[gnso-rpm-wg] [RPM data collection request]

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Wed Sep 6 16:49:52 UTC 2017


We can have a full discussion of your concerns, and whatever concerns others may have, on today’s call – although the main goal is to establish priorities; that is, seek consensus on those requests that are likely to best yield new data on important issues.

The data request questions are based upon the work of the dedicated subteams which identified available data and data gaps, and sources that might fill those gaps, that are relevant to answering Charter questions. As the WG has gone about as far as it can in uncovering available data, we are now on to the next step of developing additional data, both statistical and anecdotal.

In addition, as support staff have advised the co-chairs, our WG is subject to the consensus recommendations from the Data & Metrics for Policy Making (DMPM) Working Group, as Council approved all its recommendations in October 2015, including that for a uniform Data & Metrics Request Form, to be used by Working Groups when submitting data requests to the GNSO Council: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20151021-1. The DMPM Request Form was therefore incorporated into the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, in Section 4.5: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf; the DMPM Working Group also developed specific principles that should be complied with when a Working Group seeks data from ICANN’s Contracted Parties (see pp. 17-18 of the DMPM Final Report - https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dmpm-final-09oct15-en.pdf).

The overall thrust of these rather recent guidelines for data and metrics is that policy review and recommendations should, to the extent feasible, be based in sound data and analysis thereof. While the WG can and should discuss the importance of the various inquiries to our future efforts, and the likelihood of obtaining useful information, we are not free to simply decide to ignore the possibility that useful data can be obtained through at least some portions of the proposed surveys.

Finally, the co-chairs have not yet considered issuing a preliminary consensus call to see which aspects of the RPMs we should leave behind as incapable of consensus, and which aspects there may be scope for further discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations, as we don’t wish to prematurely limit discussion and throw in the towel on some issues. However, I will restate the personal view that I have previously expressed, which is that pragmatic and incremental modifications of the RPMs to improve their efficacy and balance are the type most likely of achieving consensus, while complete elimination of any of them is unlikely to do so and, indeed, more likely to garner strong objection.

Best, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Beckham, Brian
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 12:02 PM
To: Mary Wong; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [RPM data collection request]

Thanks very much Mary and co-chairs,

Let me preface my email by saying that while I did miss a few WG calls in late August, I have gone back and read the transcripts.  And although it is not clear to me exactly how or when, it seems that somewhere along the way, the idea to come up with a list of questions to inform the discussions of this WG (on which I think there was broad agreement – in some cases perhaps only in a spirit of working compromise) seems to have morphed into a call for a survey.

Without seeking to take away from the work that has gone into this, to be honest, when I read through these questions, I land on the conclusion that these questions seem unlikely to provide anything other than yet more opinions and anecdotes.  Virtually none of the questions seek actual data (which would read something like:  how much did you budget for Sunrises, how many would you have participated in if budget was no issue, and how many did you actually participate in?).

Also, the answers to some of them seem so facially obvious that the point of asking them is – to me at least – unclear.  For example, it seems very uncontroversial to say that we already know the answer to “whether Premium Pricing and the use of Premium Names and Reserved Names lists affected TM owners’ willingness to participate in Sunrise.”

In other words, concretely, what is it that the WG now seeks to achieve by issuing a broad survey on these questions?

I would therefore like to suggest we consider leaving these as questions for the WG to consider as it formulates proposed solutions, instead of seeking permission and funds (not to mention additional time) for a survey.

Before today’s call, I would furthermore like to ask:  have the co-chairs considered issuing a preliminary consensus call to see which aspects of the RPMs we should leave behind as incapable of consensus (e.g., doing away with the TMCH or Sunrises), and which aspects there may be scope for further discussions that could lead to consensus recommendations?

Finally, one important caveat:  I would have absolutely no problem in principle in asking these or other questions to make the best and most informed recommendations we can.  I do however question whether the proposed survey will not assist us to this end.

Thanks for considering, and speak to you all soon,


From: gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 6:21 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rpm-wg] Agenda and documents for RPM Working Group call on Wednesday 6 September 2017

Dear all,

The proposed agenda for our next Working Group call, coming up today at 1700 UTC, is as follows:

  1.  Roll call (via Adobe Connect and phone bridge only); updates to Statements of Interest
  2.  Review draft GNSO Council data collection request (including suggested prioritization levels from the Working Group co-chairs)
  3.  Next steps/next meeting

For agenda item #2, the following documents are attached:

  *   A draft request to the GNSO Council, in the form prescribed by the GNSO Operating Procedures, outlining the request, the rationale for the request, an initial estimated budget and list of possible sources, as well as attachments detailing the Charter questions and data collection tasks being contemplated.

  *   A Google Doc showing all the various data collection tasks identified to date (as noted in Attachment 2 to the draft request form described above), where the Working Group co-chairs have noted a preferred prioritization level to each task.

The staff understanding is that we will be focusing on a review of the Google Doc on the call.

Thanks and cheers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20170906/f2fbc1d3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the gnso-rpm-wg mailing list