[gnso-rpm-wg] SOLICITING TMCH PROPOSALS --- RE: Agenda and documents for Wednesday Working Group meeting (12 April)

Tue Apr 11 16:32:51 UTC 2017

Phil:

With respect, this timeline is too short, given that we've not even
had answers/data to this working group's questions returned from
Deloitte. e.g. just last week I specifically asked for the top 500
terms (not just the top 10), and I had asked for that prior to last
week (i.e. during the Copenhagen calls in March). Other answers/data
have not been provided, either (e.g. ICANN has the right to audit
Deloitte's financials, to see if the fees to TMCH
applicants/registries are reasonable, etc.), or the entire table of
questions, etc. that was prepared that sought out relevant data.

Proper order is: Data first, then analysis of the data, then proposals
for changes, then conclusions.

We can't go straight to proposals and then conclusions, without having
received back all the data that this working group's members have
requested.

At some point, this PDP will have public comment periods, and the
public comments will be able to say "you didn't do the work, didn't
collect the data, refused to look for data, refused to analyze the
data, refused to accept the conclusions that flowed from the data",
etc. This PDP should be sensitive to that, and actually do the work,
instead of pretending to do the work to support a predetermined
(rigged) outcome of "no change to the status quo" that some people
seem to feel should happen, despite evidence identifying numerous
problems.

This is probably going to be one of the most scrutinized PDPs in
ICANN's history --- let's do the work so that its reports/conclusions
can stand up to scrutiny.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
> WG members:
>
>
>
> We have been having some very lively and occasionally heated discussions on
> TMCH-related matters. However, these discussions have been somewhat
> amorphous as they have not been focused on any specific proposal for
> altering the TMCH. That is about to change, as the time for discussion of
> TMCH matters is closing and the time for decisions is fast approaching..
>
>
>
> In that regard, please take special note of this portion of the email sent
> by Mary---
>
>
>
>                 For Agenda Item #2, please note the following:
>
> As these questions have already been the subject of substantial Working
> Group discussion, the aim at this meeting is to allow Working Group members
> who wish to propose recommendations for the full Working Group to consider
> to do so. Any such proposals or recommendations should be specific, include
> a list of the benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages, and be sent
> to the Working Group mailing list no later than 7 days following the call
> this week (i.e. 19 April).
>
>
>
> In other words, starting tomorrow we are both soliciting, and will soon be
> setting a final deadline, for the presentation of proposals to alter the
> current policy concerning the TMCH and its implementation, with such
> proposals relating to specific TMCH questions.
>
>
>
> That means that if you are of a view that the TMCH should be eliminated
> because you believe it gives unfair advantage to TM owners you will have a
> chance to present a proposal to that effect.
>
>
>
> Likewise, if you are of the view that additional terms besides registered
> trademarks should be eligible for placement in the TMCH database you will
> also have a chance to make your case and seek consensus support.
>
>
>
> The above two examples are merely illustrative and by no means intended to
> limit anyone’s ability to advocate any question-specific response.
>
>
>
> In an April 9th email I laid out my expectations for how proposals would be
> presented -- Since then the co-chairs have engaged in a conference call and
> concurred on this approach, and that is reflected in Mary’s advisory--
>
>
>
> Here’s how this co-chair would hope our internal decision process plays out
> on this or any other policy/implementation matter:
>
> ·         A proponent of making a change to present policy and practice
> should articulate the rationale for the proposal and the benefits expected
> to flow from its adoption.
>
> ·         The proponent should also be candid about what costs or burdens
> might be imposed on various parties if it is adopted and explain why those
> costs are outweighed by the envisioned benefits.
>
> ·         If an adopted change would not be self-executing but would require
> significant implementation details then the proponent should at least
> explain the basics how that would be practically effected.
>
>
>
> I believe that if proponents of making a change follow those suggestions it
> will set the stage for at least a fully informed debate and subsequent
> decision-making.
>
>
>
> The co-chairs have also agreed that when the WG is presented with a specific
> proposal we shall, after some reasonable time for discussion, take a straw
> poll of WG members participating in the meeting in which it is raised  to
> ROUGHLY gauge the level of support/opposition for it. However, that straw
> poll will not be binding and whether or not consensus exists for a
> particular proposal will be determined by polling the entire membership of
> the WG.
>
>
>
> If you have any concerns or questions about this approach please let us
> know. Again, the main message is that, so far as the TMCH is concerned, the
> time for concluding talk and making decisions is fast approaching.
>
>
>
> Thank you and best regards,
>
> Philip
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
>
> Virtualaw LLC
>
> 1155 F Street, NW
>
> Suite 1050
>
> Washington, DC 20004
>
> 202-559-8597/Direct
>
> 202-559-8750/Fax
>
> 202-255-6172/Cell
>
>
>
> Twitter: @VlawDC
>
>
>
> "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
>
>
>
> From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Mary Wong
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 5:56 PM
> To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for Wednesday Working Group
> meeting (12 April)
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The proposed agenda for our call this Wednesday (12 April), which is
> scheduled as a 90-minute call commencing at 1600 UTC, is as follows:
>
>
>
> 1.       Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to
> Statements of Interest
>
> 2.       Discuss remaining open TMCH Charter questions (see attached table
> and notes, below)
>
> 3.       Overview by Co-Chairs on preliminary recommendations related to
> RPMs from the Competition, Consumer Protection & Consumer Trust Review Team
> (CCT-RT) (see attached document)
>
> 4.       Administrative details: e.g. Working Group & Sub Team meeting dates
> for the weeks of 17 & 24 April 2017, confirm scheduled day for 4th rotating
> (0300 UTC) Working Group call
>
> 5.       Next steps/next meeting
>
>
>
> For Agenda Item #2, please note the following:
>
> As these questions have already been the subject of substantial Working
> Group discussion, the aim at this meeting is to allow Working Group members
> who wish to propose recommendations for the full Working Group to consider
> to do so. Any such proposals or recommendations should be specific, include
> a list of the benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages, and be sent
> to the Working Group mailing list no later than 7 days following the call
> this week (i.e. 19 April).
>
>
>
> Thanks and cheers
>
> Mary
>
> ________________________________
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.8012 / Virus Database: 4769/14262 - Release Date: 04/07/17
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg