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

Thu Jan 31 18:02:32 UTC 2019

P.S. To understand the context further, and how long ICANN Staff has
had to collect this data, this was discussed in August 2017! (yes,
that's 2017, not 2018!)

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-08-09+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG

https://community.icann.org/display/RARPMRIAGPWG/2017-08-16+Review+of+all+Rights+Protection+Mechanisms+%28RPMs%29+in+all+gTLDs+PDP+WG

I'd really like to know how individual members are now expected to do,
in 8 days, what ICANN staff didn't do with more than a year, and with
much greater financial resources than unpaid volunteers.

Sincerely,

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

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 12:34 PM George Kirikos <icann at leap.com> wrote:
>
> As discussed on yesterday's sub team calls, I continue to have serious
> concerns about this proposed process for submitting additional data.
> It  (1) has an unrealistic and unreasonably short window (ending 8
> days from now) to submit those additional data sources, and (2) places
> high burdens on those doing the submissions, higher than those placed
> on other data sources and treated differently as to process.
>
> 1. In response to Michael K's concerns, staff openly stated:
>
> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/2019-January/003608.html
>
> " However, we very quickly found that the type and volume of the
> results would mean that a great deal of time and effort would be
> needed to compile the full lists and categorize them as an initial
> matter."
>
> and
>
> " ....it seemed clear that this was a huge task for which a
> significant amount of Working Group (or Sub Team) time would be
> needed."
>
> Thus, what staff determined to be a "huge task" that would take "a
> great deal of time and effort" is now being pushed back upon
> individual working group members. This is a de facto way of saying "we
> don't want any more data" from the sources that were previously
> documented but never formally analyzed (e.g. blog posts from the
> domain name industry blogs documenting serious gaming of the sunrises,
> and related issues).
>
> 2. On top of this, anyone making a submission is expected to do so via
> a Google Form (which was linked to in the earlier email) that provides
> an analysis of the data sources and relevance to each of the Charter
> questions. Currently, the sub teams are expending enormous efforts to
> break down data sources in a similar manner, highlighting specific
> information, and linking them to each charter question. For example,
> one of those data sources is the INTA Study (one that had major
> statistical deficiencies, as previously discussed.
>
> Why is it that INTA is not being asked to fill out that form, breaking
> down their survey and highlighting those specific questions, but
> instead the sub teams are devoting enormous resources (literally
> weeks) to that task? (indeed, also ICANN Staff resources, since they
> already spent numerous hours making a spreadsheet that attempted to
> analyze each of 12 "previously identified" data sources, of which the
> INTA study was included). The time required for individual working
> group members to do the same for all the other data sources (blogs,
> articles, comments to those blogs, etc.) would likely far exceed the
> time spent by ICANN staff, given there are more sources
>
> 3. INTA was invited to make a presentation of their survey. Why
> weren't the domain name industry journalists who documented those
> sunrise abuses/gaming invited to share their expertise with a
> presentation to the working group, to document the failures of the
> TMCH and Sunrise period, i.e. telling the "other side" of the story
> (that points to the failures of the TMCH and Sunrise policies)?
>
> In conclusion, equal amounts of resources should be devoted to balance
> things out. Data sources relevant to registrants' interests and
> concerns are being severely disadvantaged by this proposed process.
>
> If this is not addressed in a timely manner (by COB Friday Feb 1,
> 2019), I'll look to the Working Group guidelines to remedy this
> imbalance.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> 416-588-0269
> http://www.leap.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:46 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear RPM WG members,
> >
> > The WG Co-Chairs have considered the requests concerning additional data and the observation that additional specific information may assist the WG’s efforts.  Note however that our agreed work process does not allow for an extensive research exercise, and we believe we have already been presented with the vast majority of such information and sources over the past 2 years -- so this is something of a “last call” for data.  (Nor do we have the staff resources to conduct such an exercise.)
> >
> >
> >
> > In this light, WG members may suggest additional data to the Sunrise and Claims Sub Teams that may either: (1) yield specific useful data we do not currently have and/or or (2) assist Sunrise and/or Claims Sub Teams.  Examples of additional data:
> >
> > articles about the registration of domains in Sunrise Periods (or attempts) that appear to have had an impact on contracted parties, registrants, or brand owners;
> > anecdotes or specific evidence from impacted parties; or
> > studies, reports, or articles discussing the harm of infringement including cybersquatting (including consumer harm).
> >
> > To assist in this process and try to stay within our current timeline, we have added some brief procedures in section 5 of the attached document.  Note that this an updated version of the procedure document previously provided by staff to the WG with the following changes:
> >
> > Deleted 30 January full WG meeting (Subteams continue to meet);
> > Updated submission for individual proposals to start 30 January and end 20 February;
> > Incorporated process for submission of additional data and included submission dates in the timeline – to start 28 January and end 08 February;
> > Included discussion of additional data by the Sub Teams on 13 February; and
> > Updated the ICANN64 Kobe meeting description to include full WG meetings and the option for Sub Team meetings.
> >
> > As noted in the attached revised procedures, although additional data of various kinds may be submitted, we are asking WG members to use the designated Google Form (https://goo.gl/forms/84YtaNDH2Mx3SQVH3 [goo.gl]) to ensure that any additional data a member wishes to provide should:
> >
> > highlight what specific information (i.e., new data or evidence-based conclusion) it is being cited for;
> > include a rationale for why and how that specific information is relevant and in respect of which particular question; and
> > suggest a solution and/or idea for how to address the topic.
> >
> > If you have issue accessing the online form, please contact ariel.liang at icann.org to request assistance. A .doc version of form will be provided upon request.
> >
> >
> >
> > Upon the close of the submission window, Sub Teams will review any additional data to determine whether it is useful in advancing the WG’s efforts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Brian Beckham, Phil Corwin, Kathy Kleiman, RPM PDP WG Co-Chairs
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GNSO-RPM-WG mailing list
> > GNSO-RPM-WG at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg