[council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Wed Sep 20 14:25:50 UTC 2017

Donna:

Having now checked with staff and confirming that my understanding is correct, here is a comprehensive response to your inquiry.

In regard to any “dependency” between the RPM Review and SubPro WGs, I would first note that some portions of the ICANN community  (e.g., BC and IPC) believe that both WGs should complete their work relating to any future round of new gTLDs (SubPro’s full work, and our Phase 1 new gTLD RPM review work) before any subsequent round is launched. But that view is separate from the Charter requirements, and the Board holds ultimate authority over the timing of and necessary foundation for any future round.

The more authoritative view is contained in the RPM Review WG Charter<file:///C:\Users\pcorwin.PCorwin-W7\Downloads\Charter%20for%20RPM%20PDP_final%20(1).pdf>, which states in relevant part:
“(b) Coordination with Other Parallel Efforts…In the course of its work, the Working Group should monitor the progress of and, where appropriate, coordinate with, other ICANN groups that are working on topics that may overlap with or otherwise provide useful input to this PDP. In particular, this PDP Working Group shall maintain a close working relationship with the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice (CCT) Review Team and the PDP Working Group on New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures. To facilitate interaction between the two GNSO PDPs, a GNSO community liaison, who is a member of both PDP WGs, shall be appointed by both Working Groups as soon as both Groups have taken up their work. In addition, the RPM PDP Working Group should also take into consideration the work/outcome of the TMCH Independent Review, the CCT Review, and any other relevant GNSO policy development projects….In addition, the GNSO Council, as the manager of the policy development process, should be kept informed at all times about coordination efforts with the CCT Review Team and the PDP on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures. In case of conflict between these groups, the Council shall take appropriate action to align work processes if and when necessary….
Deliverables & Timeframes: In addition to the PDP deliverables prescribed in the ICANN Bylaws and the PDP Manual, the Working Group shall provide a first Initial Report to the GNSO Council at the conclusion of Phase One of the PDP. The Report shall be put out for public comment and also inform the GNSO Council about the progress of the Working Group. At a minimum, the Report shall outline the Working Group’s progress and any preliminary recommendations it may have developed with regard to its work in Phase One. The first Initial Report shall also highlight any relevant findings, information or issues that may have emerged during Phase One and any issues or recommendations that the Group believes should be considered by the PDP Working Group on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures, and/or that the Working Group considers relevant to its work in Phase Two. Phase Two of the PDP Working Group shall focus primarily on the review of the UDRP. However, during this Phase the Working Group is also expected to review its first Initial Report, taking into account public comments received, and/or feedback submitted from the New gTLD Subsequent Rounds PDP or other ongoing efforts. Before concluding its work the Working Group shall take into account any relevant developments from the New gTLD Subsequent Rounds PDP WG and/or other relevant ICANN review or policy development work. The Working Group’s second Initial Report shall be completed and published for public comment, as per the PDP Manual. The Working Group shall then review all comments, complete its Final Report and submit it, as per the PDP Manual, to the GNSO Council for its consideration and further action. (Emphasis added)

Summing up, the RPM Charter states that we are to coordinate and maintain a close working relationship with SubPro; the Council is to take appropriate action in the event of “conflict” between the two WGs (and the co-chairs do not perceive any conflict at this time, as we have no known disagreement on policy matters, and some possible time gap between delivery of Final Reports should not fall into that category); our first Initial Report should highlight any issues we believe should be considered by SubPro (I can’t think of any that might emerge, other than perhaps noting the impact of premium domain pricing on utilization of the Sunrise registration RPM); and we are to take into account  any relevant SubPro developments  in our Phase 2 UDRP work (although it’s not clear what those might be).

So, each WG submits a separate Final Report to Council, with neither being subordinate to the other.

Susan Payne and Robin Gross are jointly fulfilling the role of GNSO community liaison to the two WGs.

Staff further informs me that the SubPro Charter includes RPMs on the list of topics identified by the previous Discussion Group (as part of the listing of all the Discussion Group’s suggested topics) -- but goes on to note that there is an anticipated PDP (the RPM Review) on this topic, that duplication of effort and conflicting work should be avoided, and if the SubPro WG uncovers topics related to RPMs in the course of its deliberations, it should relay these to the RPM WG for resolution (see https://community.icann.org/x/KAp1Aw for the full text of the SubPro Charter). In creating the initial draft of both Charters, staff were very conscious of the need to clarify the scope of work for each PDP to avoid any misunderstanding or “blurring” of work scope that might cause duplication of effort or one WG delaying the other.

Summing up, while the two separate WGs are both addressing important subjects in anticipation of a subsequent round, and while they are supposed to communicate and to some degree coordinate, neither is “dependent” on the other in terms of having to wait for any specific input before its own work can be completed.

So far as any significant time gap between the delivery of Final Reports by both WGs, as both have already adjusted their timelines I believe it is premature to project a date of completion for either at this time other than noting that both project completing their work relevant to a Subsequent Round in 2018.. I can report that the RPM Co-Chairs have already discussed how to efficiently utilize any period while we are waiting on the proposed data surveys and answers thereto, and that we plan to use that interval to focus in on the URS as the final Phase 1 matter to be considered.

Further down the road, it is quite possible that we will utilize the comment collection and analysis period on our Phase 1 Initial Report to start laying the foundation for our Phase 2 UDRP review. So we are very mindful of the need for and desirability of maintaining as tight a schedule as feasible given our broad Charter and the complexity of the issues under review. Other than the Charter requirement that we should take into account any relevant SubPro developments in our UDRP review, there is no dependency at all between its work and our Phase 2 charge.

I trust that answers your question, but if you or other Council members require further clarification I will be happy to provide that in advance of or during today’s Council call.

Best regards,
Philip

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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: Austin, Donna [mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 1:44 AM
To: Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Hi Phil

I understand there is a dependency between the RPM PDP WG and the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG and this is addressed to some extent in the summary document.

What’s not clear to me is whether the RPM PDP WG recommendations will be provided to the Council for consideration and subsequently the Board; or whether the recommendations will be provided to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG for consideration and incorporation into that effort.

Could you please outline the process please?

Thanks

Donna

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:25 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Thanks for that feedback, Mary.

The bottom line here is that we didn’t want to come in with a misleading or lowball budget estimate and then have to subsequently come back to Council; can’t be fully sure of the funding requirements until WG members and staff interact with an expert contractor; and will have to agree on a specific appropriation for this data collection with ICANN financial.

I hope that background is useful. If there are further questions in advance of tomorrow’s call please let us know.

Best to all, Philip

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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 2:11 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Dear Wolf-Ulrich and everyone,

The initial minimum estimate of US$50,000 was made based on input staff received about the minimum amount that it was likely to cost to engage a professional survey designer. The final amount will depend in part on a detailed analysis to be conducted if the Council approves the Working Group’s request – for example, whether there are existing sources that can be tapped for information to develop the survey questions, and the outcome of initial discussions with potential contractors over what they think is needed to design, launch and implement such a survey. The full scope of work for the contractor, as opposed to work that can be taken on by the Working Group and/or staff, will also depend on the amount that ICANN Organization is able to make available during this financial year for this one project, and whether the Council approves the entire request or just parts of it.

Staff notes that, even if a professional survey designer is approved and contracted, there will still need to be additional work on the part of the Working Group and support staff to collaborate with the selected contractor to scope out the details, especially in designing the final survey questions and identifying and reaching the target groups of respondents.

I hope this is helpful.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

From: <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 02:40
To: "council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>" <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] [EXTERNAL] Re: FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Thanks Phil,

I have just one question regarding the request which you may answer at the council call. The budget requested is "at minimum 50 k$US". What are the uncertainties , and is there an estimation to what extent it could affect the budget required?

Thanks and regards

Wolf-Ulrich

Am 19.09.2017 um 06:23 schrieb Phil Corwin:
No, Mary sent the attachment on Friday. I was just adding a short comment.

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

Twitter: @VLawDC

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

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 19, 2017, at 12:19 AM, Austin, Donna <Donna.Austin at team.neustar<mailto:Donna.Austin at team.neustar>> wrote:
Hi Phil

Was there supposed to be an attachment with your email?

Donna

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Phil Corwin
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 3:26 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>; council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com<mailto:jsevans at adobe.com>>; Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Fellow Councilors:

With able staff assistance, the WG Co-Chairs prepared this summary in the hope that it anticipates and answers many of the questions that may arise in regard to our DMPM request and related Motion, and therefore expedite the Council’s discussion of this matter when it comes up during our call this coming Wednesday.

Best regards, Philip

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

Twitter: @VlawDC

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

From: council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 7:20 PM
To: council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
Cc: J. Scott Evans; Kathy Kleiman
Subject: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISCUSSION: Summary of Data Request from RPM Working Group co-chairs

Dear Councilors,

As you know, the Review of All Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) PDP Working Group has submitted a request for Council approval in relation to resources needed to conduct an extensive data gathering exercise, in accordance with the principles developed by the GNSO’s Data & Metrics for Policy Making Working Group. The motion and request is on the Council’s meeting agenda for its upcoming 20 September call.

To facilitate the Council’s review of the data request, the RPM Working Group co-chairs have prepared the attached summary. We hope you will find it useful. The motion and full data request can be found on the Council’s wiki page at https://community.icann.org/x/yiIhB<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_yiIhB&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=DOaenBi9xiQeIgg1dRUwyhqYMJ0-WO069gs8tYSMPDE&s=iPugvegzl5kbfwsVOfMNPUSEAbhrU9QLaQz8gUD1GFg&e=> (motion) and https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/rpm-sunrise-trademark-claims-07sep17-en.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_drafts_rpm-2Dsunrise-2Dtrademark-2Dclaims-2D07sep17-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=DOaenBi9xiQeIgg1dRUwyhqYMJ0-WO069gs8tYSMPDE&s=xqJzkMSdcV_EExEuIy3FXc8QKeFA894cnTRxUjZFnaI&e=> (request).

Thanks and cheers
Mary

_______________________________________________

council mailing list

council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_council&d=DwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=CwipU91YB6EkpFXK9ynnT_QUef4yC5p7jpsDm8cU97g&m=2cu2DqgIdlum9bSDP1OCA1upOecj3ybFehpojMgqK3Y&s=Z0oWA2atXGpKSt7FVK18m73kfbSegAtSZGGWmldFoIA&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170920/6642b710/attachment.html>