[GNSO-RPM-WG] Updated Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams Including Submission of Additional Data

Fri Feb 1 13:30:12 UTC 2019

Hey Brian,

That wasn't a rhetorical question (nor were other questions, for that
matter). Do you have a citation for your claim about a sheet having
been circulated for the URS?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only URS-related form that I can
remember being circulated had to do with the submission of individual
proposals, see:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2018-August/003237.html

But, what I was writing about was the handling of ***data sources****,
that would inform the sub team work, which is completely different.
i.e. the data sources that were identified in August 2017:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003622.html

and which ICANN staff abandoned efforts to compile and analyze. Had
ICANN staff told us this a month later, in September 2017, we'd have
had more than a year to do it ourselves. But, instead we're told this
in early January 2019:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html

And then the co-chairs used up the clock by taking ****20 days*** to
create a process:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html

(i.e. process created on January 29, issue identified January 9,
although it had been raised previously)

That process left just **10 days*** (now 7 days) for others to do what
ICANN staff didn't accomplish over a period of a year and a half.

Thus, the co-chairs took twice as long to **design a process** than
they left others time to do the actual work! That's utterly
ridiculous.

Oh, and the co-chairs also cancelled the January 30th working group
meeting where this could have been discussed in real-time!

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003619.html

"  * Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);"

How convenient.

Yesterday, I asked that ICANN staff simply post whatever they'd
already compiled (in rough form, no need to make it fancy), so that
working group members wouldn't be starting from scratch:

https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003623.html

Since nothing has been posted, the evidence so far is that they did
absolutely nothing (except throw up their hands and say "This is too
hard, let's give it back to the working group members to do it.")
Apparently, when ICANN staff say something is "too hard", people
listen (despite ICANN staff getting *paid* to do that work). When
working group members identify issues about workload and unrealistic
timelines, those concerns are instead met with silence, trivialized,
or met with the imposition of even **greater** obstacles than what
others must endure.

Paul Keating previously invoked the metaphor of voter registration
laws in the US south, meant to deter voter participation. That's an
apt metaphor that applies here too. Rather than trying to reduce
barriers to participation and trying to
have outreach for that hard to obtain data, the new processes simply
create more and more obstacles that need to be overcome.  Barriers are
erected rather than eliminated, to help preserve the status quo (i.e.
the data that staff didn't bother to compile or analyze was
identifying abuses of the TMCH and sunrise, which would point to deep
flaws that would require changing the status quo in order to fix
them). In contrast, the red carpet is rolled out for data sources
(like the INTA study) that seek to preserve the status quo.

This is also intertwined with the issue of extreme workload in the sub
teams. (see those discussions on the sub team lists and calls)

By the way, I also continue to disagree with the process/timing for
the individual proposals. Those must be submitted by Feb 20 according
to the revised process, despite the fact they won't even be considered
until March 27 (and will continue to be considered/reviewed until
April 17)! It seems to me that compressed timeline is designed to
discourage submission of individual proposals. Furthermore, the
procedure treats sub team proposals differently than individual
proposals. This wouldn't matter, if the working group and sub teams
had balanced participation. But, with the over-representation of
expansionary TM interests, this effectively gives them a veto over
individual proposals even getting into the document that will go for
public comments. Here's an illustration as to why this is flawed.

Suppose a proposal can reach consensus in the GNSO (or broader
community) with 80% support, overcoming any IPC opposition (i.e. IPC
has 1/6th of the GNSO votes), with all other constituencies in favour
of that proposal. But, suppose those who are sympathetic to the
perspective of that 1/6th of the GNSO actually represent 40 to 50% of
the subteams and/or the working group.

When that proposal (which would have 80% support with balanced
representation) comes before the sub team, it gets shot down under the
current proposed process (since 40 or 50% would oppose it in the sub
team). Then, to "override" that in the working group itself, it also
becomes impossible, because that 40 or 50% continues to oppose it.

The only way to overcome that overrepresentation is to have lower
barriers for inclusion in the initial report, so that the public can
weigh in on things. And that public comment can make a big difference,
especially when it's from a broad swath of the community (as it likely
would be, given how many are interested in these topics).

Each and every time I've foreshadowed that I would invoke the working
group guidelines to challenge these poor procedures and decisions,
I've followed through (check the IGO PDP mailing list, where I
foreshadowed it each time).  Every time. It seems that I will have to
demonstrate again that I will follow through, as these concerns do not
appear to be taken seriously.

John McElwaine previously brought up the idea of bringing in a
professional and neutral facilitator in order to replace the
co-chairs, and have someone be chair that doesn't have a stake in the
outcome and who'd listen to all sides. I think that idea needs to be
revisited and explored, to try to overcome some of the dysfunction
that exists at present. My understanding is that the co-chairs receive
travel subsidies to ICANN meetings. If one adds up that cost for 3
ICANN meetings/year x 3 co-chairs, and reallocated that instead to a
professional facilitator (one completely outside the domain industry,
who can focus on the processes, regardless of the topic at hand), I
think that would likely have no financial impact.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
416-588-0269
http://www.leap.com/

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 4:10 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> Brian: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where's the mailing
> list post that advertised the sheet that you claim was circulated
> previously for the URS?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 3:27 PM BECKHAM, Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int> wrote:
> >
> > George, a sheet will be circulated as was done with the URS for the TMCH and related RPMs.
> >
> > WG members will be encouraged to identify the particular issue raised by any such source, and moreover will be encouraged to propose a solution.
> >
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > On 31 January 2019 at 12:10:43 GMT-8, George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
> >
> > P.P.S. Here's a sample of some articles I found in about 30 minutes of
> > research. I would pay close attention to John Berryhill's comments to
> > the first link -- some very eye-opening and startling insights. Why
> > wasn't John Berryhill invited to share those insights with this PDP,
> > to answer questions, and counter what INTA presented and to achieve
> > balance? Why should anyone have to fill out a form, when INTA didn't?
> >
> > http://domainincite.com/16492-how-one-guy-games-new-gtld-sunrise-periods
> >
> > https://onlinedomain.com/2014/04/15/legal/fake-trademarks-stealing-generic-domains-in-new-gtld-sunrises/
> >
> > https://www.thedomains.com/2017/02/01/the-trademark-clearinghouse-worked-so-well-one-company-got-24-new-gtld-using-the-famous-trademark-the/
> >
> > https://www.thedomains.com/2015/03/12/is-the-trademark-clearinghouse-causing-new-gtlds-to-lose-6x-the-number-of-registrations/
> >
> > https://www.internetcommerce.org/tmchnew-gtld-registrations/
> >
> > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/02/10/how-common-words-like-pizza-money-and-shopping-ended-up-in-the-trademark-clearinghouse-for-new-tlds/
> >
> > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/31/donuts-sunrise-data/
> >
> > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/25/tmch-brag/
> >
> > https://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/30/the-numbers-are-in-donuts-sunrises-typically-get-100-domains-but-they-also-got-gamed/
> >
> > Since ICANN staff had more than a year, much more than the 30 minutes
> > I used to find the above articles, perhaps they will take 2 minutes
> > and simply copy/paste the results of their own research to the mailing
> > list. While they abandoned their efforts, they surely must have
> > compiled some data or set of links into a document/spreadsheet
> > somewhere. No need to make it "pretty" or add to it --- ICANN staff
> > should share just what they currently have (assuming it exists), so
> > that members aren't starting from scratch, but can rather build upon
> > what ICANN staff abandoned.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > George Kirikos
> > 416-588-0269
> > http://www.leap.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.