[GNSO-RPM-WG] Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams

[George Kirikos]

Hi folks,

After reviewing the proposed process, I have 2 main concerns:

1.  For task 6, "Individual Proposals", the submission period would
open January 23, for 2 weeks, until February 6. While the proposed
process document states:

"WG members do not necessarily need to rely on Sub Team proposals to
develop individual proposals (this is why the submission period for
individual proposals opens before the Sub Teams complete their
discussion of and make decisions on Sub Team proposals);" (top of page
3)

I disagree with that statement. By the current timeline, the
individual proposals would need to be submitted by February 6, even
though:

- data analysis doesn't end until February 13 (and presumably wouldn't
be shared with the entire WG until later)
- sub-team recommendation discussions aren't completed until February 27
- review of individual proposals doesn't begin until week of March
9-14 (i.e. ICANN64)
- review of individual proposals doesn't end until April 17

In my view, any proposals (originating from either individuals or the
sub teams themselves) should be based on the analysis of all the data,
and so it would make more sense to have the deadline for individual
proposals to be at least around March 2 (i.e. a week before their
review begins). I think most people who would submit individual
proposals would wait until sub team recommendations are shared with
the working group (after February 27) before they even *start* working
on their own individual proposals, so mid-March might be a more
realistic target date (i.e. sometime after ICANN64). Given that review
of individual proposals are set to end on April 17, a further argument
can be made for an even later date than March 2 (i.e. assuming people
aren't intentionally waiting until the last minute, the sub teams can
start on the earlier-submitted proposals, yet still permit further
proposals to be submitted later).

2. As of the time of this email, IPC members represent roughly half of
each sub team, which is far greater than their representation in the
GNSO. Thus, this over-representation of a certain
viewpoint/perspective creates the potential for that constituency to
effectively block/veto Individual Proposals or proposals originating
from other constituencies participating in the sub teams from being
published in the initial report, due to the proposed process (i.e.
sections 1(b), 6 (3rd bullet point), and 7 (2nd and 3rd bullet points)
greatly disadvantage individual proposals that don't get through the
sub teams "successfully"). In my view, there should be a bias towards
inclusion of all proposals, in order to hear from the *entire*
community, as consensus ultimately is determined by the full
community, and the IPC doesn't have a veto in the GNSO. Being able to
block/veto proposals at an early stage would hinder attempts later on
towards compromise, as well as the ability to find *combinations* of
proposals that can reach consensus (i.e. proposals A and B
individually may not have consensus support, but A+B packaged together
might reach consensus support as a compromise, if the package of A+B
satisfies the concerns of multiple ICANN stakeholder groups).

Sincerely,

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

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 12:55 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org> wrote:
>
> Dear RPM PDP Working Group (WG) members,
>
>
>
> On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, please see for your consideration the attached Proposed Process for TMCH Sunrise & Trademark Claims Sub Teams.  Please let us know of any comments or questions you may have.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Mary, Ariel, Berry, and Julie
>
> _______________________________________________
> GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg