[council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council

[Phil Corwin]

Rubens, with respect, and speaking only for myself as I have not had any opportunity to discuss this proposal with my co-chairs, support staff, or WG members, I have the following serious concerns about this proposed language:

1.       The draft Motion was filed more than ten days ago yet this highly substantive amendment was filed 46 minutes prior to the start of the Council call, leaving no time for any consultation among the co-chairs or within the WG (noting that our regular weekly call was held at 1700 UTC today, and we could have discussed this matter within the WG if it had been filed in a timely manner);

2.       The amendment assumes that there is some fixed deadline for completion of our work, whereas our timeline (like that of every other PDP WG I have ever participated in) is flexible and is readjusted at regular intervals depending on progress and newly identified needs or challenges;

3.       If the concern is how much time the data gathering takes then it makes no sense to prioritize quantitative data over anecdotal evidence, as the former likely takes more time to gather and analyze;

4.       There are no “RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy”; all the RPMs we are reviewing are existing new gTLD policy; and

5.       The co-chairs are already diligently managing the timeline to harmonize with the Subsequent Procedures WG to the maximum extent feasible, yet this language seems to assume the contrary.

Given my concerns about the meaning and intent of this proposed amendment, and its very late arrival, I am in no position to agree to it or negotiate concerning it. Further, I just learned a few minutes ago that one of my co-chairs will be unable to join the Council call.

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] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 4:14 PM
To: Heather Forrest
Cc: J. Scott Evans; gnso-secs at icann.org; Kathy Kleiman; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] Draft motion on RPM Working Group data request for submission to GNSO Council

Heather, RPM PDP co-chairs, GNSO Councillors;

I would like to propose an amendment based on feedback from our SG. I tried redlining the changes to ease up understanding of what is being suggested.

RESOLVED:
1.     The GNSO Council approves the DMPM request as submitted by the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group, with conditionings from the clauses below.
2.     The GNSO Council directs ICANN policy staff to forward the DMPM request to the appropriate department of ICANN Organization for the requisite budget and resource approvals, with a further request that the matter be considered and approved in as timely a fashion as practicable.
3.    If the data gathering effort conflicts with either the PDP WG timeline, the funds allocated by ICANN Organization to the effort or the actual cost of the services, that priority would be given to quantitative data instead of anecdotal evidence, and to RPMs that deviate the most from approved policy. But If time and funds are available to do all of the data gathering, the approved amount and allowed time could be used to the whole effort.
4.     The GNSO Council requests diligent management of the PDP WG timeline in order to harmonize with other going policy efforts; the Council also requests a follow up report from the Review of All RPMs in All gTLDs PDP Working Group on the progress and outcomes of its DMPM request in time for the GNSO Council’s meeting scheduled for 21 December 2017, and a regular written report thereafter, at intervals of not less frequently than monthly, followed by a detailed status report on the Working Group’s view of the utility of the data collection exercise on the progress and timeline of Phase One of the PDP by ICANN61.


Talk to you all in a few minutes.


Rubens Kuhl
RySG




Em 8 de set de 2017, à(s) 02:34:000, Heather Forrest <haforrestesq at gmail.com<mailto:haforrestesq at gmail.com>> escreveu:

Dear GNSO Secretariat and Council colleagues,

Please find attached a motion and supporting documentation which I request be added to the Council's September agenda. I put this motion as Council liaison to the RPM PDP WG, after discussion with the three co-chairs and policy staff. I may ask fellow Councilor (and RPM PDP co-chair Phil Corwin) to field specific questions at the Council meeting.

Best wishes,

Heather Forrest
<Draft DMPM Motion for RPMs - 7 Sept 2017.docx><RPM Sunrise & Trademark Claims Metrics Request Form - DRAFT - 7 Sept 2017.docx>_______________________________________________
council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20170920/5e939389/attachment.html>