[gnso-rpm-wg] Co-Chair Statement on Refinement of Draft Questions for Private Protections Sub team

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 6 21:01:34 UTC 2017


Thanks for the clarification.

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:00 PM J. Scott Evans <jsevans at adobe.com> wrote:

> Greg:
>
>
>
> No one is mandating which version the sub team works with initially. I,
> for one, thought it was obvious that you all (if you have volunteered for
> the sub team) would begin with the document as edited by Jon and Susan.
>
>
>
> J. Scott
>
>
>
> [image:
> ttps://inside.corp.adobe.com/content/dam/brandcenter/images/image002.gif]
>
> *J. Scott Evans*
>
> 408.536.5336 (tel)
>
> 345 Park Avenue, Mail Stop W11-544
>
> Director, Associate General Counsel
>
> 408.709.6162 (cell)
>
> San Jose, CA, 95110, USA
>
> Adobe. Make It an Experience.
>
> jsevans at adobe.com
>
> www.adobe.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <
> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM
> *To: *Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Co-Chair Statement on Refinement of Draft
> Questions for Private Protections Sub team
>
>
>
> The risk of a debate about scope matters that would "inordinately delay"
> the work of the WG seems to be very small, considering that there was no
> support on the list for the chairs' strawman and a significant number of
> consistent criticisms and edits revising that strawman.  At the least, that
> would seem to indicate that the subgroup should start with Jon's edited
> version.  At the risk of being blunt, there seems to be a bit too much
> "pride of authorship" on display here.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Amr Elsadr <amr.elsadr at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group Members,
>
>
>
> On behalf of the Co-Chairs of the GNSO Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP
> Working Group, please find a statement below prepared by the Co-Chairs on
> the proposed questions, which will be considered by the Private Protections
> Sub Team.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
> The co-chairs are aware that questions have been raised by some WG members
> in regard to whether some of the questions proposed in the document titled
> “DRAFT QUESTIONS FOR PRIVATE PROTECTIONS SUB TEAM 28  May 2017” exceed the
> scope of the Charter for this WG. In preparing this draft document the
> co-chairs expected that any relevant issues, including Charter scope
> issues, would be fully explored by the subteam that will be refining the
> questions and identifying related data needs. We continue to believe that
> would be the most efficient way to proceed and that debating scope matters
> at the full WG level in regard to questions that may be deleted or
> substantially modified by the subteam would not be an efficient procedure
> for the full WG; and would inordinately delay our ongoing work on the TMCH,
> Sunrise Registrations, and Trademark Claims matters. At least 16 WG members
> have already indicated that they wish to participate in the subteam, which
> should ensure a robust discussion and diversity of viewpoints.
>
>
>
> WG members who have concerns about whether some proposed questions go
> beyond the scope of the WG Charter will have full opportunity to make their
> case within the subteam, and to continue to raise those concerns if the
> subteam recommends that the full WG consider questions that they object to
> on scope grounds. In other words, the subteam’s conclusion on scope matters
> will be a preliminary recommendation subject to further review by the full
> WG prior to initiating full WG discussion of the refined questions.
> Likewise, if any WG members believe that a question rejected for scope
> reasons is an important one that should be explored by this WG, they shall
> have the opportunity to make the case for seeking a Charter amendment from
> Council.
>
>
>
> The bottom line is that we expect and shall seek to fully address and
> resolve any and all scope issues before the full WG engages in discussions
> concerning the final list of refined questions relating to this subject. It
> is also worth noting  the Guidelines  for GNSO WGs make it clear that: *“Decisions
> made by sub-teams should always be shared with the larger working group and
> a call for consensus must be made by the entire WG.”*
>
>
>
> *Therefore, our recommendation to the full WG is that, for the sake of
> procedural efficiency, and with assurance that the rights and perspectives
> of all WG members will be taken into account at every stage of our process,
> we should launch the new subteam tasked with refining these questions at
> the conclusion of this week’s WG call and delegate the near term
> consideration of Charter scope matters to that subteam.*
>
>
>
> In the interim period while the subteam is deliberating, given the
> possibility that one or more of the refined questions returned by it to the
> WG may still raise Charter scope concerns, we shall consult with supporting
> policy staff in regard to precedent and advisable procedure for resolving
> such concerns within a policy WG.
>
>
>
> As a final safeguard for all WG members, we note that the Guidelines also
> state:  *“Any WG member that believes that his/her contributions are
> being systematically ignored or discounted or wants to appeal a decision of
> the WG … should first discuss the circumstances with the WG Chair. In the
> event that the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the WG member
> should request an opportunity to discuss the situation with the Chair of
> the Chartering Organization or their designated representative.”* The
> co-chairs are always ready and willing to engage with any aggrieved member,
> but believe it would be premature to do so prior to subteam deliberations,
> and hope that all views on scope and other relevant matters can be resolved
> via amicable consensus and thereby avoid any need for involving Council.
>
>
>
> We hope this recommendation will be acceptable to the WG and welcome
> further discussion of proper procedure on this week’s full WG call.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-rpm-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C5bfdebd7ece74a1daf5008d4ad1d827e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636323789632106357&sdata=Unz88%2BJFFny8sKnJ2g8OO56%2FbZUS0T1%2FyGe6gfeS%2FiQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170606/754d9c41/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170606/754d9c41/image001.gif>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list