<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In response to Jeremy's points:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">1. This is incorrect. The GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 6.1.3, state:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">The Chair is expected to assume a neutral role, refrain from promoting a specific agenda, and ensure fair treatment of all opinions and objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. This does not mean that a Chair experienced in the subject manner cannot express an opinion, but he or she should be explicit about the fact that a personal opinion or view is being stated, instead of a ‘ruling of the chair.’ However, a Chair should not become an advocate for any specific position. The appointment of co-chairs could be considered and is encouraged as a way to share the burden, provide continuity in case of absence of the Chair as well as allowing group leaders to rotate their participation in the discussion. In addition, in certain circumstances the CO may decide that it must appoint a completely neutral and independent Chair who would not participate in the substance of the discussions. In such circumstances, the Chair would be appointed by the CO.</font></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Those who have not read the Working Group guidelines would find it very beneficial, for the rest of the WG as well as for themselves. Here's the link: <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf" target="_blank">https://gnso.icann.org/en/<wbr>council/annex-1-gnso-wg-<wbr>guidelines-01sep16-en.pdf</a></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">2. Kristine Dorrain covered this.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">3. As drafted, Question 9 assumes a power we don't have and that is beyond the scope of this WG -- the power to regulate registry-specific RPMs (or "private protections," which has the advantage of connoting that these are outside the ambit of the "non-private" RPMs created by ICANN policy, pejorative though it may be). Worse yet, it insinuates that the decision not to institute the GPML should have prohibited the DPML from being offered.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">4. Here, I agree that the WG should decide what to call Registry-Specific Protections. However, I don't under who is being called a "registrant" in this statement. If it is the brandowner "registering" the DPML, I might agree that DPMLs, like defensive registrations, are not exactly "voluntary" (in the sense that brandowners feel compelled to acquire something they do not want merely to prevent abusive registrations), but I somehow feel that wasn't what was intended. (If it was, I appreciate the rare outburst of empathy for the concerns of brandowners.) Other than that, I don't know who could be called a "registrant" here. </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg </font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I disagree. I have some problems with these comments/edits. It
seems to me that:<br>
<br>
1. Deleting segments of the joint statement by the co-chairs is
inappropriate. The chairs have every right to express their views,
as the subteam has every right to express theirs. <br>
<br>
2. Editing out Question #5 is inappropriate - how the ICANN staff,
board and community review and approve private RPMs is a very
important part of the transparency and accountability process of the
RPMs process.<br>
<br>
3. Question #9 comparing the ICANN Community's rejection of the GPML
(globally protected marks list) with the DPML privately sold to
trademarks owners (Domains Protected Marks List) is a very valid
inquiry that, of course, the WG subteam should review, consider and
debate. Handcuffing the subteam upfront seems inappropriate.<br>
<br>
4. Titles - what we call the Private RPM Protections should be
something for the WG to decide (they are certainly not voluntary for
registrants!)<br>
<br>
I favor the original chairs' draft.<div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<div class="m_3431956420527038357moz-cite-prefix">On 4/6/17 12:36 pm, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div>I support Jon's edits and share his concerns regarding the
scope and charge of this group.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also think the spirit of bottom-up policy development
supports taking changes to the document, rather than hanging on
to the chairs' draft, which should be considered a strawman.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Greg</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 2:33 PM Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_3431956420527038357m_-8141012990155752629WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Jon:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I
can’t speak for the other two co-chairs, but so far
the task of our subteams has been largely confined
to refining and filling gaps in the draft questions,
and identifying the data needed to provide answers
and the feasibility of finding such data. I would
think that would be the same for the subteam doing
scout work on these non-mandated, market-supplied
RPMs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I
guess we may have some further discussion of what we
are seeking this subteam to do during Wednesday’s
call, but once we hand it off to them the subteam
members will get into the details and decide how to
proceed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I
welcome further thoughts from the other co-chairs,
or from any WG members.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best,
Philip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Jon Nevett [mailto:<a href="mailto:jon@donuts.co" target="_blank">jon@donuts.co</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 04, 2017 1:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Phil Corwin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Jon Nevett; Scott Austin; Susan
Payne; Mary Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_3431956420527038357m_-8141012990155752629WordSection1">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action Items
from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs PDP Working
Group Call - 31 May 2017</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div class="m_3431956420527038357m_-8141012990155752629WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks Phil. I'd like the
co-chairs agreement that the sub-group's charge is
limited to such information gathering. Otherwise, we
do have an issue for the full committee and I would
object to the sub-group starting work without
knowing the scope of its work. </p>
</div>
<div id="m_3431956420527038357m_-8141012990155752629AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div id="m_3431956420527038357m_-8141012990155752629AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<br>
<br>
Jon</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jun 4, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com" target="_blank">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Thanks
for your feedback, Jon, and for your proposed
edit of the draft Subteam questions.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">I
appreciate your agreement “that information
about additional protections voluntarily offered
by some registries in the marketplace may be
helpful to the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs
that we are chartered to review”, as that is
consistent with the Co-Chairs’ view that we have
to understand the full scope of and interplay
between available RPMs – ICANN-mandated plus
additional services provided by the TMCH and
registries – to comprehend the entire ecosystem
and make informed decisions going forward.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">On
Friday’s Co-chair call we reached general
agreement that further development of the draft
questions prepared by us should fall to the
Subteam charged with reviewing and refining them
and then sending them back to the full WG for
additional work. Hopefully the subteam members
will reach consensus on the scope of our inquiry
and their consistency with our Charter.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">As
the discussion on Wednesday’s call of this
subject should be largely confined to our
decision to delegate further refinement you
shouldn’t miss much and in any event will be
able to review the mp3 and transcript. I believe
that you have volunteered to be a subteam member
so you can are assured that your views will be
fully considered as it engages.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d">Best
regards, Philip</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #b5c4df 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">
Jon Nevett [<a href="mailto:jon@donuts.email" target="_blank">mailto:jon@donuts.email</a>]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, June 02, 2017 6:26 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Scott Austin<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Susan Payne; Phil Corwin; Mary
Wong; Greg Shatan; icannlists; <a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">
gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rpm-wg] Action
Items from Review of all RPMs in all gTLDs
PDP Working Group Call - 31 May 2017</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">WG Members:</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I would like to remind folks
that our Phase 1 charter defines the RPMs for us
to review as the URS; the TMCH and as used in
Sunrise and Trademark Claims; and the PDDRP. We
are not chartered to evaluate Commercial Online
Protection Services; Non-Mandated RPMs; Registry
Specific RPMs; Voluntary Registry Protections;
Voluntary Registry Mechanisms; Voluntary
Registry RPMs; or even Private RPMs.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">With that said, I have long
agreed that information about additional
protections voluntarily offered by some
registries in the marketplace may be helpful to
the WG in evaluating the actual RPMs that we are
chartered to review. With that context in mind,
I offer the suggested changes to the proposed
draft questions in the attached. I deleted
certain references/questions about how/whether
ICANN approves such additional private
protections; whether they are consistent with
policy decisions; commentary on an RPM that
wasn't approved and how it may relate to some
additional protections currently offered. Some
of those questions and commentary are
superfluous and irrelevant to our task at hand
and would just lead us down a proverbial rabbit
hole. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">What I hope we want from the
sub-group is information about additional
protections in the marketplace to help inform
our task of reviewing actual RPMs and not an
attempt at an extra-charter review of individual
registries services. I am supportive of the
former and happy to provide information as such,
but am definitely opposed to the latter. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, I am taking a
red-eye flight on Wednesday and will not be
available for our next call. I would appreciate
this issue being kicked to the following call if
there is any need for discussion of the group.
Much appreciated. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jon</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="m_3431956420527038357mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list
<a class="m_3431956420527038357moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_3431956420527038357moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a></pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="m_3431956420527038357moz-signature" cols="72">--
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="m_3431956420527038357moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://eff.org" target="_blank">https://eff.org</a>
<a class="m_3431956420527038357moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org" target="_blank">jmalcolm@eff.org</a>
Tel: <a href="tel:(415)%20436-9333" value="+14154369333" target="_blank">415.436.9333 ext 161</a>
:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
Public key: <a class="m_3431956420527038357moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt" target="_blank">https://www.eff.org/files/<wbr>2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt</a>
PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122</pre>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
gnso-rpm-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org">gnso-rpm-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/gnso-rpm-wg</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>