[GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP

[cking at modernip.com]

Like Griffin, I've had limited bandwidth to keep up w/ this exchange today.

I look forward to discussing on tomorrow's call.

 

 

Cyntia King

O:  +1 816.633.7647

C:  +1 818.209.6088



 

From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul
D.
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 7:53 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com>; julie.hedlund at icann.org;
brian.beckham at wipo.int; McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com>;
zak at muscovitch.com; gregshatanipc at gmail.com; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
Cc: kathy at dnrc.tech
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP

 

Thanks Phil, that's terrific!  Glad I misunderstood!

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> > 
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 7:24 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >;
julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ;
brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> ; McAuley, David
<dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; zak at muscovitch.com
<mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> ; gregshatanipc at gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> ; kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP

 

"To now suggest the proposal might not be considered is quite the surprise!
Importantly, I don't know of any written rules or procedures for small
groups that require some sort of small group vote before something comes
back to the full WG for discussion.  Where can I find that?"

 

I was not suggesting that; if that was your impression it's a complete
misunderstanding. 

"TM-PDDRP - Revised Text from Small Team (TBD)" is the first substantive
item on the agenda for tomorrow's WG meeting, and as you have been leading
the small group and believe that we have a final document, then this
co-chair believes we should proceed to discuss it.

 

 

 

 

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: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >

Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 7:52 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >;
julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ;
brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> ; McAuley, David
<dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; zak at muscovitch.com
<mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> ; gregshatanipc at gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> ; kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed
amendments to TM-PDDRP

 

Copying in the full WG so that they can have the benefit of this exchange.
___________

Hi Phil.  Responding now to your second message (or was it first?).  Comment
in line in [brackets].

Speaking now as a co-chair:

*If the small group believes this is a final version ready for full WG
consideration, the next step would be to have that discussion and see if it
satisfies the same criteria to become a WG recommendation that was applied
for the Initial Report (we are long past the point for further Final Report
consideration/inclusion of proposals from individuals, or even groups of
individuals)

[Thanks Phil.  Unfortunately, because the deadline of this Friday was not
disclosed on the last call and only came out today when Staff mentioned it,
the co-chairs (assuming you are speaking for the other two - it's not clear)
seem to have put us in a pickle where there is not time to take a roll call
of the small group prior to tomorrow's call.  But for reasons noted below, I
don't think that is an issue.  What can be said is that what I sent around
today is the result of a small group call, a WG call, and two days on the
list.  All of the comments were helpful improvements and there weren't many
comments.  To now suggest the proposal might not be considered is quite the
surprise!  Importantly, I don't know of any written rules or procedures for
small groups that require some sort of small group vote before something
comes back to the full WG for discussion.  Where can I find that?  Surely if
such a rule existed the time for that to happen was prior to our last call
when this was discussed by the full WG (however briefly due to your
intervention asking that it be given only a small amount of time) and
proposed changes were made as a result.  Even if such a rule exists, and
again I can't find it in the GNSO Operating Procedures, surely the ship has
sailed on it.  Instead of finding ways to block further consideration of
work products discussed in small group, in the full WG, and on the list for
days, let's find a way to have the WG look over what was done here and get
to a conclusion.]

*If the proposal receives the requisite level of support vs. opposition to
be considered a WG recommendation, the co-chairs will discuss and determine,
in consultation with support staff, whether it should be put out for 21 days
public comment under the standards contained in the GNSO WG Guidelines

[Great news!  This comment makes me believe that you will in fact give this
the air time it needs tomorrow.]

I believe that is the correct procedure, but I'm sure that staff will chime
in if it's not.

[I'm not sure if this comment refers only to the last bullet, if so I agree.
If it refers to both bullets, I don't fully agree for the reasons noted
above.]

I would also note that it is possible that when the co-chairs and liaison
confer with staff for our next planning meeting scheduled on the morning of
Wednesday, September 9, we may opt to submit a short-term (likely 30 day)
Project Change Request to Council regardless of what happens with this PDDRP
proposal. Staff has already alerted us to concern that any unexpected delay
in the Final Report review or Consensus Call last steps could make it
impossible to meet our current deadline, and submission of a PCR by
September 14th is our last opportunity to make the request as a safety
measure.

[Thanks for letting us know this.  Sounds like a short extension is needed.]

Rest assured that the co-chairs are all dedicated to the proposition that
the Final Report will be delivered to Council prior to Thanksgiving (which,
for non-US members, is November 26th).

[I will miss the calls and email, but a quiet Thanksgiving, especially after
all that 2020 has turned out to be, sounds lovely.]

Best,
Paul

 

To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft,
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1gHEugF09GVCWBFD32miQqcdQyj2By3GsToR7r1LTn77kU
eYmfkt1tqQSkgfRrMY9nD5F2jQNGAtiZx-beBxuo7tOIcjVWk3My2TBzWw-pJIwo9DHytw9VuPdH
dYcOTeYgjDQCnY4UXSy3YGQ_TExT1g0rPEhInbG9t_ZX2g3BxhoriCwcZ3bHW23esAnk4a9jCUby
2fr_12gMtqE9UAcl38LOc3I4e1qV8d7pmBuBlQGs80yF__5H5QUtdTHqqXRpUVEJiArkEzrlKXWq
MYGyA/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.taftlaw.com%2Fgeneral%2Fsubscribe> subscribe here.
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19
<https://secure-web.cisco.com/1NrePplzx8siSl4H3y9qT-LOAX12RoBBvPa5HkreaoYM9l
DACpKb_dDTUjb3IDfFeuLjaYYouRrsDJkyj1Yw_Vn_fzmzV5K0E-IvISica3j_i6OvNoRPMjFRmN
9eNGpLHH688U618URjN0wL2sLRCFPTs_ilCXASwlMVHxoMEp576AjVQcabdRRkrQo4rtPPSYwJ7A
5PhSDQVr7NW1E3dwOxy_wV4rdmsNU88H9CxIjHM660EfrGvxJXX6JQNPeB8H5MnISFvB0A9psGPf
-RExg/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.taftlaw.com%2Fgeneral%2Fcoronavirus-covid-19-resourc
e-toolkit> Resource Toolkit.

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 5:23 PM
To: julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> ; McGrady, Paul
D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >;
brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> ; McAuley, David
<dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; zak at muscovitch.com
<mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> ; gregshatanipc at gmail.com
<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> 
Cc: ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> ; kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> 
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP

Speaking now as a co-chair:

*If the small group believes this is a final version ready for full WG
consideration, the next step would be to have that discussion and see if it
satisfies the same criteria to become a WG recommendation that was applied
for the Initial Report (we are long past the point for further Final Report
consideration/inclusion of proposals from individuals, or even groups of
individuals)
*If the proposal receives the requisite level of support vs. opposition to
be considered a WG recommendation, the co-chairs will discuss and determine,
in consultation with support staff, whether it should be put out for 21 days
public comment under the standards contained in the GNSO WG Guidelines

I believe that is the correct procedure, but I'm sure that staff will chime
in if it's not.



I would also note that it is possible that when the co-chairs and liaison
confer with staff for our next planning meeting scheduled on the morning of
Wednesday, September 9, we may opt to submit a short-term (likely 30 day)
Project Change Request to Council regardless of what happens with this PDDRP
proposal. Staff has already alerted us to concern that any unexpected delay
in the Final Report review or Consensus Call last steps could make it
impossible to meet our current deadline, and submission of a PCR by
September 14th is our last opportunity to make the request as a safety
measure.



Rest assured that the co-chairs are all dedicated to the proposition that
the Final Report will be delivered to Council prior to Thanksgiving (which,
for non-US members, is November 26th).



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: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2020 5:54 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >;
BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >;
McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; Zak
Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >; Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >;
kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; Corwin, Philip
<pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >; Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed
amendments to TM-PDDRP



Many thanks Paul for your very helpful suggested approach!



Kind regards,

Julie



From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:47 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >,
"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >,
Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >, Greg
Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >,
"kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> " <kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> >, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Thanks Julie.  Good to know that now, although now it is quite difficult to
try to reconvene with short notice on a holiday weekend.  Even so, since the
only change that was made from the call was the addition of the work
"significantly" before where "higher" appears, and since Marc introduced
language to deal with the question of whether or not registries sell domain
names ("or otherwise making available for registration"), and since we don't
really have time to reconvene the small group, I suggest we simply put this
back on the agenda for tomorrow's call. Small group members can either
support it or not on the call as can working group members.  Ultimately, the
small group can't dictate an outcome either way, so missing a deadline to
discuss the very reasonable addition of "significantly" and seems like
process over substance.  Toward that end, attached is the latest version for
discussion tomorrow.



Thanks!



Best,

Paul







To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com].
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit
[taftlaw.com].

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:27 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >;
BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >;
McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; Zak
Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >; Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >;
kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; Corwin, Philip
<pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >; Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Paul,



The Co-Chairs are meeting next Wednesday morning to review the Work Plan and
a Project Change Request (PCR), if needed.  They wouldn't likely be able to
make a decision on whether to include a new Public Comment Period until the
WG has decided what to do with the final language from the Small Team.  The
PCR must be filed by the Document and Motion deadline of Monday, 14 Sept, so
it has to be finalized next week, the earlier the better. So, unfortunately
there really isn't much time.  I hope that's more explanation for why we'd
need to get this done on Friday in order to have it in front of the WG on
Tuesday.



Kind regards,

Julie



From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:22 PM
To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >,
"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >,
Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >, Greg
Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >,
"kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> " <kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> >, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Thanks Julie.  I don't think we need to cram this in on Friday.  If the
co-chairs reach a decision that it needs to go out for public comment then
we will need a change request no matter what.  If the co-chairs decide that
it does not need to go out for public comment, we have plenty of time.  So,
I think we should try to schedule this for next week after the holiday when
people are more likely to be back at their desks, especially David M. who
has been very helpful getting this refined.



Best,

Paul









To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com].
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit
[taftlaw.com].

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 4:16 PM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >;
BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >;
McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; Zak
Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >; Greg Shatan
<gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >;
kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> ; Corwin, Philip
<pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >; Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Paul,



It looks like our emails crossed and I see that you've requested a Doodle
for a meeting via a separate email.  If we are to get this item on the
agenda for next Tuesday, and considering that next Monday is a holiday in
the US, we'd need to aim for this Friday to give people time to plan.  We
can do a Doodle for a few times Friday morning.



Thanks!

Julie



From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org
<mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >
Date: Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 5:10 PM
To: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>, BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >,
"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >,
Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >, Greg
Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >,
"kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> " <kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> >, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Paul,



In light of the discussion on the list, do you plan to produce a new
slightly revised version for the Small Team to review?  Also, does the Small
Team envision needing a meeting, or can the revision be addressed on the
list?



Staff also put a placeholder in the agenda for an update on this item for
tomorrow's call.  If there's nothing new to report (revisions ongoing) then
that could simply be noted.  But we probably should anticipate putting it on
the agenda for WG discussion no later than next Tuesday's call, because if
the WG sticks to its work plan it will begin to review Final Recommendations
next Thursday, 10 September (if not sooner).



Thanks!



With kind regards,

Mary, Ariel, and Julie



From: "McGrady, Paul D." <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>
Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 9:40 PM
To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >,
"McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >,
Zak Muscovitch <zak at muscovitch.com <mailto:zak at muscovitch.com> >, Greg
Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >,
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >,
"kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> " <kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> >, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Small Group 2!



As discussed, attached is the mark up to the relevant sections of the
TM-PDDRP taking the minimalist approach we kicked around on the call.  I
look forward to your comments back!



Best,

Paul









To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com].
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit
[taftlaw.com].

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 11:20 AM
To: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >; McAuley,
David <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >; McGrady, Paul
D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >; Corwin, Philip
<pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >;
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> 
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



PS, do consider me a volunteer / observer.





From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 6:18 PM
To: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >;
McAuley, David <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com> >;
'PMcGrady at taftlaw.com' <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com>
>; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >;
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >;
kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> 
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Brian and everyone,



I think the calendar invitation went only to the small team volunteers, so
that they can work out amongst themselves what they wish to recommend to the
Working Group. I've forwarded you the details for the call that's going on
now, in case you wish to join.


Cheers

Mary



From: BECKHAM Brian <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int>
>
Date: Monday, August 31, 2020 at 12:16
To: "McAuley, David" <dmcauley at Verisign.com <mailto:dmcauley at Verisign.com>
>, "'PMcGrady at taftlaw.com'" <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >, "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Cc: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang at icann.org <mailto:ariel.liang at icann.org> >,
Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:julie.hedlund at icann.org> >,
"kathy at dnrc.tech <mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> " <kathy at dnrc.tech
<mailto:kathy at dnrc.tech> >
Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi all,



Did I miss the invite (and doodle) for this call today?



Brian



From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of McAuley, David via
GNSO-RPM-WG
Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2020 1:09 PM
To: 'PMcGrady at taftlaw.com' <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >; Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com
<mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >; 'mary.wong at icann.org' <mary.wong at icann.org
<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >; 'gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org'
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hi Paul, and all,



I am away on vacation and my replies will be delayed but I will be on the
call Monday assuming wifi connection remains fine - so far, so good.



I attempted to draft some new language but felt that it would not be helpful
- I remain opposed to the new TM-PDDRP proposal for the reasons I mentioned
when we discussed this but will endeavor to help with drafting if we can
reach suitable compromise.



But I also remain of the view that if anything like the proposal is
submitted to the WG and the WG wants to adopt it then it must go for public
comment. Sunrise Rec #2 would affect only future new gTLDs via a provision
in their RA - a matter they would address with ICANN Compliance, not in a
formal DRP.



The proposal we are considering is a new cause of action under a DRP, it
materially changes the present TM-PDDRP standard (section 6.2 Second
Level),and it affects all gTLDs.



Best regards,



David



David McAuley

Sr International Policy & Business Development Manager

Verisign Inc.

703-948-4154



From: GNSO-RPM-WG <gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg-bounces at icann.org> > On Behalf Of McGrady, Paul D.
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 2:52 PM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >;
mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> ; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [GNSO-RPM-WG] [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed
amendments to TM-PDDRP



Thanks Mary.  Thanks Phil.



We will, of course, get back to the main WG as quickly as possible.
However, I think we may be jumping to the conclusion that the proposed
amendments to the TM-PDDRP that are designed to prevent circumventing the
mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand owners' reasonable use
of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism would need to be put out to
public comment.  The WG has already settled on Sunrise Recommendation #2
which is essentially the same idea:



"Sunrise Recommendation #2 The Working Group recommends that the Registry
Agreement for future new gTLDs includes a provision stating that a Registry
Operator shall not operate its TLD in such a way as to have the effect of
circumventing the mandatory RPMs imposed by ICANN or restricting brand
owners' reasonable use of the Sunrise rights protection mechanism."



Also, the idea of improvements to the TM-PDDRP came directly from public
comment.  I hope this helps with any angst over the timeline.  Thanks!



Best,

Paul







To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here [taftlaw.com].
For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19 Resource Toolkit
[taftlaw.com].

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.

From: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:52 AM
To: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> ; McGrady, Paul D.
<PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> ;
kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> 
Subject: RE: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP



Thanks Mary. That is pretty much the language I quoted, plus confirmation of
the 21-day minimum comment period.



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: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 11:45 AM
To: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >;
PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> ; gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> ;
kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to
TM-PDDRP



Hello Paul, Phil and all - the Doodle polls were sent out yesterday but we
realize that it went to Paul's old email address. The GNSO Secretariat has
just re-sent the polls to Paul at his updated email address.



With regard to a public comment proceeding, here is the relevant language
from the GNSO's PDP Manual that was the basis for my previous guidance
(noted by Phil): "In addition to any required public comment periods, the
PDP Team may seek public comment on any item that the PDP Team notes it will
benefit from further public input. The PDP Team does not have to seek
approval from the GNSO Council to seek public comment on interim items. The
minimum duration of a public comment period that does not concern the
Initial Report is twenty (21) days."



I hope that is helpful.



Cheers

Mary





From: "Corwin, Philip" <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >
Date: Friday, August 28, 2020 at 11:09
To: "PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> "
<PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >,
"gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> "
<gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> >
Cc: "brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> "
<brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >,
"kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> "
<kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> >, Mary Wong
<mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: [Ext] RE: Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP



Paul,



Thanks for staying on top of this. We do need that small group to bring
something back to the full WG ASAP so that if the co-chairs decide it needs
public comment we can hopefully close that 21-day period by the end of
September and not have to submit another Project Change Request (ugh).



Back in late July, Mary told us, "a PDP Working Group also has the ability
to post interim items for public comment that it believes "will benefit from
further public input" - this may be an option where there is a need to
resolve specific, concrete items during deliberations on a Final Report. You
will therefore not need to wait for there to be a full draft report to
exercise this option (though staff advises that any such items should be
consolidated and posted as a single public comment proceeding and not on a
piecemeal basis)." My own view would be that we should seek public comment
where we have a substantially new proposal that could have a material effect
on the community or portions thereof.



Very 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: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at taftlaw.com <mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> >
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 10:43 AM
To: gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rpm-wg at icann.org> 
Cc: Corwin, Philip <pcorwin at verisign.com <mailto:pcorwin at verisign.com> >;
Brian Beckham <brian.beckham at wipo.int <mailto:brian.beckham at wipo.int> >;
Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> >;
Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org> >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Small Group for proposed amendments to TM-PDDRP



Hi Staff,



I've not seen a doodle go out on getting this small group together.  I don't
think merely trying to work this out on the list is what we need.  Can you
please send out a doodle and try to get us together as early as possible
next week so that we don't have to ask the co-chairs for an extension on our
report date?  Thanks much!



Best,

Paul





Taft /

Paul D. McGrady / Partner
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713
Tel: 312.527.4000 * Fax: 312.754.2354
Direct: 312.836.4094 * Cell: 312.882.5020 www.taftlaw.com
<http://www.taftlaw.com>  [secure-web.cisco.com] / PMcGrady at taftlaw.com
<mailto:PMcGrady at taftlaw.com> 



Taft Bio [secure-web.cisco.com]



Taft vCard [secure-web.cisco.com]


Subscribe to our law updates [secure-web.cisco.com]







To receive regular COVID-19 updates from Taft, subscribe here
[secure-web.cisco.com]. For additional resources, visit Taft's COVID-19
Resource Toolkit [secure-web.cisco.com].

This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged,
attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended
recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply
e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.







[wipo.int]



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.










 

 



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200902/1064786d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 5366 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-wg/attachments/20200902/1064786d/image001-0001.jpg>