[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair

Wed May 9 12:39:27 UTC 2018

Hi all,

I also wanted to raise a query for Brian. Although I don't generally oppose
his candidacy, and appreciate his willingness to take on this challenging
and important role, I am a bit concerned by his part in what transpired on
the providers sub-list last Friday, and what it could mean for us going
forward. For those unaware, the email we received is copied below. The
question at issue was eventually resolved, and I am (definitely!) not
trying to re-open it. I am also not trying to turn this into a general
debate about timing and late inputs - which we can have another time.

To me, the way that this unfolded, and Brian's role in it, raises questions
about how he would act as chair. As I noted at the time, it's troubling
when the group spends hours debating an issue out to a careful and delicate
compromise, and then the settled language gets upended by a member at the
last minute. With that member now seeking to become chair, a role which
requires them to oversee and facilitate these sorts of compromises, it
raises some concerns.

I have three questions for Brian:

1. Why did you go to Staff directly with your suggested inputs on Friday as
opposed to raising them with the group? Do you feel that your approach is
generally an appropriate avenue for group members to seek amendments to
documents drafted by consensus?
2. Did you raise your suggested inputs to Phil, who is overseeing the
Providers' team, before you raised them with staff? And if not why not?
3. Do you feel that there was anything procedurally problematic with what
happened, and is it reflective of how you intend to carry out your role as
chair?

Best wishes and thanks for your time and attention,

Michael

-------

Dear All,

Apologies for the very short notice and for revisiting the Examiner Q14 –
we understand that the Sub Team has reached agreement on the wording of
this question, which states:

“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners have a
diversity of relevant experience (e.g., have experience representing
Respondents as well as Complainants)? If so, please explain.”

Brian Beckham just messaged staff and suggested revising the question to:

“What steps, if any, do you take to ensure that your Examiners
have demonstrable relevant legal background (which may include their having
a diversity of relevant experience representing parties in domain name
cases)?”

His concern for the current wording is that the URS Rules require
“demonstrable relevant legal background, such as in trademark law”, which
may mean some Examiners are very experienced practitioners, but do not
*represent* parties in URS cases. Brian suggested that the revised question
would tie to the rules, but also keep the notion of diversity in the
explanation, while broadening it to “parties in” domain name cases (for
which representing complainants and respondents would each/together be a
subset).

Since the questions to Providers are scheduled to be sent later today,
please be so kind to provide your input/feedback and voice
support/objection on the revised wording proposed by Brian by *COB
today* (Friday,
4 May). Many apologies for this short notice, especially to the Sub Team
members who are based in Europe/Asia and may not be able to respond to this
very last-minute inquiry.

Thank you,

Mary, Julie, Ariel, and Berry

On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 10:11 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Brian,
> I welcome your nomination. I have no doubt on your personal merits or
> character, they speak for themselves. So I do these questions on the spirit
> of the election itself:
> I do not see WIPO itself as a neutral organization, and that’s fine
> towards WIPO and your role possible as chair, but I would like to
> understand better whats your job at WIPO, how long have you been working
> there, so:
>
> 1) Could you tell us more about your role in WIPO?
>
> 2) Could you tell us more about your role in GAC?
>
> 3) On your Statement of Interest, it says you are presenting your
> employer, WIPO, at ICANN. Can you comment on how your work, and
> representation, might affect our WG review of UDRP Providers, which will
> include WIPO? if any, do you have about being co-chair during the review of
> the UDRP of which WIPO is the leading provider?
>
> In any case, thank you for the answer, thank you for accepting a
> challenging role as they come in ICANN, and I welcome we have prepared
> people for such sensitive roles.
>
> Best of all,
> Martín Silva
>
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2018, at 05:18, BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
>
> Dear WG members,
>
> Further to the below, again, I am honored to be nominated for this role by
> Paul McGrady, a person I hold in high esteem.
>
> I have seen the emails Phil, Kathy, and also J Scott (whose role has been
> vacated) submitted to this WG, and in that same spirit would like to convey
> the following for your consideration:
>
> I have been involved in ICANN-related matters for over a decade now (which
> is hard even for me to believe!) and over that time consider myself
> privileged to have gotten to know many very smart and dedicated friends,
> and to have participated in interesting and important ICANN policy
> discussions.
>
> In terms of working with diverse groups such as this WG, my current job
> requires communication and coordination across sectors (e.g., HR,
> administration, finance, IT), as well as participation in the ICANN
> multistakeholder processes on a number of files.  Particularly in assisting
> on a “Specification 13” to the ICANN Registry Agreement, my immediately
> previous job (at new gTLD consultancy Valideus) required communication,
> understanding, and negotiation with all ICANN Stakeholder Groups.  Each of
> these represent forms of consensus building.
>
> Balance, neutrality, and inclusiveness underpin our (Secretariat) mission
> at WIPO;  I also consider myself richer for having worked, for over a
> decade now, with a diverse range of colleagues with different backgrounds,
> nationalities, languages, ways-of-working, and viewpoints.   In my private
> practice days before getting involved in domain names, our clients (mostly
> non-profits such as churches and charities) ranged from very small to
> global.
>
> I participated in a few prior ICANN “working groups” and also in many more
> policy discussions (e.g., during the various Applicant Guidebook
> iterations).  I also consider myself practical and solution-oriented, and
> as one example, I am proud of the work that went into the mostly paperless
> “eUDRP” that makes the UDRP process more efficient (not to mention
> environmentally friendly) while preserving important due process aspects.
>
> I believe the work of this group is important not only to the ICANN
> community, but all DNS stakeholders – to bring balance and to assist in
> trust of the DNS.  I would be honored to contribute to this important work.
>
> Brian
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *BECKHAM, Brian
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM
> *To:* Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund at icann.org; mcgradygnso at gmail.com; gn
> so-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
> Working Group Co-Chair
>
> Dear Phil, all,
>
> Thanks for the nomination, and vote of confidence.  I am sorry I haven’t
> been able reply earlier.  I am in principle willing and able to assist
> here, and am in the process of undertaking a few internal
> discussions/clearances.
>
> I apologize that this will take some time still, but I will be able to
> confirm by COB next Thursday -- which as we are still meeting in subteams
> this week, I hope is OK.
>
> For now, best regards,
>
> Brian
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Corwin, Philip via
> gnso-rpm-wg
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM
> *To:* julie.hedlund at icann.org; mcgradygnso at gmail.com
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
> Working Group Co-Chair
>
> Thanks Paul.
>
> Before the WG goes further in considering this nomination we first need to
> know whether Brian accepts it. Hopefully we will hear from him on that soon.
>
> Best, Philip
>
> Philip S. Corwin
> Policy Counsel
> VeriSign, Inc.
> 12061 Bluemont Way
> Reston, VA 20190
> 703-948-4648/Direct
> 571-342-7489/Cell
>
> *"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
>
> *From:* gnso-rpm-wg [mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM
> *To:* Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re:
> Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
>
> Thank you Paul and noted.
>
> Best,
> Julie
>
> *From: *Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM
> *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Cc: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[Ext] Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM
> Working Group Co-Chair
>
> Thank you Julie.
>
> I nominate Brian Beckham of WIPO.  Although I believe WIPO sits with the
> GAC and not with any particular constituency, I know that Brian has all the
> requisite expertise in the RPMs to serve as an excellent co-Chair.
>
> Best,
> Paul
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> Per the message below and the discussions during the RPM PDP WG meetings
> at ICANN62 (see attached notes) this a reminder that we are seeking
> nominations for the position of the third Co-Chair to assist in the
> administration of the WG’s large and complex agenda and encourage members
> to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating
> someone else.
>
> As noted in the message and for your guidance, please see below the
> relevant sections of the GNSO Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group
> leaders are selected.  Note that holding an election is not mandatory.  It
> is up to the Working Group to determine whether and how it wishes to
> appoint an additional Chair.  In addition, although (as noted below) the
> GNSO Council must confirm the appointment via its consent agenda, in the
> meantime, if the Working Group agrees on an additional chair, he/she can
> begin serving as an interim appointee.
>
> Best regards,
> Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
>
> *From: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Julie
> Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
> *Date: *Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM
> *To: *gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[gnso-rpm-wg] RPM Working Group Co-Chair
>
> Dear Working Group members,
>
> On behalf of Heather Forrest, Chair of the GNSO Council, Kathy and Philip,
> Co-Chairs of the RPM Working Group, we are informing you that J. Scott has
> decided to resign as Co-Chair effective Friday, 02 March.  We are all
> very grateful for J. Scott’s dedication and thoughtful leadership of this
> Working Group since its inception.
>
> At this time we are asking Working Group members to consider the
> importance for this group to continue to have a third Co-Chair to assist in
> the administration of its large and complex agenda and encourage members
> to immediately begin consideration of volunteering or nominating
> someone else.  We also would like to suggest that the Working Group could
> reserve time during our face-to-face meetings on Saturday, 10 March at
> ICANN61, to discuss the Co-Chair selection process; based on our recent
> survey these will be the full WG meetings with the greatest member
> participation.
>
> For your guidance, please see below the relevant sections of the GNSO
> Working Group Guidelines on how Working Group leaders are selected.  Note
> that holding an election is not mandatory.  It is up to the Working Group
> to determine whether and how it wishes to appoint an additional Chair.  In
> addition, although (as noted below) the GNSO Council must confirm the
> appointment via its consent agenda, in the meantime, if the Working Group
> agrees on an additional chair, he/she can begin serving as an interim
> appointee.
>
> We look forward to hearing from the Working Group on how best to proceed.
>
> Best regards,
> Mary, Ariel, Berry and Julie
>
> GNSO Working Group Guidelines: https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-
> gnso-wg-guidelines-30jan18-en.pdf[gnso.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_council_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D30jan18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=adDIs0WEx_lLwFfrsdovxTYY8GkRHo5ibc8SR3Npdh8&m=Ym8ylE1Rarz6j47t0SS0VtAz5fEWwIdS5JAX-Xx74G4&s=7RCr3_oPoaIUPEiNI_189I-5fHP4IDGN8C2YdnPR5lA&e=>
>
> 2.1.4.2   Election of the WG Leaders
>
> Unless a Chair has already been named by the Chartering Organization,
> normally a Chair will be selected at the first meeting of the WG. Until
> that time, the Chartering Organization’s liaison may fulfill the role of
> interim Chair.  A Working Group may elect to have Co-Chairs and
> Vice-Chairs. Under extraordinary circumstances, ICANN staff may be
> requested to perform administrative co- ordination of the WG until such
> time a Chair can be appointed. Once selected, a Working Group Chair will
> need to be confirmed by the Chartering Organization (CO).  The newly
> elected Chair will act on a provisional basis until the Chartering
> Organization has confirmed the appointment.  If there are any objections to
> the selected Chair, the CO will conduct a vote to establish whether there
> is sufficient support for the selected Chair according to the voting
> procedures of the CO.  If not, the Working Group will be requested to
> reconsider their choice for Chair and return to the CO with a new
> proposal.  In the unlikely event that the selected Chair is rejected by the
> CO, the CO must articulate its reason for the rejection and the WG must be
> able to ask for reconsideration of the decision.
>
> Section 2.2: A suggested procedure to conduct elections may be:
> • Nominations or self-nominations;
> • Statements of qualifications from candidates, which sets forth the
> qualifications, qualities and
> experience that they possess that will serve the particular WG;
> • Vote by simple majority;
> • Notification of and subsequent confirmation by the Chartering
> Organization of results of
> actions”.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
> gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg
>
>
>
>
> World Intellectual Property Organization Disclaimer: This electronic
> message may contain privileged, confidential and copyright protected
> information. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please
> immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all its
> attachments. Please ensure all e-mail attachments are scanned for viruses
> prior to opening or using.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180509/512fa2f2/attachment-0001.html>