running list of all post-UDPR actions.
Moreover, in taking a quick glance at some of the cases you highlighted:
<Soundstop.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,1,W0ayW-FP9koU7BG44D9-IOQs9I6GO4KNgvPCTblk6vd8QdN6mJip0SFYnHbyJ2VFtLK-JENAJKAFCBPW3jgc4IIZ9MOW3oDgsYh5FV8FpstM5SAIen9H7A,,&typo=1>> - the court case settled; it doesn't appear the court issued a holding that is generally applicable to other UDRP proceedings.
<sdt.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fsdt.com&c=E,1,KQWnlhqXuMfpQw2Rnkfkz2gkJ4hXSWFYEdg53gqc76Ho3Z345StVuxSrN3yUEWH1qoMpyQRtlMN4Fuv6Wyze4LFDabhOo6UCQbd2icsVG8M8MNguPXkC&typo=1>> - it looks like the UDRP panel terminated the proceeding to let the court case run its course.
<Moobitalk.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,1Wb6TT8n4yESzgOd30lMKB6y9l-BzF68-13PNGDo7zofH_634l8ejYn4saKIvLmQ2WfO-tRpxjjfHnPfceEB7FZfDyyHLnR-7hvsV6mJrWo,&typo=1>> - the decision of the appeals court was based on a legal principle (territoriality) that is not a required element under the UDRP. This seems to be a relatively unique case and publishing this decision may confuse some readers in terms of the general applicability of UDRP jurisprudence.
---
In terms of Brian's nomination, I am very grateful that he is willing to serve and dedicate the time needed to take on this role. As mentioned by Zak and other's, I believe he is preeminently qualified and has the natural leadership skills that will greatly benefit our team.
Hope this helps.
Best regards, Claudio
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:47 PM, George Kirikos <icann@leap.com<mailto:icann@leap.com>> wrote:
With regards to Brian Beckham of WIPO being one of the co-chairs, I'm relatively indifferent, as long as the co-chairs comply with the working group guidelines which place constraints on their behaviour (i.e. neutrality, not pushing their own agenda, etc.). It's meant to be an administrative/clerical task, essentially.
I think Brian would go a long way towards demonstrating his commitment towards that required neutrality if he would get WIPO to update their "Court Challenged Cases" page at:
with cases that have been **repeatedly** brought to their attention in the past, including:
1. Soundstop.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSoundstop.com&c=E,1,9UNQ...> --
http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.com%2f2016%2f07%2f21%2fmike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court%2f&c=E,1,xyXG1aKGoAlP7aEOZF5dY_iOC2n0YK42qCkwhP0LMO9nlO6eqa2NMvAH5DhCrO9UAaSherAZ41-WpShMPy2xB_kEpecVSJjTvkdK_EqzKDH13TNDEQ,,&typo=1> https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/soundstop-1.pdf<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.com%2fwp-content%2fsoundstop-1.pdf&c=E,1,3MGrXkIyIlHu2cAPDagWaopcUYr0E1ZOqplKwg2ZTHxNoeVeZIl9i7qW3TooI6YWJ3id-w5KA3qm1DHJxYngJ0DbQ38o1Prp4HkE5pKF-RbsVwnPg8XA5DyFib52&typo=1>
2. AustinPain.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fAustinPain.com&c=E,1,aDY...> --
http://ia601008.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.cod.147273/gov.uscourts...
3. SDT.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fSDT.com&c=E,1,0CXT5Wev-D...> --
http://domainnamewire.com/2015/07/22/50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-udrp/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.com%2f2015%2f07%2f22%2f50000-penalty-for-filing-a-frivolous-udrp%2f&c=E,1,EmARBQDPn5sEO3PrOvQLWjZlwIYt8gTrDSO53Ov66a7jGtBoBmX5XFkZNaH_8tYIlJP9cjAH9anqhSj2WTW2vr6LBEgxMuWFd1--I4wi11A,&typo=1> https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/SDT-settlement1.pdf<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fdomainnamewire.com%2fwp-content%2fSDT-settlement1.pdf&c=E,1,AKargYEbrNGMo4-Caj81Z1v1vIwOfRxHTZ3khTE8pzykqJsfMlI3hwvOV_Q5ycu5-Md2OX7Q2gjem7RaWNxBIF-R19OAnjizVivjyiu0Z4JzxcnQFCfhcGjjBk0,&typo=1>
4. Moobitalk.com<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMoobitalk.com&c=E,1,miDN...> --
It looks bad on WIPO's part that all of these successful challenges are not being reflected on that page. WIPO is quick to assert "record cybersquatting" exists, yet they fail to mention the other side of the coin, abuse of the process, reverse domain name hijacking, and the court cases that are required to achieve justice. If Brian would get that page updated before an election, that would be wonderful.
Sincerely,
George Kirikos 416-588-0269 http://www.leap.com/<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.leap.com%2f&c=E,1,imbmxKnD4a0YIA5vv11MHMOVlF6RSHZ1ArudbfPOABGq0HeS32GH7nt_iOyJQBGNar5SqluMxV73toYdQxmpUP_hzfeU3A_rI4uU2uvS49-DzsBB7TM,&typo=1> _______________________________________________ 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 This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
Brian: Thank you Brian for offering to serve as co-chair with Phil and Kathy in what has proven to be a very active and challenging WG. I agree with others that your depth of experience, intellect and spirit of diplomacy should be welcomed and greatly appreciated by all. Best regards, Scott Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule: a 15-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> a 30-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/30min> a 60-minute call<calendly.com/saustin-2/60min> [cid:image001.png@01D3DB22.F23A89D0][IntellectualPropertyLaw 100] [microbadge[1]] <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html> Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP 101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com<mailto:SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com> From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 4:18 AM To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.com%2fv2%2furl%3fu%3dhttps-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf%26d%3dDwMDaQ%26c%3dFmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM%26r%3dadDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8%26m%3dYm8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4%26s%3d7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA%26e%3d&c=E,1,99HfsefPUiUxspiS5IgK8z_d2TGg81K1SfBjlhTY1H3ZpG7M3h_yWgurvmU7axFgie4Q8AEJdXE4uOYVE-EWttSVrV8u6IHAkOaSE-NtayNAebYsxvtmbct7ixg,&typo=1> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes.
Let me add my voice to the chorus in support of Brian Beckham. Whatever list of co-chair criteria you put together, Brian measures up. Most importantly, Brian has the knowledge and perspective to understand that what we are trying to do is bigger than one set of stakeholders or one viewpoint or one desired outcome. He also knows what he’s getting himself into. And he’s doing it anyway. Greg On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:55 PM Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
Brian:
Thank you Brian for offering to serve as co-chair with Phil and Kathy in what has proven to be a very active and challenging WG. I agree with others that your depth of experience, intellect and spirit of diplomacy should be welcomed and greatly appreciated by all.
Best regards,
Scott
*Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule:*
* a 15-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> * a 30-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/30min> a 60-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/60min>
*[image: IntellectualPropertyLaw 100] **[image: microbadge[1]]* <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html>
Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> * On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2018 4:18 AM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.co...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
I would like to echo Greg’s sentiments. I believe Brian Beckham will make a great co-chair as Brian brings great qualities to a working group tasked with improving one of ICANN’s greatest achievements; UDRP. Brian’s humility and diplomacy skills are something I think we could all learn from and I personally look forward to the meetings Brian will chair over the coming years – good grief did I just say years? So thank you Brian for being prepared to sacrifice so much of your time. Paul On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:38 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Let me add my voice to the chorus in support of Brian Beckham. Whatever list of co-chair criteria you put together, Brian measures up. Most importantly, Brian has the knowledge and perspective to understand that what we are trying to do is bigger than one set of stakeholders or one viewpoint or one desired outcome. He also knows what he’s getting himself into. And he’s doing it anyway.
Greg On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:55 PM Scott Austin <SAustin@vlplawgroup.com> wrote:
Brian:
Thank you Brian for offering to serve as co-chair with Phil and Kathy in what has proven to be a very active and challenging WG. I agree with others that your depth of experience, intellect and spirit of diplomacy should be welcomed and greatly appreciated by all.
Best regards,
Scott
*Please click below to use my booking calendar to schedule:*
* a 15-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/15min> * a 30-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/30min> a 60-minute call <http://calendly.com/saustin-2/60min>
*[image: IntellectualPropertyLaw 100] **[image: microbadge[1]]* <http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/33308-fl-scott-austin-1261914.html>
Scott R. Austin | Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney | VLP Law Group LLP
101 NE Third Avenue, Suite 1500, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 204-3744 | Fax: (954) 320-0233 | SAustin@VLPLawGroup.com
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> * On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2018 4:18 AM *To:* Corwin, Philip <pcorwin@verisign.com>; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2furldefense.proofpoint.co...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
This message contains information which may be confidential and legally privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing purposes. _______________________________________________ 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 support Brian. On 23 Apr 2018, at 4:19 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Clear "YES" from my side. / 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 24 april 2018 09:58:06 +02:00, skrev Jonathan_agmon icann <jonathan.agmon.icann@ip-law.legal>:
I support Brian.
On 23 Apr 2018, at 4:19 PM, BECKHAM, Brian <<brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From:gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf OfBECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; <julie.hedlund@icann.org>; <mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From:gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf OfCorwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To:<julie.hedlund@icann.org>;<mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc:<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf OfJulie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Paul McGrady <<mcgradygnso@gmail.com>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
From:Paul McGrady <<mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date:Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To:Julie Hedlund <<julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc:gnso-rpm-wg <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject:[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <<julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
From:gnso-rpm-wg <<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <<julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date:Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To:gnso-rpm-wg <<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject:[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines:https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg>
Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so: 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO? 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC? 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider? In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles. Best of all, Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul. <>
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie. <>
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best, Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members, <>
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”.
_______________________________________________ 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>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
+1 On 9 May 2018 at 01:11, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all, Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gn so-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best, Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ <http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
Hi all, I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time. To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns. I have three questions for Brian: 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair? Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention, Michael ------- Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all, Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gn so-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best, Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Michael; Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard. From: mkaranicolas@gmail.com Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To: mpsilvavalent@gmail.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Hi all, I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time. To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns. I have three questions for Brian: 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair? Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention, Michael ------- Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so: 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO? 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC? 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider? In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles. Best of all, Martín Silva On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Georges, I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my ³agitating² question came up. My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus. If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency. Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question. Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Michael;
Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
From: mkaranicolas@gmail.com Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To: mpsilvavalent@gmail.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Hi all,
I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time.
To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns.
I have three questions for Brian:
1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair?
Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,
Michael
-------
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.²
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?²
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require ³demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law², which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to ³parties in² domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that¹s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all, Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a ³Specification 13² to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN ³working groups² and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless ³eUDRP² that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven¹t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best, Julie
From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best, Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG¹s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott¹s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_cou ncil_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u 3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc 8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI _189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization¹s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: Nominations or self-nominations; Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; Vote by simple majority; Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions².
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Dear all, As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian’s suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email). Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team. Best regards, Mary, Julie & Ariel ----- Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Georges, I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my “agitating” question came up. My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus. If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency. Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question. Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Michael; Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard. From: mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To: mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Hi all, I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time. To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns. I have three questions for Brian: 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair? Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention, Michael ------- Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so: 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO? 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC? 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider? In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles. Best of all, Martín Silva On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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
Excellent response. Thank you. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear all,
As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian¹s suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email).
Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team.
Best regards, Mary, Julie & Ariel
-----
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian¹s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian¹s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers Mary & Ariel
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Georges,
I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my ³agitating² question came up.
My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus.
If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency.
Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question.
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Michael;
Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
From:mkaranicolas@gmail.com Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com Cc:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Hi all,
I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time.
To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns.
I have three questions for Brian:
1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus?
2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not?
3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair?
Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,
Michael
-------
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.²
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?²
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require ³demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law², which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to ³parties in² domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself:
I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that¹s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all,
Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a ³Specification 13² to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN ³working groups² and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless ³eUDRP² that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven¹t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG¹s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott¹s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pd f[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_co uncil_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY 1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5 ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUP EiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization¹s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
Nominations or self-nominations;
Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
Vote by simple majority;
Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions².
_______________________________________________ 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>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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
Great, so it seems we can dispense with this line of questioning then, yes? 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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: 09 May 2018 17:00 To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Excellent response. Thank you. From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM 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] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear all, As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian's suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email). Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team. Best regards, Mary, Julie & Ariel ----- Hi Michael and everyone, Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian's suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian's question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with. We hope this clarifies the timing. Cheers Mary & Ariel From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es<mailto:Paul@law.es>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Georges, I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my "agitating" question came up. My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus. If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency. Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question. Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Michael; Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard. From:mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Hi all, I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time. To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns. I have three questions for Brian: 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair? Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention, Michael ------- Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 - we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain." Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: "What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?" His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require "demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law", which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to "parties in" domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that's fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so: 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO? 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC? 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider? In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles. Best of all, Martín Silva On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a "Specification 13" to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN "working groups" and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless "eUDRP" that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders - to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven't been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG's large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott's dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization's liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: * Nominations or self-nominations; * Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; * Vote by simple majority; * Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions". _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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
We can certainly dispense with any questions about Paul's submissions, since they are utterly irrelevant to Brian's candidacy. The questions about Brian, however, have not been addressed yet, so I look forward to hearing his response on the call. Best, Michael On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Great, so it seems we can dispense with this line of questioning then, yes?
*Susan Payne Head of Legal Policy* | *Valideus Ltd * E: susan.payne@valideus.com D: +44 20 7421 8255 T: +44 20 7421 8299 M: +44 7971 661175
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Keating *Sent:* 09 May 2018 17:00 *To:* Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Excellent response. Thank you.
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> *Date: *Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM *To: *"gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear all,
As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian’s suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email).
Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie & Ariel
-----
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers
Mary & Ariel
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> *Date: *Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM *To: *"Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> *Cc: *"Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Georges,
I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my “agitating” question came up.
My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus.
If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency.
Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question.
Paul
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> *Date: *Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM *To: *Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> *Cc: *"Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Michael;
Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
*From:*mkaranicolas@gmail.com
*Sent:* May 9, 2018 8:40 AM
*To:*mpsilvavalent@gmail.com
*Cc:*gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Hi all,
I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time.
To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns.
I have three questions for Brian:
1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus?
2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not?
3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair?
Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,
Michael
-------
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?”
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not *represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB today* (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you,
Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent < mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself:
I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all,
Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com; gn so-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM *To:* julie.hedlund@icann.org; mcgradygnso@gmail.com *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using.
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
------------------------------
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ------------------------------
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
_______________________________________________ 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 did not submit anything You perhaps are mixing me up with someone else? From: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:26 PM To: Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> Cc: Paul Keating <paul@law.es>, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>, "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
We can certainly dispense with any questions about Paul's submissions, since they are utterly irrelevant to Brian's candidacy.
The questions about Brian, however, have not been addressed yet, so I look forward to hearing his response on the call.
Best,
Michael
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Susan Payne <susan.payne@valideus.com> wrote:
Great, so it seems we can dispense with this line of questioning then, yes?
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 [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: 09 May 2018 17:00 To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Excellent response. Thank you.
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM To: "gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear all,
As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian¹s suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email).
Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team.
Best regards, Mary, Julie & Ariel
-----
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian¹s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian¹s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers Mary & Ariel
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul@law.es> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Georges,
I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my ³agitating² question came up.
My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus.
If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency.
Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question.
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Michael;
Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
From:mkaranicolas@gmail.com Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com Cc:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Hi all,
I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time.
To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns.
I have three questions for Brian:
1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus?
2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not?
3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair?
Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,
Michael
-------
Dear All,
Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.²
Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:
³What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?²
His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require ³demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law², which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to ³parties in² domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset).
Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry.
Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry
On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Brian,
I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself:
I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that¹s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so:
1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles.
Best of all,
Martín Silva
On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int> wrote:
Dear WG members,
Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration:
I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions.
In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a ³Specification 13² to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building.
Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global.
I participated in a few prior ICANN ³working groups² and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless ³eUDRP² that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Phil, all,
Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven¹t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances.
I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK.
For now, best regards,
Brian
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> ; mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thanks Paul.
Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
Best, Philip
Philip S. Corwin
Policy Counsel
VeriSign, Inc.
12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190
703-948-4648/Direct
571-342-7489/Cell
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com <mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > wrote: > > Dear Working Group members, > > > > Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings > at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking > nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the > administration of the WG¹s large and complex agenda and encourage > members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating > someone else. > > > > As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the > relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working > Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not > mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how > it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as > noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its > consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an > additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. > > > > Best regards, > > Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie > > > > From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org > <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Julie Hedlund > <julie.hedlund@icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org> > > Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM > To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> > > Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair > > > > Dear Working Group members, > > > > On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and > Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. > Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We > are all very grateful for J. Scott¹s dedication and thoughtful > leadership of this Working Group since its inception. > > > > At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the > importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist > in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage > members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating > someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group > could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 > March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on > our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest > member participation. > > > > For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO > Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. > Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working > Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional > Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must > confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the > Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as > an interim appointee. > > > > We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to > proceed. > > > > Best regards, > > Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie > > > > GNSO Working Group Guidelines: > https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en. > pdf[gnso.icann.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_ > council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c > =FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8 > GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3 > _oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> > > > > 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders > > > > Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, > normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until > that time, the Chartering Organization¹s liaison may fulfill the role of > interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and > Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be > requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such > time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will > need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly > elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering > Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections > to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether > there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the > voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be > requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with > a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is > rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection > and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. > > > > Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: > > Nominations or self-nominations; > > Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the > qualifications, qualities and > > experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; > > Vote by simple majority; > > Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering > Organization of results of > > actions². > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>
World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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
Paul: Thank you for clarifying how your situation proceeded. Just so you know I had received a document from staff that had these additional questions in the document and that was the first time I saw them. In any event, the basic issue is that we dealt with the additions just like the provider group dealt with the proposed revisions there. That was to the benefit of all. I just found it interesting that Michael is complaining about this when I can point to several examples in the past of folks contacting staff to get something into a document and there was silence by folks now complaining. Ultimately these things come up to the group or subteam, folks debate the issues and then we move on. I just don't think we should be wasting our time on this when we have far important issues to discuss. From: Paul@law.es Sent: May 9, 2018 10:55 AM To: ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com; mkaranicolas@gmail.com; mpsilvavalent@gmail.com Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Georges, I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my “agitating” question came up. My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus. If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency. Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question. Paul From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn@kilpatricktownsend.com>> Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com>>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Michael; Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard. From: mkaranicolas@gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas@gmail.com> Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM To: mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Hi all, I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time. To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it raises some concerns. I have three questions for Brian: 1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to documents drafted by consensus? 2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not? 3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as chair? Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention, Michael ------- Dear All, Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 – we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of this question, which states: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.” Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to: “What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name cases)?” His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require “demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not represent parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a subset). Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today, please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by COB today (Friday, 4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this very last-minute inquiry. Thank you, Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent@gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Brian, I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit of the election itself: I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working there, so: 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO? 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC? 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider? In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared people for such sensitive roles. Best of all, Martín Silva On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham@wipo.int<mailto:brian.beckham@wipo.int>> wrote: Dear WG members, Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem. I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey the following for your consideration: I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends, and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy discussions. In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR, administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN multistakeholder processes on a number of files. Particularly in assisting on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication, understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups. Each of these represent forms of consensus building. Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission at WIPO; I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds, nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints. In my private practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to global. I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook iterations). I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects. I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in trust of the DNS. I would be honored to contribute to this important work. Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Phil, all, Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence. I am sorry I haven’t been able reply earlier. I am in principle willing and able to assist here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal discussions/clearances. I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams this week, I hope is OK. For now, best regards, Brian From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM To: julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>; mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thanks Paul. Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin Policy Counsel VeriSign, Inc. 12061 Bluemont Way Reston, VA 20190 703-948-4648/Direct 571-342-7489/Cell "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Paul and noted. Best, Julie From: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair Thank you Julie. I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair. Best, Paul On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear Working Group members, Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair Dear Working Group members, On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception. At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation. For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee. We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed. Best regards, Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=> 2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision. Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be: • Nominations or self-nominations; • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG; • Vote by simple majority; • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of actions”. _______________________________________________ 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 World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses prior to opening or using. _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org<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 ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. ________________________________ ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. _______________________________________________ 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
Very well noted. Thanks Paul. Kind Regards Poncelet On 28 March 2018 at 18:43, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Thank you Paul and noted.
Best,
Julie
*From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso@gmail.com> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Thank you Julie.
I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO. Although I believe WIPO sits with the GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
Best,
Paul
On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear Working Group members,
Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else.
As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
*From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Dear Working Group members,
On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip, Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March. We are all very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this Working Group since its inception.
At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating someone else. We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member participation.
For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected. Note that holding an election is not mandatory. It is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair. In addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim appointee.
We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
Best regards,
Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1- gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_counc...>
2.1.4.2 Election of the WG Leaders
Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization, normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of interim Chair. A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO). The newly elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering Organization has confirmed the appointment. If there are any objections to the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting procedures of the CO. If not, the Working Group will be requested to reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new proposal. In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
• Nominations or self-nominations;
• Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the qualifications, qualities and
experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
• Vote by simple majority;
• Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering Organization of results of
actions”.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/ <http://signaraglobalsolutions.com/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
participants (28)
-
Ariel Liang -
Ariel Manoff -
BECKHAM, Brian -
Brian Winterfeldt -
claudio di gangi -
Corwin, Philip -
Cyntia King -
Doug Isenberg -
Flip Petillion -
George Kirikos -
gmlevine＠researchtheworld.com -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan_agmon icann -
Julie Hedlund -
Marie Pattullo -
Martin Pablo Silva Valent -
Michael Karanicolas -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Nahitchevansky, Georges -
Paul Keating -
Paul McGrady -
Paul Tattersfield -
Petter Rindforth -
Poncelet Ileleji -
Scott Austin -
Susan Payne -
trachtenbergm＠gtlaw.com -
Zak Muscovitch