[gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)

Mon Aug 22 15:26:04 UTC 2016

Me too

Can you please help by referencing any record for complaints noted in your
email below?

I really want to find out one way or the other if this is an issue and if so
how it should be fairly addressed.

PRK

From:  Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Date:  Monday, August 22, 2016 5:20 PM
To:  Paul Keating <paul at law.es>, 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>,
'David Tait' <david.tait at icann.org>
Cc:  <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for
volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)

> Thanks Paul K. for these thoughts.  Looking forward to working with you on the
> Subteam to see if we can get this one sorted.
>  
> Best,
> Paul M.
>  
>  
> Paul D. McGrady, Jr.
> policy at paulmcgrady.com
>  
>  
>  
> 
> From: Paul Keating [mailto:Paul at law.es]
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:07 AM
> To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>; 'Jeff Neuman'
> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; 'David Tait' <david.tait at icann.org>
> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for
> volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
>  
> 
> If in fact there have been complaints to ICANN about the issue of Registry
> activities with respect to this issue, I would like to see them documented for
> the benefit of the WG.  When we 1st discussed the burden of proof issue the
> question was raised but not substantiated - that there had been no complaints
> because the burden was too high.  The question was raised as to whether
> complaints had been made.  I did not see any evidence put forward that any
> complaints had been even attempted.
> 
>  
> 
> If there has been a "tendency to run to ICANN Staff & Board with complaints"
> then there should be some record of such.  I would like to see those records
> and I request that Mary try to dig them up for us.  If these comments are
> unsubstantiated then they are not worth much IMHO.  If they are substantiated
> then they are worth investigating further.
> 
>  
> 
> While I have volunteered for the sub-group on mediation, I still consider
> Jeff's point (which I had echoed on calls as well)  to be a primary guiding
> point for me.   Just as I did not see the need to fix something that was not
> broken, I do not favor a new system that will reduce the burden of "making a
> claim" with the result of placing an unfair burden upon registries and
> registrars to deal with each and every complaint or concern.
> 
>  
> 
> While it is certainly costly for trademark holders to police their marks, we
> need to remember that registries and registrars are a high-volume/low-margin
> business (a registrar for example might make as little as 50Cents on every
> domain registration  w which will cover about 15 seconds of legal time).
> 
>  
> 
> Given that the registries/registrars are really operating under contract with
> ICANN and that the dispute mechanism we are discussing is essentially a
> "private right of action" we need to take care not to relieve ICANN of its
> primary responsibility to police its own agreements.  And, we must be careful
> about the relative burdens/profits involved as between the underlying
> "claimants" (trademark holder vs registry/registrar).
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul McGrady
> <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
> Date: Monday, August 22, 2016 4:48 PM
> To: 'Jeff Neuman' <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>, 'David Tait'
> <david.tait at icann.org>
> Cc: <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for
> volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
> 
>  
>> 
>> Hi Jeff,
>>  
>> I agree with the general sentiment that if it¹s not broken, we should not be
>> out looking for ways to fix it.  However, in the case of building in a
>> mediation mechanism, rather than a change to the elements of a complaint, I
>> think we may want to make an exception here if it ³gives peace a chance² in
>> the long term.  
>>  
>> One of the complaints the IPC heard from the Registry House in Helsinki was
>> that there is a tendency to run to ICANN Staff & Board with complaints
>> instead of dealing with the registry in the first instance to see if it can
>> be resolved.  The additional of a mediation option seems, to me, to bake in
>> an opportunity and method for that dialogue in advance of a more formal
>> complaint (via PDDRP or to Staff/Board).  In other words, all the mediation
>> program would do is make a way forward for what we all aspire to anyway 
>> talking our problems out with each other.
>>  
>> Best,
>> Paul
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jeff Neuman
>> Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 8:20 PM
>> To: David Tait <david.tait at icann.org>
>> Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
>> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Objection to PDDRP Mediation (was Re: Call for
>> volunteers - RPMs Working Group, Mediation sub-team)
>>  
>> 
>> Just to be clear, this is about mediation as it relates to the Post
>> Delegation Dispute Resolution Policy, not mediation of disputes in general.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I still have a standing objection about the formation of this group and
>> looking at mediating issues between a registry operator and a complainant as
>> there has been no evidence for the need of such a program since there has
>> been no evidence yet of any situation that could have given rise to a PDDRP
>> dispute. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I will continue to be a broken record on this l, but absent evidence
>> demonstrating a need for any changes, we should not be spending any time on
>> making those changes.
>> 
>> Jeff Neuman
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 19, 2016, at 12:19 PM, David Tait <david.tait at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Working Group members
>>>  
>>> At its meeting on 17 August 2016 the Working Group concluded that there was
>>> a need to convene a sub-team to review the issue of Optional mediation and
>>> put forward an outline proposal for consideration by WG. Staff would
>>> therefore invite those who would be interested in participating in this
>>> sub-team to respond to this email and we will begin the process of
>>> establishing the sub-team.
>>>  
>>> We would kindly request that you send us any responses by 0900 UTC 24 August
>>> 2016
>>>  
>>> Please note that Petter Rindforth has already kindly volunteered for this
>>> sub-team.
>>>  
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> David Tait
>>>  
>>> 
>>> David A. Tait
>>> 
>>> Policy Specialist (Solicitor qualified in Scotland)
>>> 
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mobile: + 44-7864-793776
>>> 
>>> Email:  david.tait at icann.org
>>> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20160822/cc783692/attachment.html>