[gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"

Paul McGrady policy at paulmcgrady.com
Fri Sep 30 17:50:27 UTC 2016

Thanks Ed.  Again, no objection to any improvements to the readability that we can make to the claims notice so that the balance Kathy and I worked hard to reach has the best chance of being understood by everyone who encounters one (including going out to technical writers for help – my wife will be thrilled).  


Whether revamping the claims notice affects the non-proceed rate (either up or down), your guess is as good as mine.  Since we are setting forth data-less theories, I think we could just as easily posit, and not be able to disprove, that the 7 percent of folks who did click through did so because they saw a bunch of American lawyer boilerplate and have been trained by other consumer activities to just click through it without taking the time to read it.  Who knows?


In any event, we have absolutely nothing to fear about the suggestion that the claims notice become more readable by the non-lawyer consumer.  I look forward to working with you and others on this!







From: Edward Morris [mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net] 
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 8:13 AM
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Cc: Paul Keating <paul at law.es>; Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] "free speech"




Without commenting at this time on broader issues...



As I said on the call, as a co-author of the Claims Notice I am very happy if it can be improved in any way to make the balance that Kathy and I were seeking to be more easily understood 


The Claims Notice reads as a document written by American lawyers for American lawyers who were trying to not sound like Anetican lawyers. 


There are folks out there who specialise in creating Plain English documents. I'd suggest we might want to turn to the professionals to see if they can design a notice whose verbiage is better understood by laypeople,  so the balance you say you were trying to explain is more easily understood.


The 93 per cent plus non-proceed rate is deeply disturbing, may indicate some chilling effect on speech - the fact we may not be able to get the specific data we need to definitively determine this one way or the other is also problematic. A revamp

of the Notice along the lines indicated is something, albeit small and fairly easy to do, that we probably should do anyway as best practice and may have some impact on any chilling effect that may exist.




Ed Morris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20160930/288a6b92/attachment.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list