[gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
Paul Keating
Paul at law.es
Wed Apr 13 17:27:58 UTC 2016
Jonathan,
I was by no means trying to marginalize anyone including the CPs' roles.
I was merely making a point relative to the expreessed need to have
"representation" at the chair/Vice Chair level.
Paul
From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jonathan Frost via
gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Reply-To: Jonathan Frost <jonathan at get.club>
Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 4:59 PM
To: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Suggestion for Leadership Team
> Hi Paul,
>
> I had a couple of thoughts on your comments about the CHP¹s 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.
>
> Law.es <http://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: Paul at law.es <mailto: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> on behalf of Petter Rindforth via
> gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Reply-To: <petter.rindforth at fenixlegal.eu>
> Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:06 AM
> To: Susan Payne <susan.payne at valideus.com>, <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
>>
>> 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>:
>>>
>>> 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. I¹m concerned
>>> that the bigger the ³leadership² 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: susan.payne at valideus.com <mailto: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]
>>> 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]
>>> On Behalf Of Greg Shatan via gnso-rpm-wg
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 10:38 AM
>>> To: Statton Hammock <statton at rightside.rocks>
>>> Cc: Zahid Jamil-IG via gnso-rpm-wg <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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Gabriela Szlak via gnso-rpm-wg
>>>> <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>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>>> 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
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
>>>
>>> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> _______________________________________________ gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> 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/f5882b72/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/f5882b72/image001-0001.jpg>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list