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

Thu Jun 8 18:07:02 UTC 2017

Agreed.

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

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Jon Nevett <jon at donuts.email> wrote:

> Phil:
>
> It's at least clear, but far from satisfactory.
>
> Setting up a sub-group without a direction of scope from the main group --
> especially when we know that there is a clear disagreement about the scope
> issue -- is just unacceptably silly.  Anyone who knows ICANN, knows how
> this is going to end up.  We all are going to waste a bunch of cycles and
> we will just be back in the same place with the same issue.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>
> Mike, and other WG members:
>
> On last night’s WG call it was agreed to that the co-chairs suggested
> questions are a strawman and that the subteam is free to adopt, reject, or
> rewrite any of them, as well as add questions of its own that it believes
> are relevant to understanding the interrelationship between the mandated
> RPMs and the additional ones supplied by the marketplace, and to informing
> our ongoing policy discussion.
>
> Therefore, the starting documents for the subteam will be the co-chairs
> memo, the markup of same performed by Jon and added to by others, and any
> email threads from the WG list relating to the subteam’s work. The first
> order of business for the subteam will be to agree upon the questions it
> will address. The subteam will be tasked with reporting back to the full WG
> a refined list of questions along with identified available data and
> additional data needs. All subsequent discussion related to answering those
> questions will occur at the full WG level.
>
> I hope that is clear and satisfactory. The subteam is now up to 18 members
> plus the co-chairs in an ex officio capacity, and interested WG members who
> have not yet joined the subteam are welcome to do so. We intend to schedule
> the subteam’s first meeting next week, probably in a Friday time slot.
>
> Best regards, Philip
>
> *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
> *Virtualaw LLC*
> *1155 F Street, NW*
> *Suite 1050*
> *Washington, DC 20004*
> *202-559-8597 <(202)%20559-8597>/Direct*
> *202-559-8750 <(202)%20559-8750>/Fax*
> *202-255-6172 <(202)%20255-6172>/Cell*
>
> *Twitter: @VlawDC*
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces@
> icann.org <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rodenbaugh
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 08, 2017 3:54 AM
> *To:* Dorrain, Kristine
> *Cc:* 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 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 <(415)%20738-8087>
> 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 at 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170608/1c106e8b/attachment-0001.html>