[gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Ariel Liang
ariel.liang at icann.org
Wed May 9 15:14:07 UTC 2018
Dear all,
As the correspondence that Michael referred to took place on the Providers Sub Team list, staff would like to mention that, further to the initial email, staff subsequently clarified for the Sub Team that Brian’s suggestion was a follow-on from an earlier email discussion that took place on the Working Group mailing list (see below for the clarifying email).
Please be assured that the question was dealt with by the Providers Sub Team and that staff did not amend the questions before a final decision was made by the Sub Team.
Best regards,
Mary, Julie & Ariel
-----
Hi Michael and everyone,
Although the overall discussion may have moved on, staff thought we should point out that Brian’s suggestion actually followed from a discussion he and Michael (and perhaps others) had engaged in on the full WG mailing list, most recently on 26 April. Brian’s question to staff this morning was to ask if and how the Sub Team had considered his previous mailing list suggestion, offering the language that Ariel then emailed the Sub Team with.
We hope this clarifies the timing.
Cheers
Mary & Ariel
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Paul Keating <Paul at law.es>
Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM
To: "Nahitchevansky, Georges" <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Georges,
I believe the questions are why did he deal directly with Staff and not the subgroup? In my case I sent my question to Staff and was directed by Staff to directly email the subgroup. That is how my “agitating” question came up.
My question was dealt with in the subgroup (not at staff level) and the subgroup issued a final set of questions incorporating my request in a modified form that met with subgroup member consensus.
If Brian went directly to the Staff and his changes were incorporated by Staff without involvement of the Subgroup, then this is an issue that Brian should address because IMO it deals with transparency.
Hope this helps you understand the basis of the question.
Paul
From: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Georges Nahitchevansky <ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com<mailto:ghn at kilpatricktownsend.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 4:05 PM
To: Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>>, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>
Cc: "Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg" <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
Michael;
Just a quick question. As you know we had something similar on the practitioner side to what you are raising on the provider side. We had a whole set of questions and had a 13th hour inclusion of other questions that created much agitation You seemed perfectly fine with this and sent emails supporting these last minute additions etc after folks had spent hours coming up with a set of questions The practitioner group ultimately dealt with this last minute additions and came to an amicable resolution. It sounds like the same happened on the provider side, so why the double standard.
From: mkaranicolas at gmail.com<mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
Sent: May 9, 2018 8:40 AM
To: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com<mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] [Ext] Re: REMINDER re: Nominations for RPM Working Group Co-Chair
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<mailto: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<mailto: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] On Behalf Of BECKHAM, Brian
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 1:30 PM
To: Corwin, Philip; julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>; mcgradygnso at gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com>; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-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] On Behalf Of Corwin, Philip via gnso-rpm-wg
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 8:55 PM
To: julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>; mcgradygnso at gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 2:43 PM
To: Paul McGrady <mcgradygnso at gmail.com<mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:mcgradygnso at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 12:22 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Cc: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>>
Date: Monday, March 5, 2018 at 11:45 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg <gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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/20180509/7c487357/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the gnso-rpm-wg
mailing list