[gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017

Thu Jun 8 02:24:07 UTC 2017

In response to Jeremy's points:

1. This is incorrect.  The GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 6.1.3,
state:

The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a
specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity
in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair
experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she
should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being
stated, instead of a ‘ruling of the chair.’ However, a Chair should not
become an advocate for any specific position. The appointment of co-chairs
could be considered and is encouraged as a way to share the burden, provide
continuity in case of absence of the Chair as well as allowing group
leaders to rotate their participation in the discussion. In addition, in
certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely
neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of
the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the
CO.

Those who have not read the Working Group guidelines would find it very
beneficial, for the rest of the WG as well as for themselves. Here's the
link: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-
guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf

2.  Kristine Dorrain covered this.

3.  As drafted, Question 9 assumes a power we don't have and that is beyond
the scope of this WG -- the power to regulate registry-specific RPMs (or
"private protections," which has the advantage of connoting that these are
outside the ambit of the "non-private" RPMs created by ICANN policy,
pejorative though it may be).  Worse yet, it insinuates that the decision
not to institute the GPML should have prohibited the DPML from being
offered.

4.  Here, I agree that the WG should decide what to call Registry-Specific
Protections.  However, I don't under who is being called a "registrant" in
this statement.  If it is the brandowner "registering" the DPML, I might
agree that DPMLs, like defensive registrations, are not exactly "voluntary"
(in the sense that brandowners feel compelled to acquire something they do
not want merely to prevent abusive registrations), but I somehow feel that
wasn't what was intended. (If it was, I appreciate the rare outburst of
empathy for the concerns of brandowners.)  Other than that, I don't know
who could be called a "registrant" here.

Greg

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> 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> 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]
>> *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
>>
>>
>> *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> 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 <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
>> *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 listgnso-rpm-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://eff.orgjmalcolm@eff.org
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <(415)%20436-9333>
>
> :: 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170607/4d642e39/attachment-0001.html>