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

Mike Rodenbaugh mike at rodenbaugh.com
Thu Jun 8 07:53:48 UTC 2017


I agree with Kristine, Jon and Susan.  This WG already has a ton of work to
do, and really has barely scratched the surface on its real work.  We must
not add more to the scope unless mandated by the full GNSO Council.

Thanks,
Mike

Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
http://rodenbaugh.com

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dorrain, Kristine via gnso-rpm-wg <
gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> I fully support Jon’s and Susan’s edits.  I agree that the chair’s
> statement should be a considered a straw person proposal and that members
> have the right to request that statements outside the scope of the Charter
> be stricken.
>
>
>
> Question 5 is well beyond the scope of this WG and is a very slippery
> slope.
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot make the call this evening.  I strongly support
> not allowing the sub team to start work until the WG as a whole has
> determined what the proper scope is.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Kristine
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 07, 2017 3:33 PM
> *To:* 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
>
>
>
> 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 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 <(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/20170608/a156428b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list