[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
Jeremy Malcolm
jmalcolm at eff.org
Wed Jun 7 22:32:51 UTC 2017
I disagree. I have some problems with these comments/edits. It seems to
me that:
1. Deleting segments of the joint statement by the co-chairs is
inappropriate. The chairs have every right to express their views, as
the subteam has every right to express theirs.
2. Editing out Question #5 is inappropriate - how the ICANN staff, board
and community review and approve private RPMs is a very important part
of the transparency and accountability process of the RPMs process.
3. Question #9 comparing the ICANN Community's rejection of the GPML
(globally protected marks list) with the DPML privately sold to
trademarks owners (Domains Protected Marks List) is a very valid inquiry
that, of course, the WG subteam should review, consider and debate.
Handcuffing the subteam upfront seems inappropriate.
4. Titles - what we call the Private RPM Protections should be something
for the WG to decide (they are certainly not voluntary for registrants!)
I favor the original chairs' draft.
On 4/6/17 12:36 pm, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I support Jon's edits and share his concerns regarding the scope and
> charge of this group.
>
> I also think the spirit of bottom-up policy development supports
> taking changes to the document, rather than hanging on to the chairs'
> draft, which should be considered a strawman.
>
> Greg
>
> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:33 PM Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>
> Jon:
>
>
>
> I can’t speak for the other two co-chairs, but so far the task of
> our subteams has been largely confined to refining and filling
> gaps in the draft questions, and identifying the data needed to
> provide answers and the feasibility of finding such data. I would
> think that would be the same for the subteam doing scout work on
> these non-mandated, market-supplied RPMs.
>
>
>
> I guess we may have some further discussion of what we are seeking
> this subteam to do during Wednesday’s call, but once we hand it
> off to them the subteam members will get into the details and
> decide how to proceed.
>
>
>
> I welcome further thoughts from the other co-chairs, or from any
> WG members.
>
>
>
> Best, Philip
>
>
>
> *From:*Jon Nevett [mailto:jon at donuts.co <mailto:jon at donuts.co>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:36 PM
> *To:* Phil Corwin
> *Cc:* Jon Nevett; Scott Austin; Susan Payne; Mary Wong; Greg
> Shatan; icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs
> in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
>
>
>
> Thanks Phil. I'd like the co-chairs agreement that the sub-group's
> charge is limited to such information gathering. Otherwise, we do
> have an issue for the full committee and I would object to the
> sub-group starting work without knowing the scope of its work.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jon
>
>
> On Jun 4, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
> <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your feedback, Jon, and for your proposed edit of
> the draft Subteam questions.
>
>
>
> I appreciate your agreement “that information about additional
> protections voluntarily offered by some registries in the
> marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual
> RPMs that we are chartered to review”, as that is consistent
> with the Co-Chairs’ view that we have to understand the full
> scope of and interplay between available RPMs – ICANN-mandated
> plus additional services provided by the TMCH and registries –
> to comprehend the entire ecosystem and make informed decisions
> going forward.
>
>
>
> On Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general agreement that
> further development of the draft questions prepared by us
> should fall to the Subteam charged with reviewing and refining
> them and then sending them back to the full WG for additional
> work. Hopefully the subteam members will reach consensus on
> the scope of our inquiry and their consistency with our Charter.
>
>
>
> As the discussion on Wednesday’s call of this subject should
> be largely confined to our decision to delegate further
> refinement you shouldn’t miss much and in any event will be
> able to review the mp3 and transcript. I believe that you have
> volunteered to be a subteam member so you can are assured that
> your views will be fully considered as it engages.
>
>
>
> Best regards, Philip
>
>
>
> *From:*Jon Nevett [mailto:jon at donuts.email]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 02, 2017 6:26 PM
> *To:* Scott Austin
> *Cc:* Susan Payne; Phil Corwin; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan;
> icannlists; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all
> RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017
>
>
>
> WG Members:
>
>
>
> I would like to remind folks that our Phase 1 charter defines
> the RPMs for us to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in
> Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We are not
> chartered to evaluate Commercial Online Protection Services;
> Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry
> Protections; Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary Registry
> RPMs; or even Private RPMs.
>
>
>
> With that said, I have long agreed that information about
> additional protections voluntarily offered by some registries
> in the marketplace may be helpful to the WG in evaluating the
> actual RPMs that we are chartered to review. With that
> context in mind, I offer the suggested changes to the proposed
> draft questions in the attached. I deleted certain
> references/questions about how/whether ICANN approves such
> additional private protections; whether they are consistent
> with policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that wasn't
> approved and how it may relate to some additional protections
> currently offered. Some of those questions and commentary are
> superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand and would just
> lead us down a proverbial rabbit hole.
>
>
>
> What I hope we want from the sub-group is information about
> additional protections in the marketplace to help inform our
> task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an attempt at an
> extra-charter review of individual registries services. I am
> supportive of the former and happy to provide information as
> such, but am definitely opposed to the latter.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I am taking a red-eye flight on Wednesday and
> will not be available for our next call. I would appreciate
> this issue being kicked to the following call if there is any
> need for discussion of the group. Much appreciated.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org
Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170607/d759ec4e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170607/d759ec4e/signature-0001.asc>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list