[GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05 December 2018
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Thu Dec 6 17:16:48 UTC 2018
I'm very proud of the URS subteams, whose work which went forward, in
general, to appreciation and wide support in the full WG. Despite
criticisms, this careful work was largely embraced by the WG and will be
featured in our Initial Report -- with 34 operational fixes and draft
policy recommendations to be presented to the ICANN Community with
support of the full WG.
I hope we can replicate what worked well then. If better guidance and
agreement is needed, let's develop it. Frankly, I like the idea of
smaller subteams and share the support that the efficiency of the
subteam process is based in part on its smaller size and parallel
processes...
Best, Kathy
On 12/6/2018 11:44 AM, Jason Schaeffer wrote:
>
> +1 Georges.
>
> It’s neither helpful nor fair to attack the work of subgroup
> volunteers that spend the extra time and effort to research, review
> and bring a final work product back to the WG. As I believe Susan
> and Cyntia expressed during yesterday’s call, its common and prudent
> business practice to delegate tasks.
>
> We need to proceed and be efficient. The WG has its role and the
> use of small teams that wish to go above and beyond should be
> respected as well.
>
> Yes, we should have some better guidance and agreement on the
> treatment of the subteam work – as you say “the rules of the game.”
>
> Parallel teams with a time that “works” is fair and efficient. If
> one wishes to follow the work of both sub-teams that’s built in already.
>
> In practice it’s also quite difficult for most to really dedicate the
> time to more than one subteam if we are going to be honest about the
> effort that’s really required.
>
> *From:*Nahitchevansky, Georges [mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 06, 2018 11:23 AM
> *To:* Jason Schaeffer; Michael Karanicolas; Julie Hedlund
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg
> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05
> December 2018
>
> I agree that smaller subteams are better for getting the work done
> efficiently. That being said, my one concern is what we witnessed the
> last go around with subteam recommendations and work product. The
> work was done and then others attacked the work saying it was not
> representative of the working group, should be given little to no
> weight and should be treated the same as any proposal or comment made
> by anyone in the working group at the 11^th hour. If we are going to
> have subteams, then we should have some up front guidance as to how
> the work will be treated and the rules of the game.
>
> *From:*GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Jason Schaeffer
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 6, 2018 10:51 AM
> *To:* Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>; Julie Hedlund
> <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05
> December 2018
>
> Hi All,
>
> I agree. I don’t believe that we concluded yesterday’s call with a
> decision to run sub teams at different times. Many good points were
> raised regarding the value of using sub teams.
>
> Per the proposed schedule, we need to move quickly and effectively –
> there’s much ground to cover. Thus, having those dedicated to doing
> extra work and participating in smaller groups that are delegated with
> a task is critical to this WG’s success.
>
> Being a sub-team chair I can say with certainty that the ability of
> the sub team to work efficiently and effectively depends, in part, on
> the size of the sub-team. It’s not intended to be a replication of
> the WG.
>
> Running parallel sub teams is also much more efficient. I’m also
> concerned that 13:00 UTC is problematic for PST and others.
>
> Jason
>
> *From:*GNSO-RPM-WG [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Michael Karanicolas
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2018 6:04 PM
> *To:* Julie Hedlund
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg
> *Subject:* Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] Actions & Notes: RPM PDP WG Meeting 05
> December 2018
>
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks as always to staff for writing this up.
>
> Just with regard to the subgroups and timing, I didn't chime in on the
> call because I don't feel strongly either way, but thinking about it
> in retrospect, and about my experiences on the URS, I wonder if the
> smaller size of the subgroups is a feature of the system, since it
> makes discussions less unwieldy to have 10 or 15 participants, rather
> than 30 or 40.
>
> Obviously, it's problematic to take any measures to restrict
> participation, but having the calls occur at the same time is sort of
> a softer method of achieving a smaller group for discussions,
> particularly if people who are interested are free to float back and
> forth between the two.
>
> Just a thought, since I don't know that that angle was raised - that
> the inability to participate in both groups at the same time as being
> a feature of the system.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 4:48 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
> <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please see below the action items and notes captured by staff from
> theRPM PDP Working Groupcall held on 05 December
> 2018(17:00-18:30UTC). Staff have posted to the wiki space the
> action items and notes. */Please note that these /**/arehigh-level
> notes and are not meant as a substitute for the recording, chat
> room, or transcript/*/./ The recording, AC chat, transcriptand
> attendance records are posted on the wikiat:
> https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2018-12-05+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG.
>
>
> See also the attached referenced documents.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>
> ==
>
> *NOTES & ACTION ITEMS*
>
> *Actions:*
>
> 1. Staff to send out a Call for Volunteers for the Sunrise and
> Claims Sub Teams
> 2. Staff to schedule Sub Team calls
>
> *Notes:*
>
> 1. Review Agenda/Statements of Interest Updates: None.
>
> 2. Discuss Proposed Sub Team Approach, Scope of Work, and Call for
> Volunteers -- see attached documents:
>
> 1) Draft RPM Timeline August 2018-September 2019 – updated 03
> December 2018 by ICANN staff (Phase 1):
>
> Discussion:
>
> -- Concerns: 1) Simultaneous meetings -- prevents participation in
> both Sub Teams. Could schedule on alternate dates or could use
> early time slot. 2) opening individual proposals on the 2nd and
> close on 23 January -- complete analysis of the data first?
>
> -- There will be updates to the full WG, which would help the
> individuals to prepare their proposals.
>
> -- Concerned that if we can only participate in one sub team could
> that encourage those who aren't participating to make individual
> proposals.
>
> -- Support sub teams meeting in parallel, but not at the same time.
>
> -- The Sub Teams could meet at 1300 and 1700 UTC on Wednesdays, if
> there is enough participation.
>
> -- Could also use a Friday time and report back on Monday.
>
> -- Seems pointless to start on Phase 2 in the middle; could we
> take a break? It may be overcome by events.
>
> -- UDRP discussion could be organizational.
>
> -- Seem to be deviating from the URS in that the sub teams can go
> through the individual proposals. Concerns about whether sub teams
> can block individual proposals.
>
> -- Quick note on Sub-teams -- the idea is to: (1) break the work
> into tracks that can run concurrently so as to move forward more
> quickly, and (2) to apply expertise to specific topics. This
> shouldn't preclude people from being on multiple teams and, with
> weekly reporting to the group, should give sub-teams the authority
> to make recommendations.
>
> -- We had already considered a lot of TMCH issues before moving
> into URS, so we are asking people to get their proposals on the
> table early, not that they couldn't wait.
>
> -- Can we move the submission period for the individual proposals
> to be later? Per staff the timing of the submission of the
> individual proposals can be later.
>
> -- We can also allocate some time in the full WG when the sub
> teams report back and have the individual present the proposal and
> sub team chair.
>
> -- If the individual proposals wait until after the sub teams have
> presented their results then it might add time to the timeline --
> although this approach does not have to be decided at this point.
>
> -- Have pros and cons presentations from the sub teams.
>
> 2) Status of TMCH and Related RPM Discussions
>
> 3) Table of Final Agreed Sunrise Charter Questions and Data Collected
>
> 4) Table of Final Agreed Trademark Claims Charter Questions and
> Data Collected
>
> -- Add page numbers (although note that the PDF is for viewing
> only; the working document will be Google Doc or Google Sheets).
>
> -- Does the data include the outreach that the PDP WG did to all
> the SOs/ACs -- that was done in late 2016? Answer: We received one
> or two responses, which were not data specific. We do have them
> on the record and when the sub teams develop recommendations they
> will be reminded of all relevant input. Can add as a placeholder
> at the end of the document.
>
> -- On articles and blogs -- will the WG be collecting the data?
> Staff began the exercise, but since the WG was considering the
> need for data collection, which because the surveys were very
> extensive, it may be that the survey data may address those
> requests. We were hoping to get further guidance since it is a
> lot of work and we are not sure how much it is useful.
>
> 5) TMCH Sunrise and Trademark Claims Survey Results Tool
>
> -- Add the link to the Google spreadsheet in the table.
>
> -- Staff can assist Sub Teams with questions.
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org <mailto:GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:
> This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
> meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.
> Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient
> intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, and any
> attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged
> information and attorney work product. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the
> information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY
> PROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404
> 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments
> without reading or saving in any manner.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S.
> federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be
> used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal
> Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181206/f9dcd712/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the GNSO-RPM-WG
mailing list