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

Paul McGrady policy at paulmcgrady.com
Mon Aug 22 20:36:13 UTC 2016


Thanks Jeff.

 

Nope.  I am not talking about a generalized mediation program in this
context (although not necessarily a bad idea, it's just not what is on the
docket right now which is PDDRP).  If there is any groundswell for such a
generalized mediation program, it seems like it should come up in AOB at
some further point way down the line.

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: Jeff Neuman [mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:53 PM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.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)

 

Paul,

 

As much as I love the sentiment of giving peace a chance, isn't that usually
chanted when there is actually a war going on?  My assumption is that unless
there is evidence to the contrary, aren't  we at peace already :)  At this
point I am not aware of any complaints of a PDDRP nature (meaning that
registries have profited off of the infringement of third parties as a
result of their affirmative conduct - which is a paraphrase of the
standard).  Therefore, spending any time working on a mediation program for
the pddrp when there is no evidence that there was any activity that would
have led to a valid pddrp complaint seems like spinning our wheels.


What it seems like you are talking about is a general mediation program for
any complaints about registry activity whether or not of a pddrp nature.
If we went down that path, I still think this subgroup is premature because
we have not documented the types of "causes of action" for which mediation
could or should be sought.  That should be step 1.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman

Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA

1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600

Mclean, VA 22102, United States

E:  <mailto:jeff.neuman at valideus.com> jeff.neuman at valideus.com or
<mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> jeff.neuman at comlaude.com 

T: +1.703.635.7514

M: +1.202.549.5079

@Jintlaw

 

 

From: Paul McGrady [mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 10:48 AM
To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <mailto:jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>
>; 'David Tait' <david.tait at icann.org <mailto:david.tait at icann.org> >
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 it's 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 "gives peace a chance" 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>
[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 <mailto:david.tait at icann.org> >
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:david.tait at icann.org>  

www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org> 

_______________________________________________
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/20160822/625fe3eb/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list