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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 19:24:10 UTC 2016


Should the subgroup be tasked with the debate over the question of whether
any mediation is appropriate or not?  Or should that be left to the group
as a whole?

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

>
>
> I am very concerned that the formation of a mediation subteam to gather
> information presupposes the question.  If in fact, there is a problem with
> brand owners running to ICANN to report pervasive bad faith activities *by
> a registry* rather than working things out with the registry, we don’t
> have evidence of this.  We cannot presuppose that mediation is the right
> answer when we don’t know the question.  If we want to create a sub team to
> investigate problems, lets do that.  But creating a subteam to discuss a
> SOLUTION for which a problem has yet to be identified is putting the cart
> before the horse.  Even if problems are identified, it’s not a foregone
> conclusion that mediation is going to be the right answer.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Kristine
>
>
>
>
>
> Kristine Dorrain
>
> Corp Counsel – IP | Amazon | 206.740.9339
>
> dorraink at amazon.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 10:53 AM
> *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
> J  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: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>
> T: +1.703.635.7514
>
> M: +1.202.549.5079
>
> @Jintlaw
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Paul McGrady [mailto:policy at paulmcgrady.com
> <policy at paulmcgrady.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2016 10:48 AM
> *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 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@
> icann.org <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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160823/1474a6c5/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list