[gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

Wed Apr 13 14:59:10 UTC 2016

Hi Paul,

I had a couple of thoughts on your comments about the CHP’s role in this WG.

>>This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP which has little impact on
contracted parties other than ensuring that domain names remain locked and
the decision is enforced.

I would caution against marginalizing the interests of the contracted
parties in the RPM WG.  Any consensus policy change that comes about as a
result of the work of this working group would be contractually binding on
the contracted parties.  The current new gTLD RPMs place significant
obligations on the contracted parties, beyond fulfillment of UDRP/URS.  For
instance, the TMCH rules have a significant impact on the day to day
operations and systems of the registries.  

>>I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair
role for the contracting parties.  

While I originally suggested that the CHP should have representation, there
seems to be a pretty strong consensus among CHP participants that this group
of three potential leaders  (J. Scott, Kathy, and Phil) would do a great job
and no CHP rep would be necessary.

Best,

Jonathan

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Paul Keating via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 7:07 AM
To: petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu; Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>;
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have been reading the email traffic (which has been substantial).

Here are my thoughts:

This WG comprises too much work for a single chairperson.

I do not believe that the task at hand necessitates a chair or vice-chair
role for the contracting parties.  This WG is mainly concerned with the UDRP
which has little impact on contracted parties other than ensuring that
domain names remain locked and the decision is enforced.

A 2-person co-chair arrangement works well as long as the co-chairs can work
together so that all issues are fairly and openly addressed,, meetings run
smoothly and progress is made in a timely fashion.  Competing ideas (of
which there are surely many)  should be left to the WG member discussions;
they should not find their way into the chair positions.  In the WG on NGOs
we have had a successful co-chair arrangement in which Phil and Petter were
able to work well together and where BOTH ensured that discussions remained
open and that all topics were fairly presented and considered.

If it is felt that the co-chairs cannot accomplish the above, then it is
best to have a single chair person with two vice-chairs.  This will ensure
that there is one person guiding the process (again as noted above) and two
additional people to assist.

The above said, I invite those being considered to provide a clear (and
short) statement addressed to the remainder of the WG indicating the
following:

1.            Why they want to be a chair/co-chair.

2.            Why they believe they would be good at the role (bearing in
mind the keys are IMHO  neutrality and organizational skills).

3.            A commitment that they will serve in a neutral capacity such
that matters of the WG will be dealt with in an open and fair manner such
that all issues relevant to the WG mandate are addressed and considered.

4.            A commitment that they are either able to (and will) work
constructively with each of the other nominated persons or a statement of
why they feel they cannot work with any particular nominated person.  Please
bear in mind that I am not encouraging conflict here.  However, because we
are considering co-chairs/Co-Vice-Chairs I feel it is important that we all
know if those being considered can or cannot work well together.  

It is my belief that with the above to hand, we can all then move forward
with more comfort in addressing how many chair/vice-chair positions there
will be and who should fill those roles.

 Sincerely,

Paul Raynor Keating, Esq.

 <http://law.es/> Law.es

Tel. +34 93 368 0247 (Spain)

Tel. +44.7531.400.177 (UK)

Tel. +1.415.937.0846 (US)

Fax. (Europe) +34 93 396 0810

Fax. (US)(415) 358.4450

Skype: Prk-Spain

email:   <mailto:Paul at law.es> Paul at law.es

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT OR WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE.  THE
INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM
IT IS ADDRESSED.  IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, NO WAIVER OF
PRIVILEGE IS MADE OR INTENDED AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO  PLEASE DELETE THE
EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENTS.  

Circular 230 Disclosure: To assure compliance with Treasury Department rules
governing tax practice, we hereby inform you that any advice contained
herein (including in any attachment) (1) was not written or intended to be
used, and cannot be used, by you or any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding
any penalties that may be imposed on you or any taxpayer and (2) may not be
used or referred to by you or any other person in connection with promoting,
marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or matter
addressed herein.

NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS EMAIL SHALL CONSTITUTE THE FORMATION OF AN
ATTORNEY/CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; SUCH A RELATIONSHIP MAY BE FORMED WITH THIS
FIRM AND ATTORNEY ONLY BY SEPARATE FORMAL WRITTEN ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT,
WHICH THIS IS NOT.  IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT, NOTHING CONTAINED
HEREIN SHALL CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE

From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> on behalf of Petter Rindforth via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Reply-To: <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu
<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu> >
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:06 AM
To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com>
>, <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I strongly agree with Susan - The work is likely to bee too much for only
one person, and 2 (yes - two) co-chairs will make a big difference (in a
positive way) to split it up, to participate in preparations in between our
WG meetings as well as to lead our calls and physical meetings. 

There will definately be additional possibilities and work to do as vice
chairs and/or sub-group / sub-tobic chairs, etc for a number of other
members of this WG (including myself ;-)

Best,

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 at fenixlegal.eu
<mailto:petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>  

www.fenixlegal.eu <http://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 <http://www.fenixlegal.eu>  

Thank you

12 april 2016 16:55:01 +02:00, skrev Susan Payne via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >:

I think a leadership team of 4 is getting out of hand.  This is an important
PDP certainly but it unlikely to be as anything like as complex as the
Subsequent Procedures one, and even that is currently managing with 3.  I
would have said 2 co-chairs is the way to go for this one.  I’m concerned
that the bigger the “leadership” group the harder it is for them to find a
time that they can actually get together to plan for the calls.  The role of
the chair(s) is to be impartial after all so it should not matter where they
come from but rather whether they have the requisite skill-set.  

Susan Payne
Head of Legal Policy| Valideus Ltd

E:  <mailto:susan.payne at valideus.com> susan.payne at valideus.com
D: +44 20 7421 8255
T: +44 20 7421 8299
M: +44 7971 661175

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Frost via
gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: 12 April 2016 15:45
To: 
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I tend to agree that there might be balance issues in that  the
non-contracted party house would have three representatives and the
contracted party house would have none.

I think a viable option would be to  Phil as the Chair, J. Scott and Kathy
as Vice Chairs, and a third vice chair from the contracted party house, to
balance the equation.

Jonathan

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via
gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM
To: Statton Hammock <statton at rightside.rocks
<mailto:statton at rightside.rocks> >
Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team

I have some concerns with this configuration in terms of balance (and
related concerns about the accuracy of Volker's categorizations, on both the
"formal" and de facto levels).  As such I would instead suggest J. Scott and
Kathy as co-chairs, with Phil remaining in the role of GNSO Liaison (the
primary role to which Phil was already appointed).

Greg Shatan

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Statton Hammock via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> > wrote:

Also agree with Volker's suggestion. 

Statton 

Statton Hammock

Vice-President, Business & Legal Affairs

Office   | 425-298-2367 <tel:425-298-2367> 

Mobile | 425-891-9297 <tel:425-891-9297> 

statton at rightside.rocks <mailto:statton at rightside.rocks> 

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> > wrote:

+ 1 to Volker.

Gabriela Szlak 

Skype: gabrielaszlak

Twitter: @GabiSzlak

La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial. 

The information in this e-mail is confidential.

2016-04-12 10:24 GMT-03:00 Volker Greimann via gnso-rpm-wg
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >:

Hi all,

with the list of nominations and seconds that we have right now (and
provided we will not get any last minute nominations), it looks like Phil,
Scott and Kathy have the most support. While none of these candidates
represent contracted parties, I do not see this as a problem, as I have
great faith in the neutrality of all candidates.

With Phil formally representing business interests, Scott the IP concerns
and Kathy the non commercial users, I propose we consider a triumvirate,
maybe with one chair and two co/vice-chairs, with Phil as chair and Scott
and Kathy as co-chairs.

Best regards,

Volker
_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________

gnso-rpm-wg mailing list

gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

_______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160413/b0c9c68b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160413/b0c9c68b/image001-0001.jpg>